However, it's still not clear about the future of XnView. Two years from now is XnView for Windows going to exist? I can certainly understand Pierre consolidating source code; my company's product runs on different platforms but is all generated from a common source and that is VASTLY better than maintaining separate versions. But that has not yet been stated, so I'm not sure what's going on. A -- If all versions of XnView are going to be "XnViewMP" in the future, then why is anybody using the old platform-specific versions? Shouldn't we all be using MP? B -- If the platform-specific versions are going to continue, what's the point of MP?
Regardless of that, however, I do have a suggestion for the logo and name and icon: drop the "MP." Who cares? It's XnView for "MP," just like XnView for Windows or UNIX or whatever. You don't have a product named "XnViewWIN" or XnViewLNX", so why would you have one named XnViewMP?
If you want a new name for the product that used to be called XnView, then of course that's fine; I'll help create/find one--and I'm pretty good at that. But XnView has a lot of history and "brand recognition," so you should probably keep it.
But I strongly suggest and encourage losing the "MP." You can CALL it MP in order to distinguish it from the other platforms and versions, but don't ever write "XnViewMP." Yuck.
Ty wrote:
Regardless of that, however, I do have a suggestion for the logo and name and icon: drop the "MP." Who cares? It's XnView for "MP," just like XnView for Windows or UNIX or whatever. You don't have a product named "XnViewWIN" or XnViewLNX", so why would you have one named XnViewMP?
Ty wrote:But I strongly suggest and encourage losing the "MP." You can CALL it MP in order to distinguish it from the other platforms and versions, but don't ever write "XnViewMP." Yuck.
Yes I agree with you but it's just some users like me feel that the slight name change positively reflects the new version.
Personally I think it should be written as "Xnview MP" and not "XnviewMP"
Otherwise the reverse "MP Xnview" - nowhow does that sound when saying it or saying "MPXn" - these possible two can be written on the window title and on other references on the UI but everywhere else the traditional 'Xnview' can be used like normal
The problem is the "MP" part. I thought it was only the internal development identifier, like the ones the "big guys" use, and not meant as the final product name.
What does MP mean?
Multi-processor?
Member of Parliament?
Many pennies?
Mucho pepperoni?
Mother pucker?
Master pater?
ahem. Sorry... got carried away. Edit: I'll remove these if the offend anyone. They were meant only in jest.
If there are to be several XnViews for a period into the future, what is the factor that distinguishes them during their concurrent existence?
The product is XnView.
The "flavors" are: Win, Mac, Linux...
Last edited by JohnFredC on Sun Dec 13, 2009 1:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It's so much richer and more evocotive than "multi-platform."
now now Let's remain serious on this issue
thibaud wrote:I'm not sure adding glow, reflection and drop shadow on something that is already hard to identify at 16x16 will help much that matter.
Of course the effects would not be on the 16x16 picture, only the 32x,48x and 256x hi res sizes
I have been looking at the design of these two program icons:
So I think this would be much better than that orb I first posted:
Including a 256x256 size and a 512x512 size. Would you say this 16x16 looks more improved?
-another mock of course anyone could recreate a hi res vector of this if approve- http://i45.tinypic.com/2q0u6u0.png
Would look nice on a Windows 7 taskbar
Last edited by budz45 on Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Agreed. We don't know all behind the decision of using that name. XnViewMP is afaik not a finished product, please consider it when discussing it. There might be an agenda for the future of the name, it could very well be a development name which will be dropped later on. I'm still not comfortable about the name, but I'd like not to criticize it too hard before I know more about it.
May I also suggest that further name discussion is held in a thread of its own, so we dont take focus from the main issue any more?
Agreed too
Maybe the best thing to do is to keep the name "XnView" even for the XnViewMP's versions ( when the development of the XnView Windows 1.9x version will be stopped - Because, for information, the XnView Un*x v1.70 development is already stopped) ???
In this case, the XnViewMP's project release can be the XnView v2.X versions (Windows, Linux, MacOS) instead the XnViewMP V1.00 ???
And in this case too, it would be possible to keep the same icon ( in fact,I really like it):
see here too: http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.p ... 568#p76568
Last edited by oops66 on Sun Dec 13, 2009 2:19 pm, edited 5 times in total.
No... it looks "captured" by it's perimeter, very late '80's/early '90s.
One of the trends in icon design over the past few years has been to eliminate the boundary lines that make the icons look like buttons.
OK granted.
Well that same grey button design could just be reserved for XnShell ext and not the main XnView MP - but that's another thing
ok let's see some guys post some interesting original designs that we can all come to an agreement on, nice for me to be witnessing a logo change of a software
or saying "MPXn" - these possible two can be written on the window title and on other references on the UI but everywhere else the traditional 'Xnview' can be used like normal
