What MS jpeg viewers are there for win-98?

Ver. 4.20 executable = 459 KB.
Total folder = 10.3 MB w/plugins, 1.3 MB w/o.

--

Brian A. Sesko { MS MVP_Windows Desktop User Experience }
Conflicts start where information lacks.
http://basconotw.mvps.org/

Suggested posting do's/don'ts: http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to ask a question: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

> iview420_setup.exe
> It must be a self-extracting archive (I can't un-zip or un-rar it).

Yeah the exe is a for me unknown compressed archive... (or
have irfanview made the installer themself?)

but there is also a zip download.
at the bottom of page "Download" there is a link
"-> Other download sites (Mirrors)" and at the bottom of that page
there is the link to http://irfanview.tuwien.ac.at/iview420.zip
(Version 4.20, ZIP file, 1.15 MB)

On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:35:57 -0400, 98 Guy <98.TakeThisOut@Guy.com> wrote:

>Outlook 2000 (running on Win-9 opens jpegs attached to e-mails with MS
>Paint (at least it does for me). This is also the default viewer when
>jpegs are opened from explorer.
Free = irfanview or XnView

Non-Free = acdsee v 2.43, the last fast, unbuggy version.
[]'s

98 Guy <98 DeleteThis @Guy.com> wrote in news:48FB53DD.9D4F3C19@Guy.com:

> Outlook 2000 (running on Win-9 opens jpegs attached to
> e-mails with MS Paint (at least it does for me). This is
> also the default viewer when jpegs are opened from
> explorer.
>
> MS Paint does not have the capability to reduce the view to
> less than 100% or otherwise to "fit to window".
>
> What other bitmap viewing programs came with Win-9x or
> Office 2K Premium that I can easily set as the default
> viewer that allows more flexible scaling?
>
> Bonus question:
>
> Can Outlook be configured to display bitmaps (like jpeg's)
> in-line? I think Outlook Express does this - can Outlook
> do it too?

XnView is the leader here in my book

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/pierre.g/xnview/enhome.html

It's not just the executable size - it's the additional work that something
like Photo Editor does to set the image up for editing, configure for user
preferences, install editing tools etc. If your most frequent task when you
double-click an image is to make some changes and then save it, then an
editor is suitable as a default. But if you usually just look at it and
move on then you need a viewer not an editor.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
"98 Guy" <98 RemoveThis @Guy.com> wrote in message news:48FC034A.471E72FA@Guy.com...
> Jeff Richards wrote:
>
>> Photo Editor (like most image editing programs) is too big an
>> application to fire up each time you need to view a JPG.
>
> It's only 760 kb.
>
>> The Open default for JPG files should be Irfanview - it starts
>> quickly and consumes few resources.
>
> I've just downloaded (but haven't run) Irfanview:
>
> iview420_setup.exe
>
> It must be a self-extracting archive (I can't un-zip or un-rar it).
> It's 1.27 mb in size. What is the file-size of the unpacked Irfanview
> executable?

Jeff Richards wrote:

> It's not just the executable size -

I don't know what your problem is, but Photo Editor launches pretty
quickly and within 1 second of double-clicking on a jpeg (either from
explorer or from outlook attachment) I'm viewing the image.

With Photo Editor I can re-sample the image, crop it, save it to another
format, plus a bunch of other stuff that I agree not many people would
do. Maybe Irfanview can do all that stuff too (resample, crop, save to
another format). But as far as speed is concerned, Photo Editor seems
fast enough.

Maybe you're confusing Photo Editor with something like Photo Shop or
Corel Draw's Photo-paint (which takes the better part of 15 seconds to
load).