Your motto says "efficient multimedia viewer, browser..." Well in my own observation that is simply not true. XnView is way to inefficient, it sucks up 140mb ram for viewing my 4000+ image folder. Not convinced, I downloaded some other image viewer apps from download.com and this is what I found out:
For the same 4000+ image folder all apps use 120x90 pix thumbnail size:
XnView: 137mb of ram
FastStone: 141mb of ram
Acdsee8: 85mb of ram
Picassa2: 42mb of ram
Antares10: 21mb of ram.
All apps have roughly the same features and functions and can be used for the same purpose of viewing image collections.
I use my pc for graphics editing using Photoshop and Fireworks as my primary tools, so please stop stealing unnecessary memory from them. Why is that to display a bunch of thumbnails on screen take so much resource from the system? To me it is like you give me a free bmw coupe but with half the horsepower and triple the fuel consumption. Useless.
Way too Inefficient
Moderators: helmut, XnTriq, xnview
You make it sound like, you are somehow forced to use XnView. You know it's up to you to decide if you want to use XnView or not. And if you think that, otherwise XnView is so good that you don't want to use any other viewer, you could just go to the Requests & Suggestions or even in Bug Reports section and write a nice long requests/bug report about, XnView is using too much resources... But! Oh no you don't, just go and blame that nView is somehow "stealing unnecessary memory" and flame XnView with unrelevant accusations.
You know what? I think that, you are just another internet jerk who is only looking for nex meaningless fight/forum to shit on. Please prove me wrong.
You know what? I think that, you are just another internet jerk who is only looking for nex meaningless fight/forum to shit on. Please prove me wrong.
XnView Tweak UI - Tool to customize your XnView beyond the regular XnView options.
UI-less Settings - Documentation of all the hidden settings in XnView.
XFAM - Tool to create and customize XnView file associations.
UI-less Settings - Documentation of all the hidden settings in XnView.
XFAM - Tool to create and customize XnView file associations.
finas, your memory usage measurements may be correct, but you should not just see the downsides of XnView and only complain. And don't forget: XnView is given to you for free.
Memory usage can have various reasons, e.g. caching. So what may look as a disadvantage at first glance can be in fact a big advantage when using a software.
My first guess is that caching uses the memory, you can quickly verify by disabling chaching (Tools > Options, category "Browser > Cache", checkbox "Enable Caching).
It would be good and constructive if you could help us to track the reason for the memory usage. Pierre is the developer of XnView and may even know what's going on, already.
Memory usage can have various reasons, e.g. caching. So what may look as a disadvantage at first glance can be in fact a big advantage when using a software.
My first guess is that caching uses the memory, you can quickly verify by disabling chaching (Tools > Options, category "Browser > Cache", checkbox "Enable Caching).
It would be good and constructive if you could help us to track the reason for the memory usage. Pierre is the developer of XnView and may even know what's going on, already.
Way too inefficient = need improvement
Please don't attack me for exposing the other dark side of image viewers, not just XnView. This forum is already full of praises and trivial request/suggestions for XnView. My first post is indeed targeted at the developers of XnView, as well as the general "open minded" users. That way the XnView team might get informed of the other big homework that is waiting for them. That is of course if they wish to make their product the best in the class. Free software doesnt have to be crappy software. There are many excellent free software. And that is the goal that needs to be set.
The way I see it, XnView team is like a car builder. They have managed to build a nice looking car, the bodywork, the interior, suspension are all nicely done. But the engine and the drivetrain need a major redesign. Once that is done, we will all benefit from it.
The way I see it, XnView team is like a car builder. They have managed to build a nice looking car, the bodywork, the interior, suspension are all nicely done. But the engine and the drivetrain need a major redesign. Once that is done, we will all benefit from it.
Not the only one.
I've just downloaded and try other image viewers:
For the same test case 4000 images at 120x90 thumbnail size.
Microsoft MAX(beta): 210mb of ram.
Microsoft Digital Image Starter Edition 2006: Did not finish after more than 20 min.
Adobe Bridge: 180mb of ram.
But..
ThumbPlus7: only 38mb of ram
ImageWalker: only 32mb of ram
So c'mon Pierre please give the Citroen a decent engine. Others can do it you can too.
For the same test case 4000 images at 120x90 thumbnail size.
Microsoft MAX(beta): 210mb of ram.
Microsoft Digital Image Starter Edition 2006: Did not finish after more than 20 min.
Adobe Bridge: 180mb of ram.
But..
ThumbPlus7: only 38mb of ram
ImageWalker: only 32mb of ram
So c'mon Pierre please give the Citroen a decent engine. Others can do it you can too.
2Finas
How could you be more insulting to Pierre? Here's a guy who makes a fine product and listens to all of us about the design of HIS (HIS!) software which, incidentally he also gives away for free!!!! Whazzup with that?
Well, I don't know what motivates him but I (for one of many) am very grateful for XNView and find the tone of your remarks totally un-called for.
I have been using XNView for ages, have tried ALL of the other viewers you mentioned and many more that you don't, and still use XNView for the majority of my viewing and image adjustment. It is a fine and creatively designed tool.
One might turn around and ask you why you quibble over ~80Mb of memory. Windows manages memory fairly efficiently. If you have memory problems while running XNView simultaneously with Photoshop, 80Mb isn't going to make a perceivable difference.
Put a lot more memory on your motherboard! All your software will benefit.
I personally recommend 1 Gb as the bare minimum in an XP environment.
How could you be more insulting to Pierre? Here's a guy who makes a fine product and listens to all of us about the design of HIS (HIS!) software which, incidentally he also gives away for free!!!! Whazzup with that?
Well, I don't know what motivates him but I (for one of many) am very grateful for XNView and find the tone of your remarks totally un-called for.
I have been using XNView for ages, have tried ALL of the other viewers you mentioned and many more that you don't, and still use XNView for the majority of my viewing and image adjustment. It is a fine and creatively designed tool.
One might turn around and ask you why you quibble over ~80Mb of memory. Windows manages memory fairly efficiently. If you have memory problems while running XNView simultaneously with Photoshop, 80Mb isn't going to make a perceivable difference.
Put a lot more memory on your motherboard! All your software will benefit.
I personally recommend 1 Gb as the bare minimum in an XP environment.
John
Re: Way too inefficient = need improvement
Putting emphasize on the bad things from the very beginning is a pretty strange way to motivate people and will work in very few cases only. (Reminds me of the saying "Second winner is first looser."). Last not least it is a bad way to introduce yourself.finas wrote:Please don't attack me for exposing the other dark side of image viewers, not just XnView. This forum is already full of praises and trivial request/suggestions for XnView. ...
What you have written in your last post is not much better: It sounds as if there has been a big problem in XnView and everyone in the forum has tried to hide it and make a secret out of it so far. And in no case XnView can be used any longer, unless this serious memory problem is solved.
There are many people (including me) using XnView quite happily. Your use case "4000 images in one directory" is rather an exception than a rule. As John has pointed out, when working with graphics seriously, you will have to spend some money on RAM, anyway.
Enough of critizising your style, let's focus one the real problem:
Sure enough things like performance and memory usage play an important role and must not be forgotten. Let's see what Pierre can say about the memory usage of XnView. Also, I'm interested to read what your result of "caching disabled" is - see my previous post.
Greetings, Helmut
Finas's thread is "inefficient" and "useless".
And this is why: this issue has already been reported and as explained, there is a balance between speed of browsing/scrolling through thumbnails vs memory. XnView has chosen speed (and it is optimized in that way), but this can be discussed further and updated in a constructive way, in that previous thread.
Finas, I found your tone extremely disrespectful to Pierre's work and to the forum etiquette.
Olivier
And this is why: this issue has already been reported and as explained, there is a balance between speed of browsing/scrolling through thumbnails vs memory. XnView has chosen speed (and it is optimized in that way), but this can be discussed further and updated in a constructive way, in that previous thread.
Finas, I found your tone extremely disrespectful to Pierre's work and to the forum etiquette.
Olivier
Dude if you think it consumes too much RAM you have the right to voice your opinion here (after all this is a discussion board not a fan club), however stating in your first post that it's "way too inefficient" is just deliberately provocative and counter-productive IMO.
Amazing you know Citroen in Singapore though
Amazing you know Citroen in Singapore though
My apology to all loyal XnView users.
Try comparing XnView with Antares10 http://www.download.com/Antares10/3000- ... 63425.html , and see the big performance difference. Too bad it cant handle as many file formats as XnView. So the point is working with large collection of images while not monopolizing the PC is indeed possible.
Olive I used to own a 83 Citroen Pallas CX, very nice looking car, well ahead of its competition in terms of style and design at that time.
Try comparing XnView with Antares10 http://www.download.com/Antares10/3000- ... 63425.html , and see the big performance difference. Too bad it cant handle as many file formats as XnView. So the point is working with large collection of images while not monopolizing the PC is indeed possible.
Olive I used to own a 83 Citroen Pallas CX, very nice looking car, well ahead of its competition in terms of style and design at that time.
Re: Way too Inefficient
Finas:finas wrote:For the same 4000+ image folder all apps use 120x90 pix thumbnail size:
XnView: 137mb of ram
Antares10: 21mb of ram.
- how does Antares behave when scrolling rapidly through pages of thumbnails? (responsiveness and if possible: CPU and RAM use while scrolling)
- what is your system? (CPU, RAM, Drives, OS)
Thanks
Olivier
PS: I am interested for an improvement here as well
My work system is: AMD Sempron SocketA 2400, 512mb ram, WinXP sp2 running dual CRT 17" mon @1024x768 85hz from a Radeon 9550 AGP.
I believe Antares does scroll rapid enough at a somewhat constant pace without any perceptible delay or stuttering. Using the scroll bar arrow up/down is slower than just simply move around the grip area or selecting an image then using the kb up/down key.
The Ram consumption remained constant througout scrolling from top to very bottom. CPU (using taskman) showed 50% using the keyboard up down keys, and 7% using the scroll bar.
The amazing thing is there is a right mouse menu on the scroll bar that says Auto up or Auto down, and when you select it the whole thumbnail area will scroll continuously like an animation. Plus the thumbnail area itself seems to be moveable by holding the left mouse button to pan up or down. Very nice. But like I said before it does not support jpeg2000 or nikon raw format, although it does handle video clips nicely.
I believe Antares does scroll rapid enough at a somewhat constant pace without any perceptible delay or stuttering. Using the scroll bar arrow up/down is slower than just simply move around the grip area or selecting an image then using the kb up/down key.
The Ram consumption remained constant througout scrolling from top to very bottom. CPU (using taskman) showed 50% using the keyboard up down keys, and 7% using the scroll bar.
The amazing thing is there is a right mouse menu on the scroll bar that says Auto up or Auto down, and when you select it the whole thumbnail area will scroll continuously like an animation. Plus the thumbnail area itself seems to be moveable by holding the left mouse button to pan up or down. Very nice. But like I said before it does not support jpeg2000 or nikon raw format, although it does handle video clips nicely.
Ok... it looks as it is feasable then... 
I also have folders with thousands of images (still growing) WITH large thumbnails, and will get the same issue sooner or later.
Although I don't consider this change to be 'urgent' (ie: not for next version, of course), I think that it would be a welcomed improvement and support it.
Olivier
I also have folders with thousands of images (still growing) WITH large thumbnails, and will get the same issue sooner or later.
Although I don't consider this change to be 'urgent' (ie: not for next version, of course), I think that it would be a welcomed improvement and support it.
Olivier