xnview mp 0.84 is fast, 0.85 is slow

[fred.jp]

From these topics, it seems the lagginess is caused by qt.

viewtopic.php?t=37831
https://forum.xnview.com/viewtopic.php? ... 751586b052

On the same Win 10 PC,
Xnview MP 0.84 opens any image instantly (< 0.5s),
while 0.85-0.94 need 1-2s to load a simple full hd jpeg.

I compared 0.84 and 0.85,
and found that beside the difference in qt libraries,
0.85 is the first versoin to include icuin57.dll (some unicode libraries?).

Is it part of the reasons to the problem?

Meanwhile I will stick with 0.84.

Xnview is a great image viewer,
(0.84 is) faster than fastsone and a lot of other viewers that claim to be fast and lightweight.
Mangameeya (dev stopped for a long time) is probably the only thing faster.
Thank you!

[Brother Gabriel-Marie]

I'm running 0.94 and don't have any lag at all loading images. They all open instantly, even 5mb jpegs. (running Windows 7)

I've always loved how fast MP is. I even use MP instead of Adobe Bridge. MP is soooo fast.

Now, I admit, it will take a tad bit longer if you load a directory full of images for the first time - MP has to build the cache for that directory in order to build the thumbnails for the browser view, you know. But after that it's lightning fast.

[fred.jp]

I'm running 0.94 and don't have any lag at all loading images. They all open instantly, even 5mb jpegs. (running Windows 7)

I've always loved how fast MP is. I even use MP instead of Adobe Bridge. MP is soooo fast.

Now, I admit, it will take a tad bit longer if you load a directory full of images for the first time - MP has to build the cache for that directory in order to build the thumbnails for the browser view, you know. But after that it's lightning fast.

I am using Win 10,
and I notice the lagginess of 0.85 when I open images from windows file explorer.

[xnview]

and I notice the lagginess of 0.85 when I open images from windows file explorer.

A lot?

It seems that the problem occurs on some Win 7 & 10 with lot of fonts, the issue is not with icu* dll, but QT's version (5.6.2 -> 5.

[Brother Gabriel-Marie]

Not for me, actually, I have 1033 fonts installed - maybe that doesn't qualify as a lot.
I have at times noticed lagginess but most of the time MP is blazing fast. Now I'm only saying this (as it isn't my thread) because I think it's probably a windows issue somehow.

[fred.jp]

and I notice the lagginess of 0.85 when I open images from windows file explorer.

A lot?

It seems that the problem occurs on some Win 7 & 10 with lot of fonts, the issue is not with icu* dll, but QT's version (5.6.2 -> 5.

Xnview MP 0.84 opens any image instantly (< 0.5s),
while 0.85-0.94 need 1-2s to load a simple full hd jpeg.

These are the figures of opening images from windows file explorer,
not from xnview's browser mode.

Yes it is very noticeable coz xnview used to be a very very fast program.
(It is still faster than most alternatives, only behind mangameeya coz it is a pure viewer.)

I have only 200 fonts installed.
I am using an i5 CPU, 8GB ram and a SSD.

If the problem is caused by the newer version of QT,
then let's hope that its developers could fix it before the next next olympic games... (2024)

[xnview]

Xnview MP 0.84 opens any image instantly (< 0.5s),
while 0.85-0.94 need 1-2s to load a simple full hd jpeg.

When you open the browser you have not this delay?
If you try to open a image file from a folder with only this file, same delay?

[fred.jp]

Xnview MP 0.84 opens any image instantly (< 0.5s),
while 0.85-0.94 need 1-2s to load a simple full hd jpeg.

When you open the browser you have not this delay?
If you try to open a image file from a folder with only this file, same delay?

Yes, the delay of 0.85 startup is still there if I just open the program but not any images, the xnview browser mode only.

And I tried to start 0.84 and 0.85 in different patterns (e.g. start 0.84 then 0.85, then 0.85, then 0.84...),
0.85's delay is consistent, while 0.84 always show up immediately.

[fred.jp]

When you open the browser you have not this delay?
If you try to open a image file from a folder with only this file, same delay?

Yes, the delay of 0.85 startup is still there if I just open the program but not any images, the xnview browser mode only.

And I tried to start 0.84 and 0.85 in different patterns (e.g. start 0.84 then 0.85, then 0.85, then 0.84...),
0.85's delay is consistent, while 0.84 always show up immediately.

Do you observe similar result in your machine? (which likely has a high spec than mine)

I just tested the new 0.95 too.
I noticed a slight speed improvemet.
But still, I would rank the startup speeds as : 0.84 >> 0.95 ~= 0.85 > 0.94

[xnview]

But still, I would rank the startup speeds as : 0.84 >> 0.95 ~= 0.85 > 0.94

If you try to open a image file from a folder with only this file, same delay?

And do you have a lot of fonts?

[fred.jp]

But still, I would rank the startup speeds as : 0.84 >> 0.95 ~= 0.85 > 0.94

If you try to open a image file from a folder with only this file, same delay?

And do you have a lot of fonts?

Yes.
Just now I put 1 1920x1080 png file to a ramdisk drive.
Then I tried to open it with 0.84, 0.85, and 0.95.

Still 0.84 open the image almost instantly, from windows file explorer.
And 0.85, 0.95 both have a consistent delay of around 1 second.

For the fonts, I have around 200 fonts that comes with win10 and office.
I think it is on the low side?

[xnview]

Still 0.84 open the image almost instantly, from windows file explorer.
And 0.85, 0.95 both have a consistent delay of around 1 second.

could you make a video with 0.84 & 0.95 when starting in browser mode & view mode?

[BK201]

0.95 here

The first startup is extremely slow, takes like 10 seconds

Later runs are normal

[xnview]

0.95 here

The first startup is extremely slow, takes like 10 seconds

Later runs are normal

same with 0.94?

[BK201]

0.95 here

The first startup is extremely slow, takes like 10 seconds

Later runs are normal

same with 0.94?

0.94.2, yes (not quite sure, can't remember)