Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Technology Bugs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    New Technology Bugs

    Originally posted by Mij View Post
    New bugs come in with new technology. The Dual core Thumbnail crash problem was such a case. A number of us who suffered from it kept the issue alive for a long time and it was fixed (for me anyway) in v4.20. Impossible to say whether it was because of this forum or not unless Irfan tells us but I certainly do not regret the effort, although those that it did not affect must have got heartily sick of hearing about it.
    There are still some problems too when using IrfanView with Vista. Another cause worth fighting for IMHO.
    Good point. But why is this? If users meet the system requirements of a program such as IV, why does new technology cause problems? Why would Irfan not be able to produce a stable, working version of IV for Vista or Dual Core? Is he not familiar with these technologies despite them being around for awhile and becoming prevalent? Or is it just difficult determining what incompatibilities might arise? What about Triple and Quad Core? Did IV have problems trying to integrate with XP when it was new?

    I don't think people get sick of hearing about problems that don't affect them. More so, they are just sick of problems in general, and whether or not they will end up being one of those affected someday!

    #2
    I'm kinda happy with my single core. Early adopters of new technology always had and will face incompatibilities. If you want stable system for work, stick with known hardware and software, or else – experiment, fail, and try again. There are(were) many software products that don't function on multiprocessor systems. I have a very basic understanding in this phenonmenon: it's possible that parts of code that are intended to be executed in sequence and depend on each other's result, get done out order.

    XP and Vista caused trouble mostly by new imposed restrictions.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by j7n View Post
      I'm kinda happy with my single core...If you want stable system for work, stick with known hardware and software, or else – experiment, fail, and try again.
      I'm satisfied with single core, mostly because I have little reason to upgrade. But what is a person to do now, when the only processors available are not single core? The same goes for Vista, since MS makes it difficult for XP to live on. Build a system out of old components and used software?

      Comment


        #4
        I've been out loop for a couple months. So the cheap 4xx celerons are no longer, I see. But about now the multi-core issues should have been solved.

        What is "used software"? NT5 is not yet obsoleted by M$ and won't be for years. Remember how long it took for major manufacturers to abandon Win98. And NT 5 and 6 are closer in architecture.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by j7n View Post
          I've been out loop for a couple months. So the cheap 4xx celerons are no longer, I see. But about now the multi-core issues should have been solved.
          I still see a Celeron once in awhile, but even the cheapest PCs all come with dual cores! The only other way is to buy refurbished systems with single cores. Celeron systems though are probably a no-no since they would be the least performing machines on the market.

          Originally posted by j7n View Post
          What is "used software"? NT5 is not yet obsoleted by M$ and won't be for years. Remember how long it took for major manufacturers to abandon Win98. And NT 5 and 6 are closer in architecture.
          Used software is something that you find on e-bay or something. You have to buy used because there are no iterations of XP for sale retail, unless you know otherwise. I've only used OEM versions so far, though. But, if Vista is the only choice for new PCs, then one has to buy XP used if they don't like it. Also, isn't XP licensed for only one PC? I know there is a very strong following for XP. It would be a big mistake for anyone to try to phase it out for at least as long as 98, if not longer.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Skippybox View Post
            Used software is something that you find on e-bay or something. You have to buy used because there are no iterations of XP for sale retail, unless you know otherwise. I've only used OEM versions so far, though. But, if Vista is the only choice for new PCs, then one has to buy XP used if they don't like it.
            Well, if you but a PC with Vista (or simply buy Vista) you can request to Microsoft a downgrade of the license to XP for free.
            It would be a big mistake for anyone to try to phase it out for at least as long as 98, if not longer.
            You can be sure that Irfan is always trying to keep backward compatibility with older operating systems.
            Originally posted by j7n View Post
            XP and Vista caused trouble mostly by new imposed restrictions.
            We already talked about this here.
            IrfanPaint developer
            The latest stable IrfanPaint version is the 0.4.13.70.
            IrfanPaint is now open-source (released under BSD license).

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by MItaly View Post
              Well, if you but a PC with Vista (or simply buy Vista) you can request to Microsoft a downgrade of the license to XP for free.
              That's a great tip!

              You can be sure that Irfan is always trying to keep backward compatibility with older operating systems.
              It is sure good that someone is!

              We already talked about this here.
              Thanks for pointing out where to find the discussion, if I'm interested, but j7n summed it up well enough for me.

              Comment


                #8
                Perhaps this discussion should be split.

                It's not that you really need a license at home. Office environment is entirely different thing, unfortunately. You would never install the most recent software on old computers. So should these machines be put out of service permanently, because no software for them can be easily purchased? This applies not only to Vista.

                IMO the single core Celerons 420/430/440 were satisfactory for most computer uses and good value for the money. A "generation" ago we paid four times as much for a P4 that used three times as much power (read – noise) and did the same amount of work.

                Mitaly, you claimed that these restrictions have a good purpose and I'm not arguing about it today.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by j7n View Post
                  IMO the single core Celerons 420/430/440 were satisfactory for most computer uses and good value for the money. A "generation" ago we paid four times as much for a P4 that used three times as much power (read – noise) and did the same amount of work.
                  But what happens when you put Vista on a Celeron? Doesn't that extinguish the performance gains Celerons have made, since XP? As hardware improves, software just ends up taking advantage of it.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Then don't put Vista on it. It's kinda stupid to run software that makes your computer slower. But NT6 is most hungry for HDD and RAM space, CPU is not that important. And Vista can be trimmed down (not tested by me).

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by j7n View Post
                      But NT6 is most hungry for HDD and RAM space, CPU is not that important.
                      Well, that's good to hear. What's not good is the part about the HD. WinXP already drives me crazy (although I love it!) with space. I only have a 20GB HDD and my system drive (FAT32) is maxxed out to the 7.99GB limit, with only one GB left free. But the NTFS partition is way free! And most of my programs are not installed to the system drive either.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        You really should try out nLite if you feel that your system has limited resources, in this case disk space. I've built a light installation of WinXP Pro SP1 with this tool and "program files" & "winnt" directories now take up only 996 MB. And this is not a fresh install. If you select right options, the system will be more secure too (for example disable Autoplay).

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by j7n View Post
                          You really should try out nLite..."program files" & "winnt" directories now take up only 996 MB.
                          WOW!! I'll have to look into that. Thanks!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Sorry guys. I should have known better than to mention Vista. Since Skippybox is still hanging on in here, I guess that he does not mind too much where his thread has gone to though.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Mij View Post
                              Sorry guys. I should have known better than to mention Vista. Since Skippybox is still hanging on in here, I guess that he does not mind too much where his thread has gone to though.
                              You have nothing to be sorry about. Your contributions are always welcome, just as anyone else's is or should be. Its perfectly fine to stray off-topic if that's where the conversation needs to go. I'm fine with the way this thread has turned out, but others searching will probably wonder what happened. Besides, the thread already answered most of my questions and seems to get new life as it goes along!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X