7 ms·

Right now the only thing keeping me from running linux full time is the Adobe Master Collection (PS AI LR ID AE...)

by cabbeer 13y ago

SkyMarshal 13y ago
Will it run in a Windows VM on Linux?
- rhblake 13y ago
  I used Photoshop CS6 in a Windows 7 VirtualBox VM, often for editing large RAW pictures. Slower than native, of course, but it was totally OK for occasional photo post-processing. Perfectly fine for typical web design work. This was on a 2011 Thinkpad X220 (i7, 16 GB RAM, no SSD). Lightroom felt too sluggish and I didn't even bother trying Premiere, but at least having Photoshop available kept rebooting to Windows to a minimum.
- shawabawa3 13y ago
  photoshop is slow enough natively. Running in a VM might be good enough if you use it occasionally, but for people who use it daily I doubt it.
  - jethro_tell 13y ago
    And why would you go that far out of your way if PS it's your primary tool? What would you gain by having a Linux box around your Photoshop install? Once you strip away specialized tool suits and programs that actually sit on top of the OS, most users just need sound, mouse, keyboard, and monitor support so they can run chrome or firefox. Most OSs handle this just fine, so the real deciding factor in your OS should be the tool chain you need to run. It's so backwards and kludgy to pick your os then try make your toolchain work on top of it.
    - jebblue 13y ago
      Adobe is backwards and kludgy and needs to get with the future, get with Linux, get with the program.
- kazagistar 13y ago
  Probably, but these applications can often use every ounce of performance they can get, including direct graphics card access.
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    The obligatory vfio qemu link. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=162768 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=162768
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  Adobe's Creative Suite runs great in KVM (with the Spice backend). Runs faster than Virtualbox or VMWare Player, even over remote session.
- cabbeer 13y ago
  It will, but for me the latency ruins the experience.
michaelgrafl 13y ago
I use Linux mostly but log into OS X or Windows for those. I could probably run them in a virtual machine though. The one thing that keeps me from using Linux exclusively are pieces of software that I use to make music but are only available on Windows (e.g. Guitar Amp Plugins by LePou or various processors by Variety Of Sound). I don't see those coming to Linux anytime soon, sadly. If Reaper would come out in a native version for Linux and someone invented a way to use Windows VST plugins in it without a performance hit, I might dare switching.
- aclevernickname 13y ago
  I suspect you would get great enjoyment out of KXStudio [1]. built-in support for Windows VST plugins (via Carla/Vestige). Wine with the WineASIO setup working means that FL Studio (and similar) works flawlessly under JACK. Also, there is nothing in the windows world that competes with JACK and Claudia. You might also want to check out the Linux Musicians forum [2]. Most of your itches are probably already scratched by someone. [1] http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net [2] http://www.linuxmusicians.com/ http://www.linuxmusicians.com/
pof33 13y ago
Adobe stuff runs fine via WINE last I checked, although the vast majority of people who think they absolutely need Adobe's stuff actually just enjoy the phony sense of professionalism rather than the features it has over the alternatives.
Trufa 13y ago
Indeed, it's seriously lacking a competitor in that sense. I would say that GIMP is in top 5 of worst software ever made, what made me think of that is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_considered_the_worst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_considered_the_wo... I quote: Paradoxically, a piece of music needs to have been noticeable, popular or memorable to be deemed the "worst ever." A piece that was unpopular and quickly forgotten is unlikely to top all-time public polls a few years after it was released. A piece usually needs to have had a high profile at the time of its release, such as an unexpected hit that was highly disliked outside of its fanbase. I think Gimp is enough of both, to call it that. Also, OP, I've heard that the CS works quite well (the original, not the pirated) in wine, I haven't tried it myself but maybe it's worth the shot. Note: I don't like to criticize FOSS, since I'm sure there are intentions are always good, but it's just that it's so bad :(
- skriticos2 13y ago
  I would hardly call it worst. It does not have the most intuitive UX, but once you get used to it it's quite nice and gets the job done. And it's open source (royalty free). I like it. I'd call it PS-incompatible. Would be nice to see a study on two control groups who each either start learning PS or GIMP for a few weeks and see how they get common tasks accomplished and how they feel about their control group software. I mostly see PS damaged people with bold statements of it's superiority and the rubishness of GIMP. I never seen anyone getting good with GIMP first and then ditching it for PS. Can any of you give some personal anecdotes?
  - maccard 13y ago
    Started with Paint.net, went to Gimp, then to Photoshop and currently jumping between Gimp and Photoshop. Bear in mind, I'm a developer who sometimes has to dabble in graphics. I only use GIMP because I can't afford the license on my home computer, and my university supplies my Photoshop license. While I think gimp has the potential to be great, the UI and workflow is painful in comparison to PS. For instance, take creating a rectangle with a gradient on it (with curved corners), and a border that fades from one color to transparent (thinking a rectangular button here). Photoshop: Choose foreground colour and bg color to be the two points on your gradient. Pick curved rectangle tool. Drag rectangle, and change fill type in the top bar to be radial gradient. Click Stroke, and change fill type to gradient. adjust the color. GIMP. Select the selection tool(why???) Drag the selection to your desired state. Apply a gradient to the stroke by... I don't know actually. then go to slect, and choose rounded rectangle, and choose the border radius (in %??? what the hell sort of measurement is this). Click Ok. Go to edit, and choose stroke selection, and choose stroke with Paint Brush. (This creates an empty border with a stroke around it). Use Gradient fill tool to create the centre of the rounded rectangle, then resize to fit within the border because I can't figure out how to not apply the gradient to the border which is in the selection. In the end, you get the same result. But PS's workflow makes more sense. to draw a rectangle, you use... a rectangle tool. In gimp, you select the shape you want and draw a stroke around your selection. I also find gimps export a pain in the ass. Why can't I click save as, and save as a PNG rather than having to export? It's clunky, and a pain to use. No matter how powerful a tool is, it's useless if the interface is non-intuitive. I know they don't want to go the adobe route, but they may consider taking some inspiration from one of the most researched products in the world.
girvo 13y ago
Some of it runs okay under Wine, some not. A shame, I wish a startup would try and tackle the Adobe Collection at some point, but I guess the capital requirements and network effects are too great :(
- cabbeer 13y ago
  Here's come context on what they would be up against: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/13/3959868/photoshop-is-a-city-for-everyone-how-adobe-endlessly-rebuilds-its http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/13/3959868/photoshop-is-a-cit...

Right now the only thing keeping me from running linux full time is the Adobe Master Collection (PS AI LR ID AE...)

by cabbeer 13y ago

Right now the only thing keeping me from running linux full time is the Adobe Master Collection (PS AI LR ID AE...)

SkyMarshal 13y ago

Will it run in a Windows VM on Linux?

rhblake 13y ago
I used Photoshop CS6 in a Windows 7 VirtualBox VM, often for editing large RAW pictures. Slower than native, of course, but it was totally OK for occasional photo post-processing. Perfectly fine for typical web design work. This was on a 2011 Thinkpad X220 (i7, 16 GB RAM, no SSD). Lightroom felt too sluggish and I didn't even bother trying Premiere, but at least having Photoshop available kept rebooting to Windows to a minimum.
shawabawa3 13y ago
photoshop is slow enough natively. Running in a VM might be good enough if you use it occasionally, but for people who use it daily I doubt it.
- jethro_tell 13y ago
  And why would you go that far out of your way if PS it's your primary tool? What would you gain by having a Linux box around your Photoshop install? Once you strip away specialized tool suits and programs that actually sit on top of the OS, most users just need sound, mouse, keyboard, and monitor support so they can run chrome or firefox. Most OSs handle this just fine, so the real deciding factor in your OS should be the tool chain you need to run. It's so backwards and kludgy to pick your os then try make your toolchain work on top of it.
  - jebblue 13y ago
    Adobe is backwards and kludgy and needs to get with the future, get with Linux, get with the program.
kazagistar 13y ago
Probably, but these applications can often use every ounce of performance they can get, including direct graphics card access.
- venomsnake 13y ago
  The obligatory vfio qemu link. https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=162768 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=162768
aclevernickname 13y ago
Adobe's Creative Suite runs great in KVM (with the Spice backend). Runs faster than Virtualbox or VMWare Player, even over remote session.
cabbeer 13y ago
It will, but for me the latency ruins the experience.

michaelgrafl 13y ago

I use Linux mostly but log into OS X or Windows for those. I could probably run them in a virtual machine though. The one thing that keeps me from using Linux exclusively are pieces of software that I use to make music but are only available on Windows (e.g. Guitar Amp Plugins by LePou or various processors by Variety Of Sound). I don't see those coming to Linux anytime soon, sadly. If Reaper would come out in a native version for Linux and someone invented a way to use Windows VST plugins in it without a performance hit, I might dare switching.

aclevernickname 13y ago
I suspect you would get great enjoyment out of KXStudio [1]. built-in support for Windows VST plugins (via Carla/Vestige). Wine with the WineASIO setup working means that FL Studio (and similar) works flawlessly under JACK. Also, there is nothing in the windows world that competes with JACK and Claudia. You might also want to check out the Linux Musicians forum [2]. Most of your itches are probably already scratched by someone. [1] http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net [2] http://www.linuxmusicians.com/ http://www.linuxmusicians.com/

pof33 13y ago

Adobe stuff runs fine via WINE last I checked, although the vast majority of people who think they absolutely need Adobe's stuff actually just enjoy the phony sense of professionalism rather than the features it has over the alternatives.

Trufa 13y ago

Indeed, it's seriously lacking a competitor in that sense. I would say that GIMP is in top 5 of worst software ever made, what made me think of that is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_considered_the_worst http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_music_considered_the_wo... I quote: Paradoxically, a piece of music needs to have been noticeable, popular or memorable to be deemed the "worst ever." A piece that was unpopular and quickly forgotten is unlikely to top all-time public polls a few years after it was released. A piece usually needs to have had a high profile at the time of its release, such as an unexpected hit that was highly disliked outside of its fanbase. I think Gimp is enough of both, to call it that. Also, OP, I've heard that the CS works quite well (the original, not the pirated) in wine, I haven't tried it myself but maybe it's worth the shot. Note: I don't like to criticize FOSS, since I'm sure there are intentions are always good, but it's just that it's so bad :(

skriticos2 13y ago
I would hardly call it worst. It does not have the most intuitive UX, but once you get used to it it's quite nice and gets the job done. And it's open source (royalty free). I like it. I'd call it PS-incompatible. Would be nice to see a study on two control groups who each either start learning PS or GIMP for a few weeks and see how they get common tasks accomplished and how they feel about their control group software. I mostly see PS damaged people with bold statements of it's superiority and the rubishness of GIMP. I never seen anyone getting good with GIMP first and then ditching it for PS. Can any of you give some personal anecdotes?
- maccard 13y ago
  Started with Paint.net, went to Gimp, then to Photoshop and currently jumping between Gimp and Photoshop. Bear in mind, I'm a developer who sometimes has to dabble in graphics. I only use GIMP because I can't afford the license on my home computer, and my university supplies my Photoshop license. While I think gimp has the potential to be great, the UI and workflow is painful in comparison to PS. For instance, take creating a rectangle with a gradient on it (with curved corners), and a border that fades from one color to transparent (thinking a rectangular button here). Photoshop: Choose foreground colour and bg color to be the two points on your gradient. Pick curved rectangle tool. Drag rectangle, and change fill type in the top bar to be radial gradient. Click Stroke, and change fill type to gradient. adjust the color. GIMP. Select the selection tool(why???) Drag the selection to your desired state. Apply a gradient to the stroke by... I don't know actually. then go to slect, and choose rounded rectangle, and choose the border radius (in %??? what the hell sort of measurement is this). Click Ok. Go to edit, and choose stroke selection, and choose stroke with Paint Brush. (This creates an empty border with a stroke around it). Use Gradient fill tool to create the centre of the rounded rectangle, then resize to fit within the border because I can't figure out how to not apply the gradient to the border which is in the selection. In the end, you get the same result. But PS's workflow makes more sense. to draw a rectangle, you use... a rectangle tool. In gimp, you select the shape you want and draw a stroke around your selection. I also find gimps export a pain in the ass. Why can't I click save as, and save as a PNG rather than having to export? It's clunky, and a pain to use. No matter how powerful a tool is, it's useless if the interface is non-intuitive. I know they don't want to go the adobe route, but they may consider taking some inspiration from one of the most researched products in the world.

girvo 13y ago

Some of it runs okay under Wine, some not. A shame, I wish a startup would try and tackle the Adobe Collection at some point, but I guess the capital requirements and network effects are too great :(

cabbeer 13y ago
Here's come context on what they would be up against: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/13/3959868/photoshop-is-a-city-for-everyone-how-adobe-endlessly-rebuilds-its http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/13/3959868/photoshop-is-a-cit...