3 ms·
95% of people who use Photoshop would probably be served just fine by Krita, or even GIMP if they learned the somewhat wonky UI, and would save a ton of money i
by shiroiushi 2y ago
95% of people who use Photoshop would probably be served just fine by Krita, or even GIMP if they learned the somewhat wonky UI, and would save a ton of money in the process. However, people usually want to use the "standard" because of some vague fear that the alternative isn't 100.00% compatible, or that it won't have some obscure feature that they don't even know about yet, etc. I think Excel is exactly like this today, and so is Word. There are many alternatives that are just as good (and much cheaper) for 99% of users, but people still want to stick with "the standard" instead of taking a small risk on something different.
Maybe in the coming Great Depression of 2025, people will think differently and start looking at cheaper alternatives.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoI was disputing this claim: > If you need to use Excel at work, you need x86 since Excel for Mac is a gutted toy The nominal cost of Excel was not the topic being discussed. It was the cost of using Excel for MacOS rather than Excel for Windows. Almost no one needs the Windows specific features of Excel, so almost no one needs to give up using macOS just because of Excel.
- shiroiushi 2y agoI agree, and I think my post supports that, in a way. I'm just saying 95% of people probably could work just fine with GSheets or LibreOffice or whatever, but the very same is true for MacExcel (even more true, in fact, because it's closer to WinExcel than the alternatives).