XnView Software

Ty wrote:Is there an announcement/description of XnViewMP somewhere?

xnview ([url=http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?p=69114#p69114]What exactly is XnView MP?[/url]) wrote:Not exactly, xnview for un*x is very old, and use very old GUI (Motif). XnViewMP use the same source code for all platforms.
XnViewMP has a native unicode support, and will be able to load full bit depth picture (8/16/32 bits per component), ...

xnview ([url=http://newsgroup.xnview.com/viewtopic.php?p=69114#p69114]What exactly is XnView MP?[/url]) wrote:Not exactly, xnview for un*x is very old, and use very old GUI (Motif). XnViewMP use the same source code for all platforms.
XnViewMP has a native unicode support, and will be able to load full bit depth picture (8/16/32 bits per component), ...

and on top of that I believe xnviewMP will probably exist as a 64 bit executable as well at some point.

thibaud wrote:and on top of that I believe xnviewMP will probably exist as a 64 bit executable as well at some point.

Yes, for linux/macosx/windows x86 & 64bits

Thanks Thibaud and XnTriq for the links.

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:However, it's still not clear about the future of XnView. Two years from now is XnView for Windows going to exist?

xnview ([url=http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsgroup.xnview.com%2Fviewtopic.php%3Fp%3D79954%23p79954]Google Translation[/url]: Question sur XNView MP) wrote:

Mirada2000 wrote:XNView MP va remplacer Xnview ?

Peu etre, quand la MP aura toutes les fonctions de la version 1.97

Thanks, XnTriq. But still not 100% clear. Let me ask the "horse's mouth:"

Pierre, is 1.97 the "end of the line" for XnView/Windows? All new development is going to MP?

I hope so, because it's going to be a lot of work--even more than usual--to keep working on the old model as well as working on the new one.

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...

I say we go with "Mother Pucker."

It's so much richer and more evocotive than "multi-platform."

Ty wrote:I say we go with "Mother Pucker."

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

now now Let's remain serious on this issue

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

budz45 wrote:

Would you say this 16x16 looks more improved?

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.

JohnFredC wrote:budz45 wrote:

Would you say this 16x16 looks more improved?

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

@JohnFredC - you oppose a button idea or just a particular button as in the "captured" lookin

..even a glossy Apple Iphone like style