Anything faster than ACDsee Classic 2.43 yet????

[Richard Horner]

Is there any software that actually beats ACDSee Classic at browsing speed yet?

It seems that it's ruled th world for years now! And from what i understand, ACDSee itself just got slower and slower in the releases afterwards...

The speed i'm talking about is browsing speed, browsing thru your photos with the mouse wheel, in full screen. ACDSee Classic obviously had a good read-ahead buffer at work.

Would be good to see an even faster bit of software for browsing.

R.

--
Too many photos: http://rtw.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk
20 months in Australia... Also Fiji and a few for NZ, USA, SG
(All taken with: Canon S 4 0 0 (x2), S 8 0)
Now the proud owner of a 3 5 0 D + E F - S 1 7 - 8 5 I S
+ Sigma 1 0 - 20 + Tamron 2 8 - 3 0 0

 

[Jim&Co]

Because I think the new ACDSee Pro 2 is pretty fast but I don't have a comparison to judge it against.

I just checked and ACDSee Pro 2 displays full size JPEGs from my D200 (4.2mb-6.4mb) nearly as fast as I can press the curser key (a slight exageration). I'm not sure how to measure these things but I would gues around 3-4 ohotos per second. I can press faster and ACDSee keeps up changing files (I watched the file numbers go by) but the screen remains black as long as I'm pressing the curser ket that fast. Inbetween thiose speeds I can make the about 1/2 or 3/4 of each photo show on screen.

My system is modestly decent but not super or anything. It's a Core2 Duo 6300 machine with 6gb DDR2. I'm running Vista 64 bit to take advantage of the extra memory. I think any hesitation at displaying the photos might be due to my very modest Geforce 7300 w/ 128 mb RAM.

--

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

 

[VincentJ]

I used to play with acdsee pro 8 and it was pretty fast. My old acd 3.1 was probably the fastest but it can't handle most newer file formats I use (raw, etc).

 

[Jim&Co]

For some reason my computer wasn't rendering photo files as fast as it could when I tested earlier. I think maybe Vista had idled down the SATA drive earlier (I can hear it slowing down and even stoping often). I just ran a test with 143 NEF's (1.2 gig of 'em), tapping the curser key as fast I could, I believe I saw everyone flash by in the 21 seconds it took me to press the curser key 143 times. No black outs and no hesitation whatsoever.

I've decided that ACDSee Pro 2 is very, very fast.

--

Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.

 

[Eric Carlson]

I haven't tried recent versions of ACDSee. One nice thing about 2.43 is that it is fast even on my 1.3Ghz Celeron (P-III based). Startup and browsing are both fast. Not sure if any recent versions are as fast.

I tried a number of other programs, and none came anywhere close, though there are many more programs out there to try, including the more recent ACDSee's. Though, fortunately 2.43 is still doing the job for me, at least for now.

I definitely got my $26 worth when I bought ACDSee back in 1996 ($18 for v1.13 + $8 upgrade to ACDSee95, which I believe included all updates through ACDSee32 v2.43, aka. Classic.)
--

• Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

 

[Glen Barrington]

I think most people will find any version after V8 acceptably fast. I found the Pro 2 Pro2 quite fast. ACDSee has boldly stated V10 is the fastest organizer/viewer on the market. If it isn't, we'll start hearing about it pretty quickly.

Whether or not you want all the OTHER stuf that now comes with ACDSee titles, well this is a philosophical issue not a performance issue.
--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

 

[Richard Horner]

I used to play with acdsee pro 8 and it was pretty fast. My old acd
3.1 was probably the fastest but it can't handle most newer file
formats I use (raw, etc).

I tested 3.1 against 2.43 and i seem to remember that 2.43 was faster...
--
Too many photos: http://rtw.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk
20 months in Australia... Also Fiji and a few for NZ, USA, SG
(All taken with: Canon S 4 0 0 (x2), S 8 0)
Now the proud owner of a 3 5 0 D + E F - S 1 7 - 8 5 I S
+ Sigma 1 0 - 20 + Tamron 2 8 - 3 0 0

 

[Richard Horner]

I'm giving Pro 2 a trial and it seems to be just as fast pic to pic (if you turn off the instant preview option) as the Classic. But what we're really after is something that loads in less than a blink of an eye and cycles thru at he speed of light... So Classic still wins on the startup time...

It's a shame ACDSee could write a stand-alone viewer app that in optimised for speed, that then loads the rest only when you do want to do some editing...

--
Too many photos: http://rtw.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk
20 months in Australia... Also Fiji and a few for NZ, USA, SG
(All taken with: Canon S 4 0 0 (x2), S 8 0)
Now the proud owner of a 3 5 0 D + E F - S 1 7 - 8 5 I S
+ Sigma 1 0 - 20 + Tamron 2 8 - 3 0 0

 

[rhy7s]

I don't get the speed claims for ACDSee 2.43. It only seems to be quick if you allow for the fact that it doesn't render an image before allowing you to skip to the next one. And if you you wanted to skip that many then thumbnail views are a more efficient way of achieving that aim. The interface is clunky (and I'm a fan of no frills interfaces) and the feature set is so very limited, unless you're only dealing with jpegs. I prefer having at least the resampling options available in IrfanView or resampling plus colour management as per the FastStone viewers. I dunno, I prefer seeing my images rather than skipping them I suppose.

 

[Eric Carlson]

I don't skip images in ACDSee Classic. The full display of successive image in ACDSee classic is far faster than anything else I've tried, and when you occasionally handle a photo shoot of 700+ photos, on a relatively slow computer, fast software performance matters.

And I have no issues with its limited feature set, since I only use it to view, losslessly rotate, and cull JPGs (and a few other formats), and I don't need it to do anything else, since I have other software for everything else.

The only time ACDSee Classic will become outdated for me is if/when I move to an unsupported format (like Raw), but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

--

• Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

 

[Richard Horner]

I don't skip images in ACDSee Classic. The full display of successive
image in ACDSee classic is far faster than anything else I've tried,
and when you occasionally handle a photo shoot of 700+ photos, on a
relatively slow computer, fast software performance matters.

And I have no issues with its limited feature set, since I only use
it to view, losslessly rotate, and cull JPGs (and a few other
formats), and I don't need it to do anything else, since I have other
software for everything else.

The only time ACDSee Classic will become outdated for me is if/when I
move to an unsupported format (like Raw), but I don't think that will
happen any time soon.

--

• Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

I am pretty much 100% with you on this one Eric.
Viewing, rotating and culling is what i use it for too.

Being able to skip thru images without it painting the whole image on the screen is also a great strength... as you can whiz thru a load of pics at lightening speed, when trying to find the one you want.

It would be great to have a bit of software with the above 'focused' feature set that is FASTER tho...

Perhaps a customisable read-ahead buffer (as many of us do have lots of ram these days) that allows more than one image to be pre-loaded... as you do tend to stop and stare at the odd pic, giving it time to get well ahead of you. (following the chosen sort-order) and for it to leave a few old pics in memory as skipping back is quite common i find.

It would have been nice for ACDSee Classic to have customisable short-cut-keys as i'd love to program a couple of keys for rotating left and right 90°.

Rich.

--
Too many photos: http://rtw.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk
20 months in Australia... Also Fiji and a few for NZ, USA, SG
(All taken with: Canon S 4 0 0 (x2), S 8 0)
Now the proud owner of a 3 5 0 D + E F - S 1 7 - 8 5 I S
+ Sigma 1 0 - 20 + Tamron 2 8 - 3 0 0

 

[Torch]

I've used vers 5,7,8, now Pro 1st release. They have the nerve to call this Proc software. The copywrite stamp doesn't even provide a default so you can even use it.

So ACDsee is lost for any more improvements except running off the leash for features.

Out of serveral computers Pro still has to close itself occasionally with XP Pro to solve a problem regardless of RAM or Processor power.

They are also not upkeeping to cover all released camera RAW files in 1st Pro release. They want you to buy an uprade to do that. (eph-oh).

I DONT MEAN EDIT, JUST VIEW to manage the files which defeates the purpose of using their software.

Their Pro screensaver runs every second regardless of the time set to display.
I talked to them but it wasn't worth my time.

I detected they were not supremely interested and since they not paying for my trouble shooting efforts, in which they were pretending ignorance, ("We don't know our software does that".) I went back to work I was paid for. Besides I refuse to waste my lunch on their behalf.

I'll be holding off investing in any more versions of ACDSee Pro or whatever. The basic functions are the same in almost every version anyway.

Is there any software that actually beats ACDSee Classic at browsing
speed yet?
It seems that it's ruled th world for years now! And from what i
understand, ACDSee itself just got slower and slower in the releases
afterwards...

The speed i'm talking about is browsing speed, browsing thru your
photos with the mouse wheel, in full screen. ACDSee Classic
obviously had a good read-ahead buffer at work.

Would be good to see an even faster bit of software for browsing.

R.

--
Too many photos: http://rtw.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk
20 months in Australia... Also Fiji and a few for NZ, USA, SG
(All taken with: Canon S 4 0 0 (x2), S 8 0)
Now the proud owner of a 3 5 0 D + E F - S 1 7 - 8 5 I S
+ Sigma 1 0 - 20 + Tamron 2 8 - 3 0 0

--
Torch

 

[Eric Carlson]

Those sound like good enhancements. You'd think someone would come up with a modern viewer that is at least as fast and simple as ACDSee Classic, with a few ease-of-use and performance enhancements, like you suggest, but I haven't seen one yet.
--

• Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

 

[Fedorov]

I agree, that's why I'm running v3.1 which was the LAST of the FAST versions, it's lighting fast and a better solution to v2.43 which (correct me if I'm wrong) does not using any smooth resizing algorithm when fitting images to your screen so they look pixelated. v3.1 has a high quality option for the shrinking of large to fit your screen so your photos look much nicer viewing them with v3.1

 

[Vernon D Rainwater]

I agree, that's why I'm running v3.1 which was the LAST of the FAST
versions, it's lighting fast and a better solution to v2.43 which
(correct me if I'm wrong) does not using any smooth resizing
algorithm when fitting images to your screen so they look pixelated.
v3.1 has a high quality option for the shrinking of large to fit your
screen so your photos look much nicer viewing them with v3.1

I have used 3.1 for close to 6 years. I updated once (to 4.0 I believe) and it was a "tub of junk" as far as I was concerned -- so I got rid of it and went back to 3.1.

There are a few things that would be nice to have but 3.1 is certrainly very fast.
Also, I like the choice for different sizes for thumbnails.
--
Vernon...

 

[jafo818]

As someone posted, all they would have to do is let you configure how much RAM you want to devote to a memory cache, and perhaps how many pics to scan ahead, and they could figure out a balance where they'd keep X number in memory (that you've already viewed) and Y number that are beyond the file you're viewing.

Seems so simple and yet they've never implemented it. They think we all view pictures like a slide show.
--
jafo

CP8800 / SB-800
N80
50 1.8
28-105
70-300 ED

 

[jafo818]

I just installed ACDSee Classic 2.44 on my machine and ACDSee 10 is WAY faster at decoding images... They crawl down my screen with 2.44. It has read ahead and cache behind (funny names) enabled (they were by default). Perhaps on really old slow computers Classic is faster, but not on anything modern.

And I barely have a modern computer these days... LOL. A mere Pentium 4 3.0GHz.
--
jafo

CP8800 / SB-800
N80
50 1.8
28-105
70-300 ED

 

[Eric Carlson]

Maybe something is wrong with the way 2.44 interacts with your video card, since non-cached photos draw very quickly in 2.43 on my 1.3 Ghz Celeron (P-III based), and cached photos are essentially instantaneous. There's no way a 1.3Ghz Celeron will be faster than a 3.Ghz P-4, unless something is not working correctly with the P-4, or it has way too little RAM (I only have 768.Meg RAM).

--

• Eric, http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/

 

[Richard Horner]

...
And I have no issues with its limited feature set, since I only use
it to view, losslessly rotate, and cull JPGs (and a few other
formats), and I don't need it to do anything else, since I have other
software for everything else.
...

I am pretty much 100% with you on this one Eric.
Viewing, rotating and culling is what i use it for too.

I would add one more feature to the set, the ability to display a selection of the EXIF tags, i.e. shutter speed, aperture, ISO, etc...

This would be invaluable when evaluating your shots... especially when you are comparing several shots of the same scene with different perameters...

Speed, speed, speed... that's what we need!

--
Too many photos: http://rtw.cheeseandjamsandwich.co.uk
26 months in Australia... Also Fiji, NZ, USA, SG, Canada, Cook Islands, Bali...

(All taken with: C a n o n S 4 0 0 (x2), S 8 0, S D 8 0 0, S D 8 7 0 and 3 5 0 D + E F - S 1 7 - 8 5 I S + S i g m a 1 0 - 2 0 + T a m r o n 1 8 - 3 0 0)