Thumbnail caching...

[TsunamiZ]

Please add thumbnail caching to speed up viewing of folders with a lot of images.  Users shouldn't have to reprocess thumbnails for images if they have already done so.  

Any file browser that has thumbnail view is expected to have thumbnail caching--it's common sense.  

XnView will soon have "smart thumbnail cache management" by limiting the cache by size or days--which would be great for x2 to have when caching is implemented.

Also would be nice to have option not to create thumbnail for folder icons--another option XnView already has.  This can increase speed for thumbnail view, for users that prefer it.  :idea:

[TsunamiZ]

Or perhaps support XP folder thumbnail cache files [thumb.db files]?

[nikos]

sadly m$ kept those a secret for their own use only!

[TsunamiZ]

Then will xplorer2 find it's own way of caching thumbnail files?  This would save a lot of processing time for folders that contain large numbers of thumbnailed image files.

[nikos]

x2 may not have caching but it does use smart background extraction only for thumbnails you actually try to see. I guess if your folders are really big then the existing thumbnail system will struggle

[TsunamiZ]

Yeah it's a struggle, especially in todays times of the digital camera and online imagery.  An efficient thumbnail caching system will help immensely.  

[JamieG]

Caching is nice for viewing stable directories.  Before I discovered xplorer2, I configured MS Explorer to cache thumbnails.  After a short time, however, I disabled this due to the disadvantages:

- it eats up amazing amounts of disk space over time
- the caches get recreated too easily when files are renamed & I seem to recall they just got bigger & bigger
- moving directories around (without the benefits of Nikos's (R)Robust(R) copy/move facilities) hang when then encounter the "system" Thumbs.db files
- they're annoyances for backups (another oddball thing to exclude)

If your system has a decent amount of RAM, fast disks and a reasonably modern processor, there isn't all that much of a gain to thumbnail caching.

[TsunamiZ]

JamieG:

Apparently your computing experience with thumbnail caching is different from most of us.  I haven't encountered any drawbacks by using caching.  In XP, the thumbnail cache files are resized accordingly to not grow in redundant sizes.  And cache files can easily be removed by doing a file search for "thumbs.db" and deleting them to save space or remove clutter.  

My system is very very fast and I still would like to save thumbnail processing time by use of thumbnail caching.  And so would most users.  

[JamieG]

Nice to know they have a spokesman.  Cache away, TzunamiZ.  

[TsunamiZ]

Nice to know they have a spokesman.  Cache away, TzunamiZ.  

Just telling it the way it is.  

[WimdeLange]

Xnview? I must admint that when I want to browse folders with pictures, I don't use xplorer2, but xnview. Very fast, has a cache, which I don't use, I don't browse pictures often, and has all sort of build in utilities. Good enough for me, xplorer2 has it strenghts in other parts, so don't build it in. Another bloated piece of software is not what I'm waiting for.

[TsunamiZ]

Xnview? I must admint that when I want to browse folders with pictures, I don't use xplorer2, but xnview. Very fast, has a cache, which I don't use, I don't browse pictures often, and has all sort of build in utilities. Good enough for me, xplorer2 has it strenghts in other parts, so don't build it in. Another bloated piece of software is not what I'm waiting for.

Some of you people have to use the word "bloat" sparingly.  Adding such essential features to a program that's targeted at power users is not considered bloat.  If you want less power features, go use Windows Explorer.

And you mentioned you don't browse pictures much.  How does that make your opinion to not support thumbnail caching valid?  Leave it to the people who work extensively with image files and thumbnails voice their experiences.  And stop posting negatively against topics that you lack experience in.  :roll:

[WimdeLange]

Ouch? The fact that someone is browsing pictures often, doesn't make his opinion a valid one?. Especially if that person is using the 'wrong' tool . I'm very happy with xplorer2 as it is now. But the most important thing in this, is the fact is that what is essential for me is maybe not essential for you and the other way round. SO PLEASE, don't start a discussion about what is essential. I hate discussion like this tool is better than that tool. It all depends.

What is essential is that Nikos has written a very useful tool, that is stable and fast (those two are the most essential features for me, and bloat makes software unstable and slow). And for me, Nikos decides what is essential . He must have fun writing this program and putting in features is his decision. If he wants to be a graphics user, so be it. If the programs becomes slow, not useful anymore, and it does things I don't like, I'll switch (maybe to windows explorer, but not likely).

And indeed I'm a little negative about putting in some features that were mentioned. Because I think there are other tools that are better then xplorer2 in some areas (did I also mentioned Picase, that is a nice one, I consider myself a power user, and still I like that program )The fact that I'm not an 'expert' (I have several thousands pictures on my laptop that I use, but don't browse often, define expert, please?) doesn't mean I can't have an opinion, that can be useful.

[Gandolf]

... Leave it to the people who work extensively with image files and thumbnails voice their experiences...

Caching the way most windows programs do it does not work for people who work with graphics files and is a complete waste of time. If you edit, move, delete etc... large numbers of files then the system is spending all it's time re-writing the caches; only to have to do it again as soon as it's finished. Caching (of the normal windows type) is only of any use for viewing static image files.
A professional graphics viewer has a different caching system - when a file is changed it modifies the cache thumbnail with a flag indicating that the file has changed in some way (depending on the graphics viewer depends on the flag used). It does not re-write the cache. That option is done by the user when he has finished all his editing, only then is there any point in re-writing the cache(s).
x² is not a professional graphics viewer, it is a file manager.

[TsunamiZ]

xplorer2 is supposed to be a professional file manager.  Enough said.  And image files are one of the most commonly managed file types nowadays.  xplorer2 needs to at least measure up to this essential feature that Windows Explorer already has.  Thumbnail caching is a feature most file managers that support thumbnail views simply have.  It is not an exotic feature, as some of you make it sound.  :roll: