Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Honestly, its hard to say what's wrong with Gimp, because I can't figure out anything fully right about it. Even the fact that I'm comparing with Adobe Photoshop, a program itself known for horribly beginner-hostile and unintuitive (but in a weird way "learnable" and "natural") UI is a sign of how off things are. Ugh, this is so true. I've never done professional graphics work, but I've used Photoshop on and off fo…
I use gimp semi frequently. It's never taken more than 10-20 seconds to start up. 2 minutes sounds like a huge outlier... I'm running on a x230 (over 5 year old laptop with an i5) w/ Fedora.
PC: 6700k OC @4.5GHz, 32GB/1TB NvME (4x PCIE mode), 1080Ti, most background processes off: GIMP 1st run: 90 s. GIMP 2nd run: 23 s. Paint.Net 1st run: 3 s. Paint.Net 2nd run: 2 s. Paint3D 1st run: 2 s. Paint3D 2nd run: 2 s. Krita 1st run: 7 s. (v3.3.3 first run ever) Krita 2nd run: 4 s. Gravit Designer: 6 s. (first run ever) Visual Studio 2017 takes 18 seconds with a handful of extensions.
Ugh, VS2017 update out...
Outdated version of Photoshop WHILE updating Visual Studio, 1st launch: 17 s. Krita WHILE crypto-mining on 3/4 logical processors (pinned to 100% usage): 4 s. Paint.NET while opening 30 tabs in Chrome: 4 s. GIMP while opening different 30 tabs in Chrome: 25 s. (reduce the chance of cache loads, not scientific, Chrome finished loading first, by about 10 seconds)
On a Surface Pro 3 (Core i7)... Krita while installing Windows updates, 1st run ever: 17 s. Krita 2nd run, updates still installing: 10 s GIMP, no updates installing, clean GIMP install, 1st run: 243 second. Yes, 243. GIMP 2nd run: 17 s.
Tried GIMP again on my desktop, no unusual background processes. 3rd launch: 18 s. 4th launch with mining pinning 3/4 CPU: 23 s.
So, overall, one of the most often recommended FOSS alternatives, even by ME, is a distant last place in these extremely ad hoc, unscientific, off the cuff tests across 2 machines. It also made me hate Mississippi. I was really hoping GIMP would have some trick up its sleeve to surprise me, but it did not. And this is not far from my past experience on Windows.
Maybe (hopefully) it's better on Linux... one sec...
Mint in VirtualBox: GIMP 1st run: 5 s GIMP 2nd run:2 s.
Hahaha. That just tickles me. It appears GIMP is the iTunes of graphics programs on Windows. Down the rabbit hole...
Within Windows Subsystem for Linux (Ubuntu with vcxsrv as X Windows server) GIMP 1st run (with some bash errors related to OpenGL): 43 s. GIMP 2nd run (still some errors): 5 s.
It's like they anti-optimized the thing for Windows.
Take away: I'll never recommend GIMP to a Windows user again. Linux? Sure, if the UI doesn't bother you, enjoy! But, it's a miserable experience on Windows compared to every other option and should only be used if a particular function can only be performed in GIMP.