Switching Browser / Viewer

[xnview]

So always same problem? And ViewMaxi=1 always recreated??

[algol1]

Same problem, situation unchanged and "ViewMaxi=1" has been recreated after either deleting it first or setting it explicitly to zero.

Is there another way to get rid of that parameter??

Btw, before I forget, I also have tried deleting the entry and then setting xnview.ini to "read only" before starting the browser.

By this method the maxi-parameter was not recreated but still the browser-window was messed up and cut off when switching to browser after viewer-mode.

greetings and happy new year
algol1

[algol1]

Hello, anybody there?

Could you please stop stalling on this issue and at least acknowledge this bug as a first step to get it fixed?

Meanwhile I have reproduced the erroneous behavior of the browser - as documented in the introductory part of this thread - on over a dozen of computers, most of them running all "garden-varieties" ofWindows_OSes from "XP_sp3" to "Win7_ultimate", immediately after a virgin install of XnView and doing the initial configuration necessary for fullscreen browsing and viewing.

It is the same mess everywhere. Once switching to scaled-to-screen-(height or width)-viewer-mode of a single image and then switching back to browser, the fullscreen-browser-window will occur crippled and restricted in an absurd way to the area of the last image arbitrarily viewed. There is no "explaining away" of the absurdity of a pseudo-"fullscreen"-browser-window that actually isn't fullscreen at all.

greetings
algol1

[xnview]

There is a problem if you quit XnView when maximized. I'll send you the xnview.ini

[algol1]

What about a fixed new version of XnView?

v2.12 came out November 13, v2.13 was issued Dec.12 2013 - we now nearly have March 14. So it's about time, one would assume.

greetings
algol1

[algol1]

Given the slow rate of reactions here, the question arises, if "XnView classic" has been abandoned recently.

If so, an announcment would be nice, so that users could decide if they should wait for future fixes or if that expectation has become moot.

greetings
algol1

[cday]

Given the slow rate of reactions here, the question arises, if "XnView classic" has been abandoned recently.

XnView Classic is now reasonably mature but it is still subject to limited development and is being maintained...

It is important to remember that all XnView family software is entirely the work of one person over the last ten years, and is made available as freeware for non-commercial use. At present Pierre's priority is the development of XnViewMP and XnConvert, which are cross-platform, have unicode support and are acclaimed for their excellent user interface design!

[algol1]

XnView Classic is now reasonably mature but it is still subject to limited development and is being maintained...

If an image-viewer that popular has been demonstrated to be unable to correctly switch between a full-screen single image and the browser-view, also utilizing the entire screen-area, it is hard to imagine in how far this could be considered as "mature behavior". It would appear, on the contrary, that this is one of the most basic tasks a picture-viewer would have to deal with.

I must confess, Pierre's comment in a PM over a month ago, that "Only few users use it like that..." has left me a bit confused and helpless, as I - on the other hand - can't think of any other reasonable way to use a picture-viewer efficiently. I would assume that this is the most elementary task for it to perform.

Why would I want to not utilize the full screen size to view an image at its best quality/resolution possible? And why on the other hand would I want to use less than the maximum screen-area for browsing when there is a large number of images to comb through and to organize?

This would seem to be of even more crucial importance on mobile devices with very limited screen-areas, but AFAIK the same problem persists in the new MP-version.

greetings
algol1

[xnview]

Given the slow rate of reactions here, the question arises, if "XnView classic" has been abandoned recently.

It's not abandoned, this bug will be fixed asap

[algol1]

Thank you very much, Pierre, for both the good news that also the classic version still "lives" and that the problem described will soon be history.

My criticism was never meant to belittle the huge effort behind XnView in any way but on the contrary to help remove an "unworthy nuisance" from an otherwise excellent program with a canopy of features.

greetings
algol1

[thibaud]

Given the slow rate of reactions here, the question arises, if "XnView classic" has been abandoned recently.

It's not abandoned, this bug will be fixed asap

You may want to fix this very same issue in xnviewMP while you are at it

[xnview]

Given the slow rate of reactions here, the question arises, if "XnView classic" has been abandoned recently.

It's not abandoned, this bug will be fixed asap

You may want to fix this very same issue in xnviewMP while you are at it

you have similar bug in XnViewMP???

[thibaud]

you have similar bug in XnViewMP???

when opening an image from windows explorer in xnviewmp it opens in full screen (fine)
but when switching to browser (whichever way: middle click, enter, double click) the browser window never opens maximized.
this extremely annoying bug has been there since I first try xnviewMP btw

[xnview]

you have similar bug in XnViewMP???

when opening an image from windows explorer in xnviewmp it opens in full screen (fine)
but when switching to browser (whichever way: middle click, enter, double click) the browser window never opens maximized.
this extremely annoying bug has been there since I first try xnviewMP btw

oh ok, could you post this one in XnViewMP forum, please?

[algol1]

you have similar bug in XnViewMP???

I concur. As I have already mentioned above, not only is this bug present in a similar way in XnViewMP, it is _exactly_ the same bug.

The fact that it is so elementary and yet there seemingly have been no complaints about it for years and up until my post was the very reason why I didn't even dare to issue a bug-report in the appropriate section initially for fear I would only make a fool of myself, as this could presumably only be due to a silly mistake I made in the configuration. So I decided to put this issue as a question first but then learned from the initial answers that there obviously was no remedy to be found in better/different configuration settings and it finally became clear that this was a massive bug, plain and simple.

greetings
algol1