v1.10 series: Files not displayed in expected order

[janus777]

When i browse picture NO.110, the previous one should have been 109，but it is NO.11
1.9.10 is right

[cday]

An unintended default setting change, I believe:

In the browser, View > Sort by, three selections required to fully define how files are listed.

[Silesian]

Hi, I have this problem too with v1.10.5.

I have many scans of old documents from archives. Some archives append random characters to the file names to protect themselves against mass downloading (is only a side issue).

The order (green) is displayed correctly in XnViewClassic and at least up to XnVieMP v.1.9.2. The Windows Photo Viewer can do this too, of course.

XnViewMP-ViewOrder.png

After XnViewMP v.1.9.2 (up to v1.10.x), this eventually stops working in Windows, the files are displayed in the red order. This means that the chronological order of content will be lost. The images are displayed in a useless order, see image (red).

The display order must, as before, follow the order in Explorer. At the moment, XnViewMP is no longer of any use to me; it’s annoying.

P.S.: The sort order in Explorer is: Name – ascending.

[jkm]

Hi, I have this problem too with v1.10.5.
...
The display order must, as before, follow the order in Explorer. At the moment, XnViewMP is no longer of any use to me; it’s annoying.

I'm very sorry to hear XnViewMP is no longer of any use to you. That's regrettable.

But Silesian, have you found a bug, or is this just user error?

Which of the name sorting options in the View->Sort By menu have you actually tried?

[cday]

Which of the name sorting options in the View->Sort By menu have you actually tried?

I would expect you to need the sort order I have always used, and had to restore after what I believe was a recentn unintended change:

Three selections: View > Sort by then Name | Ascending | Name - numeric order

The 1,10,11, 2... sort order evidently dates from the way sorting of text characters was implement in early computing, but indeed seems bizarre in modern computer interfaces.

[Silesian]

I'm very sorry to hear XnViewMP is no longer of any use to you. That's regrettable.

Yes also for me. If you you have simple file names like IMG_2716 ... IMG_2718 ... it's no problem.
But the reality can be more complicate, as shown.

Which of the name sorting options in the View->Sort By menu have you actually tried?

Important question:
Do you mean the setting of Windows Explorer or of XnViewMP (photo manager)?

I start the view always from Explorer and his set sort order.
This works with XnView Classic, XnvievMP 1.9.x ... but not with 1.10.x

[Silesian]

...in early computing, but indeed seems bizarre in modern computer interfaces.

Yes, especially since it worked up to v1.9.x. I’ve been developing software for over 40 years and I just "don’t understand the world anymore".

[jkm]

I'm very sorry to hear XnViewMP is no longer of any use to you. That's regrettable.

Yes also for me. If you you have simple file names like IMG_2716 ... IMG_2718 ... it's no problem.
But the reality can be more complicate, as shown.

Which of the name sorting options in the View->Sort By menu have you actually tried?

Important question:
Do you mean the setting of Windows Explorer or of XnViewMP (photo manager)?

I start the view always from Explorer and his set sort order.
This works with XnView Classic, XnvievMP 1.9.x ... but not with 1.10.x

Of course I mean in XnViewMP. That's the app you are reporting a bug for. What you do in Explorer is irrelevant.

So again, Which of the name sorting options in the View->Sort By menu (OF XNVIEWMP) have you actually tried?

[cday]

I think this issue is not a bug, but only an unintended change of default sort order in the latest release: restororing my usual sort order resolved the issue for me...

I would expect you to need the sort order I have always used, and had to restore after what I believe was a recentn unintended change:

Three selections: View > Sort by then Name | Ascending | Name - numeric order

Can you please try that sort order...

[Silesian]

@jkm / @ cday

Hello both of you,
thank you for your explanations and tips.

When I change the sort order in the MP BROWSER to “Name – ascending – numerical order by name”, it works as expected!

But I have to change this in the MP BROWSER, which I never use.

So I’d like:

- the default sort order is used as in Explorer (as in Classic / 1.9.x)
- and/or the sort order has the default setting “Name – ascending – numerical order”, as in 1.9.x.

I had also come to believe in meantime that the order had been changed in 1.10.x.
That is the "curse" of the "1000" options and "1001" use cases.

Or @xnview: "Never change a running well known system."

[cday]

Two takeaways:

o The sort order when files are viewed in the viewer/editor is set in the file browser, as it likely is in XnView Classic;

o I'm sure that the sort order change in recent releases was unintended, and we can expect it to be corrected in the next release.

Pierre?

[jkm]

o I'm sure that the sort order change in recent releases was unintended, and we can expect it to be corrected in the next release.

Pierre?

Unfortunately, no.

I actually checked old versions of the app. Here are the default sort orders, on first launch:

1.10.5: Name - Ascending - Numeric Order
1.10.1: Name - Ascending - Numeric Order
1.9.8: Name - Ascending - Numeric Order
1.9.6: Name - Ascending - Numeric Order
1.9.2: Name - Ascending - Numeric Order
1.8.3: Name - Ascending - Numeric Order

So it doesn't seem that the change was made by the developer...

Although evidently it was unintended.

(And there is no change in the upcoming 1.10.6. Still Name - Ascending - Numeric Order)

Yes, especially since it worked up to v1.9.x. I’ve been developing software for over 40 years and I just "don’t understand the world anymore".

So I’d like:

- the default sort order is used as in Explorer (as in Classic / 1.9.x)
- and/or the sort order has the default setting “Name – ascending – numerical order”, as in 1.9.x.

I had also come to believe in meantime that the order had been changed in 1.10.x.
That is the "curse" of the "1000" options and "1001" use cases.

Or @xnview: "Never change a running well known system."

Hmm...

Well, Silesian, I too started as a software developer in the 1980's, professionally.

So I'd expect anyone with that much experience and seasoning to be familiar with this old chestnut:

"Check the settings before assuming a bug."

[cday]

@jkm:

If the default sort order in 1.10.5 was unchanged, Name - Ascending - Numeric, why have a series of posters reported a changed sort order, and as I and Silesian have reported restored their previous, desired, sort order by selecting those options?

What am I missing...

[user0]

I thought this issue had already been discussed and a clear answer had been given..

If you have a problem with sort, remove columns entry from xnview.ini, there was a problem before 1.10.5 when importing previous config

[jkm]

If the default sort order in 1.10.5 was unchanged, Name - Ascending - Numeric, why have a series of posters reported a changed sort order, and as I and Silesian have reported restored their previous, desired, sort order by selecting those options?

What am I missing...

Well, obviously I can't explain the actions of individual users or why they think what they think. You're of course welcome to download old versions and check the default ini for yourself if you doubt the results.

But as I recall, in the large majority of cases of such "reports" it was not that they were reporting "the default sort order has changed" it's that they were reporting "my files show in the wrong order". Those were users who did not understand the sort options (I remember you yourself more than once trying to explain the additional options at the bottom of the menu) and who had also not even bothered to check their sort options. In this thread, neither user checked their sort options before posting a bug.

So in the case of users with such a level of awareness and perspicacity, I could speculate it's certainly possible for them to have inadvertently changed the sort order without intending or realizing it. A slight mis-positioning of the mouse is all it takes. Additionally, it's not even necessary to use the menu: if the header bar was ever shown (as in Details view) a click on the header bar would change the sort order. I know you know what you're doing and that you know how to use the app; that is not in question. Anyone can make a mistake and click the wrong thing in a GUI. I've done it myself. Everyone has. Hopefully when you do it, you notice you've done it. I did it last night, and luckily I noticed. If you don't notice, there may be a surprise later.

Based on an examination of the old versions, it does not seem that Pierre changed the sort order, accidentally or deliberately. The blanket statement "The default sort must have changed at some point" is not supported by testing. And if it wasn't the developer, how else could it get changed?

There have certainly been bugs in the past where XnViewMP settings were lost, corrupted, or malfunctioned due to conflicts. I've caught several of those myself (that were not publicized) so I'm well aware that could happen. It possible that there is some kind of occasional corruption or conflict in the settings that causes sorting to misbehave, even though the default was not changed.

So I'm not sure what else to tell you. If it's not developer action, then the alternatives are:
1. User error
2. An obscure corruption or conflict in settings that no one understands or has found how to reproduce that causes sorting to malfunction.

In the case of this particular thread, regardless of the cause, a check of the settings would have quickly corrected the issue for the user.