(www.irfanview.com)

520 points omnibrain | 1 comments | 30 Mar 24 13:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.21s | source

Show context

instagraham ◴[30 Mar 24 17:21 UTC] No.39876705[source]▶

Why are most comments referring to having used this in the past tense? I was under the impression that it was still the best image viewer in town, on Windows at least

replies(15): >>39876768 #>>39876791 #>>39876805 #>>39876840 #>>39876941 #>>39876948 #>>39876972 #>>39877073 #>>39877116 #>>39877295 #>>39877296 #>>39877319 #>>39877579 #>>39878017 #>>39878986 #

allanrbo ◴[30 Mar 24 17:31 UTC] No.39876805[source]▶

>>39876705 #

It made more sense to go through the effort to install IrfanView when there was no image previewer built into windows, in the days of Windows 95/98/ME/2000. Those only had MS Paint, and I think some versions only supported bmp files (no jpeg or gif). Windows XP had an ok image previewer.

replies(2): >>39876877 #>>39883127 #

joshuaissac ◴[30 Mar 24 17:39 UTC] No.39876877[source]▶

>>39876805 #

> no image previewer built into windows, in the days of Windows 95/98/ME/2000

Windows has shipped with an image previewer since Windows ME. You can see it in this screenshot: https://www.reddit.com/r/windows98/comments/y1lj7x/winme_ima...

replies(3): >>39876934 #>>39876949 #>>39877218 #

1. earslap ◴[30 Mar 24 17:44 UTC] No.39876934[source]▶

>>39876877 #

IIRC the killer "feature" that gave these previewers traction (ACDSee, IrfanView etc.) was that you could just preview a bunch of images in a folder using your arrow keys. So you'd just load one and use arrow keys to see the other images in the same folder. With the built-in options, you'd have to double click images one by one (and close their windows one by one) which was a horrible UX compared to what these provided.

↑