XnView Software

yilusheji wrote:open picture too slowly

I can confirm this. The classic XnView is much faster, tested on Win XP using a slightly outdated PC with old Pentium 4 CPU

thecodemonkey wrote:

yilusheji wrote:open picture too slowly

I can confirm this. The classic XnView is much faster, tested on Win XP using a slightly outdated PC with old Pentium 4 CPU

With 0.51?

yes, I used v0.51

slow when you double click on windows explorer and open the picture in xnViewMP?

opening pictures from Windows explorer or from the XnView browser is more or less equal. But also loading sub-dirs and previews from directories is faster in classic XnView

thecodemonkey wrote:opening pictures from Windows explorer or from the XnView browser is more or less equal.

slow?
Which format? I've tried to open an image from xnview browser in XnViewMP & XnView classic, and same time...

But also loading sub-dirs and previews from directories is faster in classic XnView

You means thumbnails?

xnview wrote:Which format?

The speed difference is most significant for large jpeg photos

xnview wrote:You means thumbnails?

Yes, thumbnails is the correct word here

thecodemonkey wrote:

xnview wrote:Which format?

The speed difference is most significant for large jpeg photos

Which size?

xnview wrote:You means thumbnails?

Yes, thumbnails is the correct word here

Do you use database? How many files in the folder? Do you use embedded thumbnail?

Files are of 4 MiB size (about 8 megapixels) at least. Folders contain up to 400 photos. I made a 'fair' comparison by turning off database cache in both MP and classic version. By turning it on loading thumbnails is faster of course. I didn't change the default settings for embedded thumbnails

thecodemonkey wrote:Files are of 4 MiB size (about 8 megapixels) at least. Folders contain up to 400 photos. I made a 'fair' comparison by turning off database cache in both MP and classic version. By turning it on loading thumbnails is faster of course. I didn't change the default settings for embedded thumbnails

And what is the difference? Which processor do you have? Could you send me a jpeg sample to try to reproduce?

Alright, I had enabled the high quality resizer in XnViewMP. With this turned off opening images to fullscreen isn't slower anymore. Sorry, my fault.
However, lo load thumbnails of the 400 photos XnViewMP takes about 15 seconds and XnView classic about 3 seconds (according to the progress bar at the bottom).

xnview wrote:Which processor do you have?

Pentium 4 @1.8 GHz

thecodemonkey wrote:However, lo load thumbnails of the 400 photos XnViewMP takes about 15 seconds and XnView classic about 3 seconds (according to the progress bar at the bottom).

Strange, i have the same time... Could you send me a jpeg file?

could you send me a sample file?

I have the same issue but I have version 0.81 (has been problem in two previous versions too at least).

Here's screenshots from MS Resource Monitor during startup.
http://imgur.com/a/PRllz
http://imgur.com/a/odN9V

It's rather troubling considering I have the thumbnail database disabled.
It doesn't matter what file I open to cause this. But it takes like 5-10 seconds to open them. This happens even regardless of if the folder I open the image in has no other images, so it's not building thumbnails for the other files in there.

It continues writing to the .db file for minutes after it has finally opened even if I'm not doing anything, so it's being rather bizarre.

No issues in regular XnView [non-MP] at all.

The image opened for the examples was about 2.7MB PNG file, but it also occurs with the very screenshots I linked.

Enmoku wrote:I have the same issue but I have version 0.81 (has been problem in two previous versions too at least).

i've sent a PM