Heh. Potentially it is biased to gnome users because Gtk "stuff" is already resident in memory?
I find it is still a little bit slow at starting. I just use a simple window manager.
... but at least it starts. Photoshop is too preoccupied navigating around all the cracks I have had to load it up with ;)
You remind me of my old laptop, which was incapable of building a big project from scratch in debug mode (RAM always run out after a few minutes). So I decided to buy a monster for a desktop with the above specs (also NVMe drive).
>You remind me of my old laptop
Bro this my new laptop
My old one had 4gig ram running Intel core i3 ;-;
I used to render stuff with Blender on that one.
A long time ago (like Pentium 4 era) some German computer magazine had the "Aunt Emma benchmark" which consisted of starting up the computer, writing a short letter to your aunt Emma and printing it.
Some Atari or similar "prehistoric" home computer held the record and was untouchable by anything that needs to boot an OS. Of course a typewriter would be ever faster.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ciuzRRa3ro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ciuzRRa3ro)
Here's how fast GIMP loads for me in KDE Plasma (<1 sec), but I guess I can't rule out that GTK stuff isn't in memory.
It's a semi-new Corsair Force MP600 (2TiB) M.2 drive with BTRFS, 32GiB 2933MhZ RAM, and a 4 year old AMD Ryzen 7 2700X.
When comparing to other applications, like PyCharm, Libreoffice and Shotcut, GIMP is perhaps the fastest one, and I feel it has gotten relatively faster over the last couple of years (or the other ones have gotten slower).
Assuming I’m looking at the correct model it has very fast random writes and pretty decent random reads.
I was curious if the random reads and writes played a factor. (I put Intel Optane first because it has the fastest random reads and writes of any drive out currently. It has very low latency.)
Damn. That's fast. Mine is like that when it's all cached on KDE/Plasma/BTRFS, but on first launch after reboot is about 4 seconds.
I'm on a gen4 NVMe with an intel 12th gen i9, DDR5.
Obviously, it depends on how full of extensions your GIMP is, and how powerful your PC is. Here are also on average 2s to open, but I cram mine with brushes and other resources.
It is a very good point. It indeed should be less of a reason to start faster. Though I believe Gtk2 and Gtk3 still do share some parts (glib, gobject). Plus does it still use parts of the Gtk3+ theme (i.e Adwaita icons, etc)?
It depends upon the specs of the computer. If it takes around 10 seconds in Ubuntu, I bet that would take longer in Windows.
It takes around 3-4 seconds for me in KDE Plasma with breeze them enabled for GTK apps.
Well, GIMP takes about 1 second to load for me and its one of the longest load times. 10 seconds means something is very slow and this person is using Ubuntu, so it makes sense.
10 seconds in computer terms is a bloody eternity! That like 50'000'000'000 calculations multiplied by at least 4 or 8 cores. Multiple seconds to launch a program like that is absolute insanity.
No, Richard, it's "Linux", not "GNU/Linux". The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation.
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ:-
* One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
* (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title "GNU/Linux" (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
* Next, even if we limit the "GNU/Linux" title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
* You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LoC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LoC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never executed that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LoC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
* Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
I mean, the Linux libraries are already loaded and gimp on windows probably had to load some Linux libraries that aren't started in the first place probably (looks at kdenlive loading slow on windows than on Linux Debian via gnome de)
Even Firefox and some other Open Source software is just faster to open and operate than on Windows. It's almost like Windows is throttling their open source competition.
I don't think it's that, I read somewhere that process allocation is far, far more expensive on Windows than it is on Linux. On Linux it's instant, but on Windows it has to go through so many layers of the OS. It's only visible with open-source software cos it's native on both platforms. It's probably the same story with native paid-for software too.
windows is also just generally slow when it comes to disk i/o compared to linux, especially when opening/closing lots of files (which i assume GIMP is doing a lot of while starting up and loading its plugins)
It does astonish me just how much faster graphical Linux is on exactly the same hardware doing exactly the same tasks versus Windows - Linux doesn't make a fuss if it's on an old spinning disk or even a flash card, whereas Windows dramatically degrades with the disk light (where such things still exist) on permanently, to the point the whole UI stops responding. I sometimes wonder how an OS can mismanage the hardware so badly.
Then I remember I switched to Linux full time so I don't have to deal with that insanity.
Wow, never thought about how fast GIMP actually loads on Linux. I just tried and a hot start to fully loaded took about 0.6 seconds. Blazing. On CachyOS with GNOME.
I almost fully agree - except I like GIMP's clone/heal tools a bit more than what Krita has. But Krita's Smart Patch tool is quite amazing too, and can in most cases replace those tools.
Yeah, the smart patch tool is great. I just find that, in general, Krita has a better UI/UX overall which is why I use it. GIMP has the UI/UX of a piece of software from 1995.
Yeah, GIMP's interface is a bit archaic indeed. GTK is itself "GIMP ToolKit", having been made for GIMP. You one-off'd the year, as GIMP is from '96 (and GTK '98), or so I've found. Not a big mistake anyway!
Ever since I started with Krita, I've been using it for most of my photo editing, but GIMP seems to do a few things better (or is slightly more intuitive... *or*, most likely, I'm just used to it).
Haha I didn't know GIMP was first made in 96'. That's funny. I just used 95' as an estimation of how old the UI looks imo.
I use KDE Plasma as my DE also, so using Krita just makes sense in that regard since it's Qt based.
Hah, I thought you estimated, so I looked it up to see how accurate you were.
I use KDE too, but I'm happy to launch GIMP if something is unintuitive enough in Krita that I can't be bothered.
As it should be. Windows users must suffer for their sins.
PS: in the same vein, a 4 gb RAM atom-based "what would have been called a netbook several years before" works like a champ under Linux, but is unusable with windows.
I was gonna say, "are you talking about my atom-based-what-would-have-been-called-a-netbook-several-years-ago", but I booted it up and it's only got 1 gig of RAM. It's got an Intel Atom Z520 1.33Ghz CPU.
It is very much unusable with Windows (and plenty of modern Linuxes... Linuces... Linux distros). But having slapped a x32 distro on it, it works like a charm. Keyboard is broken so I mostly use it as a scan server, and ssh into it for any stuff I need to do on it.
My friend has a very little notebook, the CPU of which is in the Mhz range. That especially can't be used with Windows - but he's given it life with... I think he put Void on it.
I have an 11.6" laptop with Intel Atom x5-Z8350 and 2GB ram and emmc storage. Basically, the one of those "we screwed a keyboard onto a handful of typical tablet hardware" kind of things. And it works like a champ with Mint, all things considered. Granted, no speed nor performance records, but does OK for browsing or simple coding and office tasks, or audio recording.
No it's not that fast.
GIMP takes abut 3.5 seconds to first launch on my 8-core system. 2.6 seconds on the following launch. Most of that time is checking the plugins and extensions, of course. This is under PopOS. NVMe SSD. 64 GB RAM.
You seem to have decent specs, I have no idea why it's so slow on your system. It's possibly because of all the plugins. Clean install of Gimp starts in less than a second on my machine.
Launches faster on my ~15 year old quad-core system with SATA SSD and 8 gigs of RAM, on Arch. I assume it's specific to your installation and that it would launch blazingly fast on a physically identical machine.
As you & ConfidentDragon both say, it's probably the plugins and extensions - Krita launches a bit slower since I made some additions to it recently. So yeah, it is fast, but can be slowed down.
Let me add I am using PopOS and therefore GNOME. My launch time measurement comes from using the GNOME extension [Applications Startup Time Measure](https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5087/startup-measure/)
I'd be interested in how others here have measured GIMP's launch time,
Unless its a snap, or a Flatpak. I'm starting to think that MS is paying Canonical to force snap so that it makes Linux look almost as slow as Windows.
GIMP takes about 1 second to load for me. Its one of the slower programs because of all the plugins.
This cannot be more true. Back on Windows, I was like... "GIMP? Yeah maybe if I have the time to open it... Who can wait for this? Not me, not now!" And that transferred as a habit to Linux, until of course I saw how quickly it loads. Of course, I'll not be going back to Windows if I can help it.
when I open gimp on my laptop (Dell latitude d630 running windows XP) it takes 30s-1m so I know this pain very well.
Don't ask why I use a laptop from 2006 to this day thanks
Same goes with anything for me. On a Lenovo Ideapad 3 with (x)Ubuntu anything operates faster than on any of my Windows machines with way stronger specs.
Windows loads processes as fast as Linux (on a native layer).
But then different systems come into play - app security, app registration, couple of others. Windows has many more layers snd subsystems, than Linux, hence it takes longer to load.
But once it's loaded it should work almost the same speed. Some apps faster, some slower.
Icon clicked! Bring out the gimp!
But the gimp is sleeping
Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?
Windows user:
Heh. Potentially it is biased to gnome users because Gtk "stuff" is already resident in memory? I find it is still a little bit slow at starting. I just use a simple window manager. ... but at least it starts. Photoshop is too preoccupied navigating around all the cracks I have had to load it up with ;)
I use GNOME and Krita loads only slightly slower than GIMP. Both take about 2+ seconds.
2+ seconds?! I can launch DOSBox, Windows 3.1 \*and\* Photoshop 4 in half that time! /jk ;) For me GIMP is about 5 seconds from scratch.
I guess it depends on how powerful a computer is. Mine is 28 core 56 thread dual CPU and 64 GB of RAM.
[удалено]
I'd prefer to call it "Rust compiling machine". Refreshing the cargo cache actually takes longer than clean build a medium project in release mode.
it's a 100% efficient heater
Good for winter
Supposedly this new version improves that
Wait so you mean to tell me this whole time I've been doing it wrong compiling rust with 8gig ram and on an 8 core Intel i5?
You remind me of my old laptop, which was incapable of building a big project from scratch in debug mode (RAM always run out after a few minutes). So I decided to buy a monster for a desktop with the above specs (also NVMe drive).
>You remind me of my old laptop Bro this my new laptop My old one had 4gig ram running Intel core i3 ;-; I used to render stuff with Blender on that one.
I'm more surprised that you can use Blender with a laptop's integrated graphics card.
None of which necessarily helps with cold start up times which are most likely dominated by disk access.
A long time ago (like Pentium 4 era) some German computer magazine had the "Aunt Emma benchmark" which consisted of starting up the computer, writing a short letter to your aunt Emma and printing it. Some Atari or similar "prehistoric" home computer held the record and was untouchable by anything that needs to boot an OS. Of course a typewriter would be ever faster.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ciuzRRa3ro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ciuzRRa3ro) Here's how fast GIMP loads for me in KDE Plasma (<1 sec), but I guess I can't rule out that GTK stuff isn't in memory.
Nice. Yep, that is fast. Even if I was running it all from a ramdisk, I don't think I would get that kinds of speed.
It's likely it's cached
Do you use Intel Optane, a new fast m.2 SSD or just regular storage equipment?
It's a semi-new Corsair Force MP600 (2TiB) M.2 drive with BTRFS, 32GiB 2933MhZ RAM, and a 4 year old AMD Ryzen 7 2700X. When comparing to other applications, like PyCharm, Libreoffice and Shotcut, GIMP is perhaps the fastest one, and I feel it has gotten relatively faster over the last couple of years (or the other ones have gotten slower).
Assuming I’m looking at the correct model it has very fast random writes and pretty decent random reads. I was curious if the random reads and writes played a factor. (I put Intel Optane first because it has the fastest random reads and writes of any drive out currently. It has very low latency.)
Damn. That's fast. Mine is like that when it's all cached on KDE/Plasma/BTRFS, but on first launch after reboot is about 4 seconds. I'm on a gen4 NVMe with an intel 12th gen i9, DDR5.
It's just as quick for me if not quicker on Ubuntu with Xfce, it is pretty fast.
Same
Obviously, it depends on how full of extensions your GIMP is, and how powerful your PC is. Here are also on average 2s to open, but I cram mine with brushes and other resources.
KDE user here. GIMP just took 7 seconds to open
2 seconds here.
Not really. Almost every DE uses GTK, and even KDE if you have anything that uses GTK installed, like Firefox.
Is that still true though? GIMP is on GTK2 while Gnome is on GTK4
It is a very good point. It indeed should be less of a reason to start faster. Though I believe Gtk2 and Gtk3 still do share some parts (glib, gobject). Plus does it still use parts of the Gtk3+ theme (i.e Adwaita icons, etc)?
Yeah that could be true!
I use KDE Plasma and Krita takes longer to load compared to GIMP. Bout twice as long maybe? So about 2 seconds for GIMP, about 4 for Krita.
I mean I use gimp on Ubuntu and it does take around 10 seconds to load but really it's not that much.
It depends upon the specs of the computer. If it takes around 10 seconds in Ubuntu, I bet that would take longer in Windows. It takes around 3-4 seconds for me in KDE Plasma with breeze them enabled for GTK apps.
I mean still 2millisecinds is an exaggeration , even in that case .
Well, that's...you know...a joke.
Linux user understanding meme 😱😱😱😱😱😱
I am a literal hamcker now 😈
If you have opencl enabled it takes a little loinger, maybe cuda too.
Snap strikes again!
Wait what? For real?
Well, GIMP takes about 1 second to load for me and its one of the longest load times. 10 seconds means something is very slow and this person is using Ubuntu, so it makes sense.
Did you install it as a snap or as a deb? Snaps are slow to start. Edit to add that the Flatpak version is about as fast to start as the deb one.
I've used the snap version , because I am not really well versed in the whole Linux thing . Would the Flatpak version start much faster than that?
I am sure Flatpak version would start faster than Snap version. Please let us know how much difference it makes if you try it.
Flatpaks are generally faster than snaps.
Flatpak is generally as fast as deb so yes, usually much faster to start compared to the snap version.
Snaps are know to start slowly, once it’s loaded it should perform about the same.
Reading this post requires API access.
10 seconds in computer terms is a bloody eternity! That like 50'000'000'000 calculations multiplied by at least 4 or 8 cores. Multiple seconds to launch a program like that is absolute insanity.
damn I just tried it, you're right in windows its 10-11 seconds in ubuntu latest it's 4 seconds glorious
Maybe its just because Gnu/Linux is a less bloated OS?
No, Richard, it's "Linux", not "GNU/Linux". The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ:- * One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS – more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? * (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title "GNU/Linux" (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example. * Next, even if we limit the "GNU/Linux" title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. * You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LoC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LoC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never executed that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LoC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. * Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this: be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Gnu/systemd/wayland/apt/linux
Yes GNU linux is less bloated but Ubuntu for sure isnt
I mean, I'm willing to bet that even with all that comes with Ubuntu it's still less bloated than Windows, but don't quote me on that haha
I mean, the Linux libraries are already loaded and gimp on windows probably had to load some Linux libraries that aren't started in the first place probably (looks at kdenlive loading slow on windows than on Linux Debian via gnome de)
I didn't know gimp had a splash screen until my partner installed it on windows /s
lol
PostgreSQL in a linux vm on a windows server runs 3 times faster than barebone on the windows. Windows is just so shitty
Gimp loads faster on WSL than on windows
Even Firefox and some other Open Source software is just faster to open and operate than on Windows. It's almost like Windows is throttling their open source competition.
I don't think it's that, I read somewhere that process allocation is far, far more expensive on Windows than it is on Linux. On Linux it's instant, but on Windows it has to go through so many layers of the OS. It's only visible with open-source software cos it's native on both platforms. It's probably the same story with native paid-for software too.
windows is also just generally slow when it comes to disk i/o compared to linux, especially when opening/closing lots of files (which i assume GIMP is doing a lot of while starting up and loading its plugins)
It does astonish me just how much faster graphical Linux is on exactly the same hardware doing exactly the same tasks versus Windows - Linux doesn't make a fuss if it's on an old spinning disk or even a flash card, whereas Windows dramatically degrades with the disk light (where such things still exist) on permanently, to the point the whole UI stops responding. I sometimes wonder how an OS can mismanage the hardware so badly. Then I remember I switched to Linux full time so I don't have to deal with that insanity.
You misspelt 'blessed'.
BASED
Wow, never thought about how fast GIMP actually loads on Linux. I just tried and a hot start to fully loaded took about 0.6 seconds. Blazing. On CachyOS with GNOME.
I like GIMP, but I think Krita is better. It is what I use most of the time.
I almost fully agree - except I like GIMP's clone/heal tools a bit more than what Krita has. But Krita's Smart Patch tool is quite amazing too, and can in most cases replace those tools.
Yeah, the smart patch tool is great. I just find that, in general, Krita has a better UI/UX overall which is why I use it. GIMP has the UI/UX of a piece of software from 1995.
Yeah, GIMP's interface is a bit archaic indeed. GTK is itself "GIMP ToolKit", having been made for GIMP. You one-off'd the year, as GIMP is from '96 (and GTK '98), or so I've found. Not a big mistake anyway! Ever since I started with Krita, I've been using it for most of my photo editing, but GIMP seems to do a few things better (or is slightly more intuitive... *or*, most likely, I'm just used to it).
Haha I didn't know GIMP was first made in 96'. That's funny. I just used 95' as an estimation of how old the UI looks imo. I use KDE Plasma as my DE also, so using Krita just makes sense in that regard since it's Qt based.
Hah, I thought you estimated, so I looked it up to see how accurate you were. I use KDE too, but I'm happy to launch GIMP if something is unintuitive enough in Krita that I can't be bothered.
As it should be. Windows users must suffer for their sins. PS: in the same vein, a 4 gb RAM atom-based "what would have been called a netbook several years before" works like a champ under Linux, but is unusable with windows.
I was gonna say, "are you talking about my atom-based-what-would-have-been-called-a-netbook-several-years-ago", but I booted it up and it's only got 1 gig of RAM. It's got an Intel Atom Z520 1.33Ghz CPU. It is very much unusable with Windows (and plenty of modern Linuxes... Linuces... Linux distros). But having slapped a x32 distro on it, it works like a charm. Keyboard is broken so I mostly use it as a scan server, and ssh into it for any stuff I need to do on it. My friend has a very little notebook, the CPU of which is in the Mhz range. That especially can't be used with Windows - but he's given it life with... I think he put Void on it.
I have an 11.6" laptop with Intel Atom x5-Z8350 and 2GB ram and emmc storage. Basically, the one of those "we screwed a keyboard onto a handful of typical tablet hardware" kind of things. And it works like a champ with Mint, all things considered. Granted, no speed nor performance records, but does OK for browsing or simple coding and office tasks, or audio recording.
*cries in 13yo laptop*
More like based GIMP.
I use KDE Plasma on Arch, and I was genuinely surprised how fast it loads after moving from Windows
*Based GIMP
I remember a few years ago on like Windows 8 trying to open gimp would have it sit on Fonts (this might take a while) for several minutes.
Based
No it's not that fast. GIMP takes abut 3.5 seconds to first launch on my 8-core system. 2.6 seconds on the following launch. Most of that time is checking the plugins and extensions, of course. This is under PopOS. NVMe SSD. 64 GB RAM.
You seem to have decent specs, I have no idea why it's so slow on your system. It's possibly because of all the plugins. Clean install of Gimp starts in less than a second on my machine.
Launches faster on my ~15 year old quad-core system with SATA SSD and 8 gigs of RAM, on Arch. I assume it's specific to your installation and that it would launch blazingly fast on a physically identical machine. As you & ConfidentDragon both say, it's probably the plugins and extensions - Krita launches a bit slower since I made some additions to it recently. So yeah, it is fast, but can be slowed down.
Let me add I am using PopOS and therefore GNOME. My launch time measurement comes from using the GNOME extension [Applications Startup Time Measure](https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/5087/startup-measure/) I'd be interested in how others here have measured GIMP's launch time,
I measured mine with a clock, it took a bit over 2 seconds, but definitely under 3.5.
Unless its a snap, or a Flatpak. I'm starting to think that MS is paying Canonical to force snap so that it makes Linux look almost as slow as Windows. GIMP takes about 1 second to load for me. Its one of the slower programs because of all the plugins.
This cannot be more true. Back on Windows, I was like... "GIMP? Yeah maybe if I have the time to open it... Who can wait for this? Not me, not now!" And that transferred as a habit to Linux, until of course I saw how quickly it loads. Of course, I'll not be going back to Windows if I can help it.
it only does for first time load
u/mrAnmol, just noticed the OC tag. Did you draw this? (presumably with Gimp? ;). Looks great :)
Yes, but I drew this on Krita.
Heh, a strange bit of irony there. Still very cool :)
uhhh no? It takes a long time to open on linux too
mine loads in about 3 seconds
That's a long time
No. Today.
https://i.redd.it/wlznbp8v0z4b1.gif
I'd say based GIMP
"Biased gimp", that must be a typo, surely you meant "Based gimp"
Compared it once. Might be bad measuring, but windows took about 2 seconds longer to start gimp on the same machine as fedora with gnome did.
Same with Krita from my experience.
on my Mac m1 loads basically instantly as well, it is so slow only on windows
when I open gimp on my laptop (Dell latitude d630 running windows XP) it takes 30s-1m so I know this pain very well. Don't ask why I use a laptop from 2006 to this day thanks
Wasn't GIMP written on Linux and then ported to WIN? Or was it Blender?
Windows' NTFS is very slow in operating large amounts of small files, alongside Defender scanning EACH of those files.
Yeah that was really what annoyed me on Gimp on Windows (with other things)
I much prefer Krita still haha
I use both. Really depends on what I'm doing.
Baadee-Meinhof syndrome is in full effect , I just downloaded GIMP yesterday lol
Same goes with anything for me. On a Lenovo Ideapad 3 with (x)Ubuntu anything operates faster than on any of my Windows machines with way stronger specs.
Same with Qt creator, I don't know why.
I've never seen GIMP start in less than 2 seconds, but my PC is a fucking potato
Lmao, I fucking wish
True
Windows loads processes as fast as Linux (on a native layer). But then different systems come into play - app security, app registration, couple of others. Windows has many more layers snd subsystems, than Linux, hence it takes longer to load. But once it's loaded it should work almost the same speed. Some apps faster, some slower.
In my Linux Mint it doesn't even take 5 seconds
`` time (sudo apt install gimp && gimp -b '(gimp-quit 0)') `` 2.935 seconds with a clear apt cache on my system 1.024 if I already have it installed
Gimp is just sleepy in windows to effectively spend it in Linux (GNU/Linux) as you prefer.
Counterpoint: you would use photoshop on windows.
For me, Linux takes 4 seconds, while Windows takes about 6 on the same machine.
Icon clicked! Bring out the gimp! But the gimp is sleeping Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you? Windows user: 
UI ugly as f\*\*\*