(www.irfanview.com)

Show context

donatj ◴[30 Mar 24 18:05 UTC] No.39877123[source]▶

That’s a name I have not heard in a long while. I used to use it back on Windows 95 because it was a faster way to view JPEGs than opening Internet Explorer. Everything about that makes me feel old.

replies(4): >>39877210 #>>39877250 #>>39877406 #>>39877485 #

1. 101008 ◴[30 Mar 24 18:13 UTC] No.39877210[source]▶

>>39877123 #

I opened the link first and I kept a few seconds trying to remember what we had to use to open JPEGs and GIFs back then. Then I read your comment. Right, IE for images. What a fun world we lived on!

replies(1): >>39877718 #

2. integricho ◴[30 Mar 24 19:15 UTC] No.39877718[source]▶

>>39877210 (TP) #

ACDSee 2.4 and 3.1 were similarly legendary and fast in both startup time and overall performance of image loading.

replies(2): >>39878132 #>>39882799 #

3. omnibrain ◴[30 Mar 24 20:05 UTC] No.39878132[source]▶

>>39877718 #

When ACDsee got bloated (and the shareware screen to nagging) I switched to IrfanView.

replies(1): >>39883540 #

4. therealmarv ◴[31 Mar 24 09:45 UTC] No.39882799[source]▶

>>39877718 #

Also remember the times... I think ACDsee 2.3.x was a game changer on Windows systems with little memory back in the day... it was so fast and displayed partially on the fly.

Btw I use a Mac nowadays and I get strong ACDsee vibes from open-source Phoenix Slides https://blyt.net/phxslides/ with browsing through images with the mouse-wheel ;)

5. DrSiemer ◴[31 Mar 24 12:11 UTC] No.39883540{3}[source]▶

>>39878132 #

ACDsee just kept getting worse until it just became unbearable. I did miss the image sorting abilities until I found PhotoSift.

replies(1): >>39886733 #

6. integricho ◴[31 Mar 24 18:31 UTC] No.39886733{4}[source]▶

>>39883540 #

sadly it did, the 3.1 version was the last one that I remember as still not bloated, 4.x was already bad. But up until that, 1.x, 2.x, ..., they were great.

↑