←back to thread

IrfanView

(www.irfanview.com)
520 points omnibrain | 1 comments | 30 Mar 24 13:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.223s | 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 #
gsich ◴[30 Mar 24 17:30 UTC] No.39876791[source]▶
It's not.
replies(1): >>39876815 #
j45 ◴[30 Mar 24 17:32 UTC] No.39876815[source]▶
Alternative?
replies(2): >>39876837 #>>39880724 #
yau8edq12i ◴[30 Mar 24 17:35 UTC] No.39876837[source]▶
The built-in viewer in windows is fine. I can't really think of a feature that it doesn't have that I need. Could you say why irfanview gets your vote?
replies(5): >>39876911 #>>39876924 #>>39877245 #>>39877614 #>>39877682 #
1. j45 ◴[30 Mar 24 19:11 UTC] No.39877682[source]▶
Install it and you'll see within 5-10 minutes the next time you have go through a bunch of images, or do something to a bunch of images.

IrfanView likely still supports more formats, since it was earlier than any other tool. This means any edge cases in file encoding that might not work, or render ideally likely has been solved there first.

It probably has some batch file conversion tricks in it too.

IrfanView also provided for free for a lot of years what was hard to get without paying. If it existed on mac I'd be all over it.

Ah, the windows viewer always wasn't that good.

And if I remember the big first improvement of it was copying a lot of IrfanView.

Since this post, I remembered another old friend that was excellent on windows, AcdSEE. Also worth looking into.