Re: Patch to make progressive loading optional
Jon Colverson <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Dec 2004 03:31:43 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.apps.gqview.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
John Ellis wrote: > An option like this I would consider, but the unresponsive-while-loading side > effect is what I would like to avoid. ... > Please try the attached patch (to a clean GQview 1.5.4). Would something like > this be sufficient, or is it still too slow? > > The patch forces delay_flip for all images, the delay_flip ability was > introduced as a full screen option in 1.5.2 - this simply enables it everywhere. Ahh, I failed to notice this option. Might I suggest a different caption? Perhaps, "Wait until images have completely loaded before changing (in full screen)"? I'm only really concerned with fullscreen mode, so I don't mind that it's only used there. So, as you say, it comes down to performance. I did a quick check and non-progressive loading was about twice as fast. I was able to flip through 40 images in 25 seconds, versus 50 seconds for progressive. That was with preloading disabled, and the difference would be less noticeable in a real world situation where preloading was enabled and I wasn't flipping through as fast as I could. For the images I'm normally working with, and the hardware I'm using, the non-progressive loading was fast enough that the unresponsiveness wasn't noticeable. I'd say the overall user experience was better with non-progressive. I can understand the problem, though, because I tried a couple of 6000x6000 astronomical images, and it was unacceptably slow. Perhaps my option could be moved to the advanced tab, with a caution on the caption, such as: "Load images progressively (non-progressive is faster, but makes the interface unresponsive during image loading)". Oh, also, I should mention that a couple of times I've noticed a bug which looked like an infinite loop, with the repeating debug message: "error accepting socket: Socket operation on non-socket". I didn't think to attach a debugger at the time, but I will if I notice it again. I was running my build at the time, so there's a chance it was caused by my code. Thanks for your help. -- Jon ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/