A Standard for Thumbnailers

Erlend Davidson E.R.M.Davidson at sms.ed.ac.uk
Tue Jan 9 13:29:44 PST 2007

Benedikt Meurer wrote:
> Erlend Davidson wrote:
>>> Nautilus thumbnailing appears to be quite slow, compared to
>>> thumbnailing of pictures in windows.
>>> Wouldn't it peform better if thumbnailing didn't require to launch a
>>> program for each single image (using something similar to what fcgi
>>> does for web pages or something ?) 
>> 2.4GHz P4... 7 seconds in Thunar to thumbnail 42 jpgs.  Total filesize
>> around 40MB.
>> Can someone do a similar test on Windows?
> Windows Explorer was noticeably faster than Thunar and Nautilus. I've
> tested that some time ago with a large image folder (don't remember the
> numbers).
> But this is definitely not a problem with launching a separate
> application, since both Thunar and Nautilus handle JPEG thumbnailing
> internally. Maybe it's libjpeg being slower than the Windows equivalent.
Can you try convert (i.e. imlib) against libjpeg?
ImageMagick does seem to be very quick.
> Maybe the I/O throughput on Windows is better. Maybe the FAT subsystem
> on Windows is generally faster than on FreeBSD/Linux. Dunno.
> Benedikt

More information about the xdg mailing list