Best image viewer, and why?

[Sujakshan]

Iphoto

 

[ICE]

ACDSee 8

 

[Novindu]

WINdows picture n fax viewer da best

 

[Anusha]

WINdows picture n fax viewer da best

 

[chamithal]

Viewing - Windows picture n fax viewer
Editing - Paint.NET

 

[nEoN_wHitE]

ACDSee

well i havent used any other.. thats d reason

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa me 2
and im using da ver 9..
it easy maxxa and can do anythign v like with it

 

[nEoN_wHitE]

ACDSee 8

9

 

[nabil]

windws picture n fax viewer .. da vista 1
actually its called photo gallery

 

[Ranhiru]

I can count on this Micrsoft Picture and Fax Viewer! I mean it loadz quickly and and is not much of trouble! Simple and Sweet!

 

[Anusha]

I can count on this Micrsoft Picture and Fax Viewer! I mean it loadz quickly and and is not much of trouble! Simple and Sweet!

I would be using it if I was in XP. In Vista, I'm using IrfanView.

 

[shanX]

I've moved to IrfanView because it is very fast in rendering the images. It doesn't use antialiasing filters as most of the other viewers use. IMO, for just viewing purposes, that extra bit of quality improvement is not worth it, if it takes too long to render the image. Eg: it takes only 200 milliseconds to render a 4MPixel image in my PC with IrfanView.

ACDSee Pro 2.0 (still in beta) also has a very fast image rendering engine, but it's still in the beta and it crashed too often.

Irfan View, hmmm... although hav seen the setup file on cds, never tried

B4 gettin used to Windows Picture and Fax Viewer in XP, I used several versions of ACDsee, its just awesome

You care abt fast in image rendering???

Well, isnt ACDsee 2, an old version??

 

[shanX]

Viewing - Windows picture n fax viewer
Editing - Paint.NET

Macromedia Fireworks for editing

 

[chrishanfernando]

windows picture and fax viewer

cuz its really eazy than acdc

 

[Anusha]

Irfan View, hmmm... although hav seen the setup file on cds, never tried

B4 gettin used to Windows Picture and Fax Viewer in XP, I used several versions of ACDsee, its just awesome

You care abt fast in image rendering???

Well, isnt ACDsee 2, an old version??

It's ACDSee Pro 2
http://www.acdseepro.com/

(as in Premiere Pro 2 = 8th Premiere?)

About the rendering time....It's not a problem when the CPU is idle. But if the CPU is at full load and I wanna open an image, it will take too long, it the program is not optimized for faster viewing.

 

[shanX]

It's ACDSee Pro 2
http://www.acdseepro.com/

(as in Premiere Pro 2 = 8th Premiere?)

About the rendering time....It's not a problem when the CPU is idle. But if the CPU is at full load and I wanna open an image, it will take too long, it the program is not optimized for faster viewing.

k

Anyway am using WPFV, coz of its simplicity, rather than installing ACDsee

 

[tckrockz]

"used" b'cuz..i dnt use XP anymore..

in vista the default viewr..Image Gallery

same here

 

[Dath]

4.9

Coool my one counts only 3.1 b,cas of VGA

 

[Dath]

It's ACDSee Pro 2
http://www.acdseepro.com/

(as in Premiere Pro 2 = 8th Premiere?)

About the rendering time....It's not a problem when the CPU is idle. But if the CPU is at full load and I wanna open an image, it will take too long, it the program is not optimized for faster viewing.

never knew abt this

 

[Anusha]

k

Anyway am using WPFV, coz of its simplicity, rather than installing ACDsee

I just checked the image viewing capabilities of Vista's Windows Photo Gallery Viewer and IrfanView while the CPU is 100% at load (think of a video encoding scenario). It only took 1 second for IrfanView to show the image. WPGV took more than 5 seconds. It was a 4MPixel (2560x1600) wallpaper from Mac OSX.

 

[Anusha]

Coool my one counts only 3.1 b,cas of VGA

Mine too, because of the CPU and VGA. Both give 4.9.
CPU, because Vista thinks it's slow. (Vista gives 4.8 for 2.8GHz Pentium D!!! WTF?!!!)
VGA, because it doesn't support SM3.0