(www.irfanview.com)

520 points omnibrain | 1 comments | 30 Mar 24 13:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.212s | 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 #

1. HeckFeck ◴[31 Mar 24 10:55 UTC] No.39883127[source]▶

>>39876805 #

Windows 98 did have an image viewer but it was an optional component. It was called Imaging for Windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaging_for_Windows

There was also a Microsoft Photo Editor that was bundled with Office 97: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Photo_Editor

↑