Last time I checked, GIMP was rubbish on OS X anyway. Don't get me wrong, the Linux and Windows versions are great, and will only get better once they finally get the single-window interface implemented, but on the Mac it's always been pretty crappy (admittedly this has a lot to do with X11 dependancy rather than fundamental problems with the design of the app, but still).
I hear Pixelmator is pretty great these days, maybe you should try that?
And in the next installment, you will enlighten us why people should use proprietary, closed source pay-for software when there is an Open Source alternative available that works perfectly fine on almost all known operating systems - except for OS X.
You see, not everybody has spare money to spend on or even WANTS to spend hard-earned cash for proprietary software when the free alternative is good enough.
But that is the issue in Mac land: If you want something that works, in most cases you have to pay for it. A couple of bucks here, a couple of bucks there.
That being said, yes, Pixelmator is a well working, affordable alternative to The GIMP and in most cases even for Adobe Photoshop. Since the Mac is no longer a professional platform but a consumer platform, we don't even have to compare software with the high-end Adobe applications anymore because Apple very obviously no longer cares for professional users. Those are are better off with Windows. Or Linux, depending on the sector they work in.
In two years from now, people will probably discuss how they can jailbreak their Macs in order to install software that did not get Apple's blessing. This is where this all is going.
----------
If you honestly expect to do any serious professional work, you have Photoshop. Not GIMP.
Sure. That certainly explains why there are customized versions of The GIMP being used in the movie industry.
----------
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)
I've abandoned any applications that run under X11 for proper native OSX alternatives, because X11 applications all seem so Linux-like and kludgey. But I understand that X11 is the only option for specific niche applications. That said, you couldn't pay me to run GIMP...
Have you even seen a Linux desktop in the last ten years? From the sound of it, you haven't it.
Anyway, they seem so "Linux-like" because Apple has failed to make their implementation of X11 "Mac-like". There Java implementation showed how even Java software could appear like a regular Mac application, but they never cared enough for their X11 port to look equally well.
And the Mac platform still is too insignificant - and the Mac user base is too far away from their target market - to expect Unix-developers to make their software look like native Mac applications. Most Unix software serves certain business needs and targets certain professions while most Mac users are... Consumers.