Whether GIMP becomes mainstream or not is moot but from my own experience and those of colleagues it is definitely harder to use than Photoshop - perhaps more awkward and clumsy would be a more apt description.

For years, GIMP was much slower than Photoshop especially so when loading and processing large 100MB-plus .tif files and such, so much so that I considered it unusable on all but the very fastest machines. To be fair perfomance has improved in recent versions but it's still significantly slower than PS in many functions (e.g: when making edits waiting for the screen to refresh throws one's workflow out and makes it harder to accurately compare 'before' and 'after' edits).

Similarly, adjustment controls are slower to react and their ergonomics are significantly inferior to PS (that said, PS's aren't perfect either but they are better).

Then there's the removal of the 'fade' feature from the menu - probably one of the most used features in both GIMP and PS (one really has to wonder what's going on in the minds of its developers).

Talk about shooting one's self in the foot then this has to be the quintessential example! I know and understand the reason for this change but if GIMP's developers deliberately wanted to alienate a very large percentage of its users then they couldn't have chosen a better way. For me, the removal of the 'fade' feature was the last straw, I simply no longer use GIMP other than to test new versions as they arise.

Yes, I know about the alternative way of getting around this now-missing 'fade' feature but that's not the point. Forcing users to use a (seemingly) better approach at the expense of convenience and or for ideological reaons is not the correct way to go about the problem. Forcing users to adopt new ways of working for questionable reasons - as Microsoft does with its GUI in every new version of Windows - is, unfortunately, typical of the hide and arrogance all too often seen in the software industry. (BTW, I am aware that removing 'fade' solved some problems and supposedly quickened development but nevertheless that's no excuse.)

Simply: GIMP's developers are good programmers and image experts but they've stuff-all knowledge about user ergonomics - one has to wonder if they ever use GIMP to do any realworld image editing at all - that is other than to tweak multiple instances of Lenna! If GIMP's developers are serious about making the program anything more significant than their playtoy to test image algorithms then first and foremost they need to employ an ergonomics expert on their team.

I've lots more instances of GIMP problems but this is not the place to raise them.

In my opinion, GIMP won't ever become mainstream until its developers change their high-minded attitude and become more flexible in their approach to users' needs. This is harsh criticism I know but I'm only stating the facts. Few would be more keen than me to see GIMP succeed in a big way but many others and I have aged quite noticably whilst waiting for it to do so.

Many of us have waited years to shed finally the yoke of Photoshop especially so since Adobe introduced its extortionate subscription/rental model and we cannot do so until we have viable alteratives. The problem is made all the worse for people like me who have refused to upgrade PS to its subscription version. As it has been in place for quite some while we're now left with dated and ageing software.

Nowadays, GIMP is needed more than ever as a strong and viable alterative to Photoshop but having watched its glacial progress over decades I reckon the only effective way to bring it up to speed is for users to pay some nomimal fee, perhaps $20 or so. Paying develops and greatly expanding its development team seems the only practical way to make it happen.