Speed: XnView on Linux vs. Windows

Ideas for improvements and requests for new features in XnView MP

Moderators: XnTriq, xnview

Post Reply
disciple
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:47 am
Location: Auckland

Speed: XnView on Linux vs. Windows

Post by disciple » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:55 pm

On Linux I find if I start MP and minimise the window straight away, it takes about 3-4 times as long to load a directory with a lot of files with embedded thumbnails as Windows Xnview does under Wine.
If I don't minimise it then it takes about 50% longer to load than if I do minimise it, so it could be up to 5 to 6 times slower than running the Windows version (not MP) in Wine!
It is also much slower loading a file when I click on it, although this is harder to measure.
The Windows version also has the advantage that you can scroll somewhere while the thumbnails are loading and the thumbnails there will load first :)

I wonder whether this just means that QT4 is rubbish, or that the actual MP code is less efficient at the moment... I don't have any other QT4 apps, so I can't tell, but I thought it was "supposed" to be faster than QT3, which didn't seem to be particularly slow on my machine (when I used to have QT apps :) )

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 30266
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Speed: XnView on Linux vs. Windows

Post by xnview » Wed Oct 01, 2008 6:55 am

Wait the next alpha to test, this version was slow

But to be sure, MP is slower only on startup?

I've made some tests on windows with next alpha (same settings) on a folder with 2665 jpeg files (not in db already):
XnView win => 2 m 15 s
XnView MP => 1 m 42s
Pierre.

disciple
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2008 4:47 am
Location: Auckland

Post by disciple » Wed Oct 01, 2008 9:21 am

Sorry - no, it isn't really that it is slower to startup. It is also slower to load an image and to load the thumbnails if I go to another directory when it is already running. I just mentioned startup because it is also noticeably faster if I minimise it when I startup.
I didn't actually think of minimising it when I browse to a new directory, but I guess that will be faster as well.

marsh
XnThusiast
Posts: 2443
Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 6:31 am

Re: Speed: XnView on Linux vs. Windows

Post by marsh » Fri May 07, 2010 7:37 am

Very old topic, but I thought v.0.26mp was faster than v.1.97 at displaying images. ...looking forward to the next test.

User avatar
rra
Posts: 190
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 1:46 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Speed: XnView on Linux vs. Windows

Post by rra » Fri May 07, 2010 10:55 am

Just curious:

Does XnviewMP use more then 1 core if available compared to 197.4 which only uses 1 core ?

René

User avatar
xnview
Author of XnView
Posts: 30266
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 7:31 am
Location: France
Contact:

Re: Speed: XnView on Linux vs. Windows

Post by xnview » Mon May 10, 2010 7:50 am

rra wrote: Does XnviewMP use more then 1 core if available compared to 197.4 which only uses 1 core ?
Yes, XnViewMP use more than 1 core if available for rotate/flip/resize/...
Pierre.

User avatar
oops66
XnThusiast
Posts: 1999
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 1:17 am
Location: France

Re: Speed: XnView on Linux vs. Windows

Post by oops66 » Mon May 10, 2010 10:11 am

xnview wrote:...Yes, XnViewMP use more than 1 core if available for rotate/flip/resize/...
Hello, great and good new so XnViewMP is optimized for multi-core processors !
XnViewMP 0.82 Linux X64 - Ubuntu 16.04 LTS - X64

Post Reply