XnView Memory Usage

[Prager]

Hi,

First, the following is not meant to be a criticism of XnView in any way. I remain a faithful user of XnView in both Windows and Linux. Ok, with that out of the way, here's my question :

Why does XnView use so much RAM? I've compared XnView and Irfanview (latest versions) in various stages of load.

1. Upon startup with no image loaded or thumbnail displayed. XnV will typically take around 10,000+ KB. Irfanview will take between a few hundred to 2,000 KB.

2. With 1 image loaded, depending on the size of that image, XnView can use up to 12,000 KB RAM while IrfanView stays below 10,000 KB.

3. With no image loaded but in thumbnail browser mode for a directory of 700 images, Xn uses 22,000 KB while Irfan uses 16,000 KB.

Again, let me emphasise that this is not a dig at XnView. I much prefer the layout and UI to other viewers but do have a slight concern about the memory usage.

Thanks.

[xnview]

First, the following is not meant to be a criticism of XnView in any way. I remain a faithful user of XnView in both Windows and Linux. Ok, with that out of the way, here's my question :

Why does XnView use so much RAM? I've compared XnView and Irfanview (latest versions) in various stages of load.

1. Upon startup with no image loaded or thumbnail displayed. XnV will typically take around 10,000+ KB. Irfanview will take between a few hundred to 2,000 KB.

2. With 1 image loaded, depending on the size of that image, XnView can use up to 12,000 KB RAM while IrfanView stays below 10,000 KB.

3. With no image loaded but in thumbnail browser mode for a directory of 700 images, Xn uses 22,000 KB while Irfan uses 16,000 KB.

Again, let me emphasise that this is not a dig at XnView. I much prefer the layout and UI to other viewers but do have a slight concern about the memory usage.

Do you have plugins? Could you rename the plugins folder?
Are you sure that the size of thumbnails are the same?
Pierre.

[Guest]

http://img1.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/b/4/a ... d_full.jpg
It is an image.
So I want to know how much memory yourth XnView used?

I have on XnView 1.90.2: zoom 100% - 19 Mb, 200% - 25%, 400% - 47 Mb, 600% - 86 Mb.

That is normal memory usage?

[murthy363]

Do you have plugins? Could you rename the plugins folder?
Are you sure that the size of thumbnails are the same?
Pierre.

Plugins renamed. Addons NOT renamed.
An empty folder is browsed.
under these conditions, the memory usage for different programs is :

FastStone Viewer : 19,340 KB

Photomeister : 11,564 KB

XnView : 10.444 KB

IrfanView: 4,448 KB

Memory usage is a notable parameter. But more than the memory usage, it is the features which make life easy that decides the selection of the Image viewer.

These observations give a general view only and may not be considered to be test results.

In spite of the higher memory usage, I prefer XnView for it's features and the first two for some their features. ( Particularly the feature to rearrange the sequence of the photos with the thumbnail view prior to renaming / renumbering.)

Thanks for Pierre for making available the enjoyable image bowser with features added version after version.

[Clo]

Hello !

• I've downloaded you image, here it doesn't need more than 2 MiB in View mode, any scale.

• In Browser mode (thumb nails displayed) used memory is ~10MiB, this is related to the content of the folder, of course.
Here, the folder contains 32 images (various formats) for 15.5 Mio…
- Zoom High quality is OFF (both enlarge¦reduce)
- Read one image ahead and keep previous image in cache are ON.

- Total RAM installed is 512 Mib, shared with the on-board video device.
- No less than 182 MiB free when displaying your sample in Browser mode…
- Win swap file is on, and I've “Cacheman” to manage the memory thingy…
Win XP-Pro SP1 (French¦English)

KR
Claude
Clo

[foxyshadis]

Yes, it's the HQ mode that uses up extra memory (LQ is fast enough that it doesn't need to at all). If it didn't use up extra memory, it'd work more like the built-in picture/fax viewer, which has to re-resize everytime you move the view window. Annoying!

You can roughly calculate the minimum it'll need easily: (width x height x 3) x (1 + (zoom squared)). 722x900x3x(1+6.00x6.00) = 72MB. Then there's other program overhead to make up the rest. The extra +1 is to keep the original unzoomed view in memory.

Most software uses 32-bit rgb in memory for speed, so xnview's use of 24-bit to save memory is cool.