Provide a version of XnViewMP with no thumbnail support

[RMMM]

I consider thumbnails stupid. If a directory contains only a few photos, they are unnecessary. If it contains a lot, thumbnails are impractical:
1. There are many images to display. That's slow and it usually leads to memory leaks.
2. The thumbnails are a waste of disk space.
3. It slows the software down to have to load the thumbnails.
4. It's a waste of time and CPU to generate the thumbnails (and hard disk space).

The best way to deal with the thumbnail problem is to offer two applications. One should support thumbnails for all the silly people who think they are useful.

The other application should have no thumbnails code at all. It's not enough to just have user preferences that set whether or how thumbnails are used. There will always be glitches and imprecision in the implementation. The only way to ensure that the application is not doing anything with thumbnails is to completely eliminate all code dealing with thumbnails.

[vommie]

I don't know if you're a troll... but:

1. There are many images to display. That's slow and it usually leads to memory leaks.

10.000 thumbnails need 5 seconds for me to get loaded to RAM - from HDD btw, not SSD. This is slow? I think it's fast.
I don't discover memory leaks.

2. The thumbnails are a waste of disk space.

The thumbnail database for 250.000 pics and 110.000 videos with 150px in width and height uses 3.1 GB disk space. That's 0.3% of my 9TB. Oh no..

3. It slows the software down to have to load the thumbnails.

Point 1 the 2nd time?

4. It's a waste of time and CPU to generate the thumbnails (and hard disk space).

If you don't calculate methods to heal cancer as hobby I would say almost anything you do on your home pc is waste of time and cpu.

Why do I think you could be a troll? Because thumbs are one of the main features of XnViewMP. It's like you would go to the devs of photoshop: "Ey please remove the image editing support! It could have bugs and uses ressources!".

So, why don't you use some command line media libraries? All you need is a database.

That's my first and last post in this useless thread.

[CameronD]

I consider thumbnails stupid.

I consider they are often a waste of screen area, which is why I usually choose views that do not show them.

It is bugs that generate memory leaks, not thumbnails.

The other application should have no thumbnails code at all.

One such application is imagemagick. Feel free to use it.

By the way, as a purist, make sure you don't run any software under ms-windows, which has thumbnails built into just about every file browse/selection window.
Or a MAC system, or any Linux with a GUI.

[RMMM]

The other application should have no thumbnails code at all.

One such application is imagemagick. Feel free to use it.

Imagemagick is geared to image conversion and processing, not image viewing. I'm primarily interested in image viewers. A more relevant comparison is iPhoto. If you love thumbnails, why not just use iPhoto? It's slow and awkward, like all thumbnail based image viewers, but that seems to be what the thumbnail crowd likes.

It is bugs that generate memory leaks, not thumbnails.

The problem is that all software has bugs. Every feature you implement introduces new bugs. Thus, implementing thumbnails introduces new bugs, as well as other negatives, and has no compensating benefits. Therefore, implementing thumbnails diminishes the quality of an image viewer program.

I simply don't trust the programmers to implement thumbnails without bugs that create slowdowns and memory leaks. I've tried (I believe) every image viewer program available for Mac and Linux. I've found consistently that programs that feature thumbnails are much slower, more memory intensive, and have clunkier interfaces, than the better designed programs that avoid thumbnails.

There are also many other negatives from thumbnails. For instance, it wastes valuable programmer time to implement thumbnail related features. Since such features are useless to intelligent users, it essentially just slows down development. Another negative effect is that it lowers the quality of the user interface. If the program emphasizes thumbnails, many features of the interface must be designed with thumbnails in mind. This inevitably leads to compromises. Instead of a design that's optimally fit the most intelligent way to use an image viewer, you get some clunky, compromised interface.

I favor an implementation that is so modularized that you can delete the thumbnail code and still run the program (or recompile it without the code). That kind of implementation guarantees that most of the negatives associated with thumbnails can be eliminated from the program. At the same time, the feature is still available for the silly people who like thumbnails.

[thibaud]

I fear dear sir that you have developed what is called the thumbnoliaphobia.
just get a decent computer (faster drives , more memory, faster processor) or try windows.
and you'll be cured.

and also..just try to stop calling people silly around here... you'll feel better.

[CameronD]

If you love thumbnails, why not just use iPhoto?

So you didn't actually read my post?

I don't generally like thumbnails. I just think it's the height of rudeness to insist somebody do what is probably major restructuring of free software just to appeal to some vague notion you have of what might or might not be causing problems.

I would expect that far more bugs would be introduced in the short term by the effort of making two compilable versions.

[m.Th.]

I fear dear sir that you have developed what is called the thumbnoliaphobia.
just get a decent computer (faster drives , more memory, faster processor) or try windows.
and you'll be cured.

and also..just try to stop calling people silly around here... you'll feel better.

+1

[beka1902]

@RMMM
there's a file called ~/.xnviewmp/Thumb.db containing all those thumbnails. You can delete that file by hand from time to time, however, it will be recreated on every restart of XnViewMP. If you wish you can do that in an automated way by writing a small script:

#!/bin/bash
# ~/bin/cleanup.sh
rm -f ~/.xnviemp/Thumb.db
exit 0
# --- END-OF-FILE ---

[oops66]

... Or a simple way to do that is to set the option: "Maximum size for cached thumbnails " = 0MiB (actually the minimum is 33MiO) ... but Pierre can probably change this easily ?

[defchris]

I consider thumbnails stupid. If a directory contains only a few photos, they are unnecessary. If it contains a lot, thumbnails are impractical:
1. There are many images to display. That's slow and it usually leads to memory leaks.
2. The thumbnails are a waste of disk space.
3. It slows the software down to have to load the thumbnails.
4. It's a waste of time and CPU to generate the thumbnails (and hard disk space).

The best way to deal with the thumbnail problem is to offer two applications. One should support thumbnails for all the silly people who think they are useful.

The other application should have no thumbnails code at all. It's not enough to just have user preferences that set whether or how thumbnails are used. There will always be glitches and imprecision in the implementation. The only way to ensure that the application is not doing anything with thumbnails is to completely eliminate all code dealing with thumbnails.

Calling others silly and disliking thumbnails doesn't make useful thumbnails unuseful. Both your argumentation and logic simply fail.

If there would be one argument for turning off thumbnail support completely but still on the user's choice, it would be writing cycles on flash drives and SSDs.

But why for example should users with i7 CPU, 16 GB RAM, and large hard drives be forced to abandon thumbnails, just because you don't like thumbnails and don't want to use a standard file manager that has a built-in image preview feature?

BTW, I'm using XnViewMP also on an old Atom CPU that doesn't break a sweat by generating thumbnails...

A more relevant comparison is iPhoto. If you love thumbnails, why not just use iPhoto? It's slow and awkward, like all thumbnail based image viewers, but that seems to be what the thumbnail crowd likes.

We don't need to. XnViewMP does its jobs magnificiently for us.

The problem is that all software has bugs. Every feature you implement introduces new bugs. Thus, implementing thumbnails introduces new bugs, as well as other negatives, and has no compensating benefits. Therefore, implementing thumbnails diminishes the quality of an image viewer program.

Again. Your arguments and logic fails. If all software has bugs, you should turn off your computer and never use it again for anything.

I've found consistently that programs that feature thumbnails are much slower, more memory intensive, and have clunkier interfaces, than the better designed programs that avoid thumbnails.

So, you have found alternatives already? Then please just use them instead. You're free to choose.

I favor an implementation that is so modularized that you can delete the thumbnail code and still run the program (or recompile it without the code). That kind of implementation guarantees that most of the negatives associated with thumbnails can be eliminated from the program. At the same time, the feature is still available for the silly people who like thumbnails.

XnViewMP is not Open Source. It does not matter what you prefer, as it is Pierre's choice only what to implement or not.

[m.Th.]

... Or a simple way to do that is to set the option: "Maximum size for cached thumbnails " = 0MiB (actually the minimum is 33MiO) ... but Pierre can probably change this easily ?

and

@RMMM
there's a file called ~/.xnviewmp/Thumb.db containing all those thumbnails. You can delete that file by hand from time to time, however, it will be recreated on every restart of XnViewMP. If you wish you can do that in an automated way by writing a small script:

#!/bin/bash
# ~/bin/cleanup.sh
rm -f ~/.xnviemp/Thumb.db
exit 0
# --- END-OF-FILE ---

Not needed. Just uncheck in Tools | Settings | Database the "Use thumbnail caching"

[oops66]

Hello,
Right, just by unchecking in Tools | Settings | Database the "Use thumbnail caching" is enough ... but it makes sense to also allow the zero for the "Maximum size for cached thumbnails" and this is a common practice (because, actually the minimum allowed is only 33MiO) ... so why 33 ?

[beka1902]

Just uncheck in Tools | Settings | Database the "Use thumbnail caching"

Thank you very much, indeed.