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/