• 0

i'm looking for an image viewer for w11


Question

hi

i'm looking for an image viewer for windows 11

I'm thinking to install or use the portable version of irfanview , it's faster free and it could be even portable, but what i don't like are the image file icons (explorer or operation system icons for example for jpg or gif or other file format) , they are so ugly

do you use the built in image apps or an external software ?

thanks

25 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 10:51, drugo said:

hi

i'm looking for an image viewer for windows 11

I'm thinking to install or use the portable version of irfanview , it's faster free and it could be even portable, but what i don't like are the image file icons (explorer or operation system icons for example for jpg or gif or other file format) , they are so ugly

do you use the built in image apps or an external software ?

thanks

I could not switch to any other Image Viewer program after I met Google Picasa (although it is long abandoned), none of the other programs look and feel is comes even close to it.

  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 09:50, ShadowLight said:

I could not switch to any other Image Viewer program after I met Google Picasa (although it is long abandoned), none of the other programs look and feel is comes even close to it.

hi , but can you still find picassa ?

thanks

On 24/02/2024 at 08:57, adrynalyne said:

I use ImageGlass. 

 

On 24/02/2024 at 10:07, Xahid said:

I use, JPEGview, for quick image viewer, and for Gallery access, I use ImageGlass. excellent combination

hi

JPEGview , it's impressive fast and imageGlass is great  

i did not know about imageglass ,is the zip portable?

thanks

On 24/02/2024 at 10:46, protocol7 said:

I used Pictureflect here. There's a pro version but the free version was all I needed.

hi , again i have never used , seems a great software

i used to know only irfanview ,honeyview and FastStone MaxView

are impressive fast too ,portable too , but the icons are very ugly

thanks

  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 17:34, drugo said:

wow

where have you found? 

and to open a single image?

thanks

 To open a single image just make picasa default file handler for the types you want from windows settings or right click file select 'open with' from context menu then select picasa and select default check box.

  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 04:46, protocol7 said:

I used Pictureflect here. There's a pro version but the free version was all I needed.

I've used Pictureflect (and the previous version which had a different name) for many years going back to Windows 8 (or maybe it was the very early years of Windows 10).  Overall, it works very well.  I do change a couple of settings regarding the view/zoom level when you open an image. I've also never needed the Pro version, though I probably should buy it or donate to help the developer since I've used this app so long on many PCs.

I also do use ImageGlass and have used that for a year or two.
 

  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 05:42, ShadowLight said:

I've found UpToDown.com quite slick for finding old versions of software that they have archived.  In my experience, I've found the files to be legit, the original files and not altered (based on checking the hash checksums of files).
 

  • Like 2
  • 0

For an extra layer of checking, you can always submit the file to VirusTotal
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

My backup of Google Picasa 3.9.141.259 installer has a SHA value in case anyone's interested.
SHA2-256 482C1A547D8D3AA25EE446D30EA986DE63EF8C8D68B8D1109DD3D9B714E73E08
It's passes VirusTotal & Eset scanning

I make it a habit to squirreling away the full installers of software that may be going away - when they announce it's going to be discounted is the perfect time.
Another example when Google owned the Nik photo software collection, I knew DXO was going to stop giving it away for free.

 

 

  • Like 2
  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 21:42, Eternal Tempest said:

For an extra layer of checking, you can always submit the file to VirusTotal

https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

 

My backup of Google Picasa 39141259 installer has a SHA value in case anyone's interested.

SHA2-256 482C1A547D8D3AA25EE446D30EA986DE63EF8C8D68B8D1109DD3D9B714E73E08

 

 

File downloaded from the url İ provided has the digital certificate signed by Google, which can be checked by right clicking file and selecting properties. And latest version released by Google.

  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 13:50, ShadowLight said:

File downloaded from the url İ provided has the digital certificate signed by Google, which can be checked by right clicking file and selecting properties. And latest version released by Google.

Very good to know, I also wondered if I had the last released version.

  • 0
On 24/02/2024 at 16:56, JayZJay said:

I've found UpToDown.com quite slick for finding old versions of software that they have archived.  In my experience, I've found the files to be legit, the original files and not altered (based on checking the hash checksums of files).
 

 

On 24/02/2024 at 19:42, Eternal Tempest said:

For an extra layer of checking, you can always submit the file to VirusTotal
https://www.virustotal.com/gui/home/upload

My backup of Google Picasa 3.9.141.259 installer has a SHA value in case anyone's interested.
SHA2-256 482C1A547D8D3AA25EE446D30EA986DE63EF8C8D68B8D1109DD3D9B714E73E08
It's passes VirusTotal & Eset scanning

I make it a habit to squirreling away the full installers of software that may be going away - when they announce it's going to be discounted is the perfect time.
Another example when Google owned the Nik photo software collection, I knew DXO was going to stop giving it away for free.

 

 

 

On 24/02/2024 at 19:50, ShadowLight said:

File downloaded from the url İ provided has the digital certificate signed by Google, which can be checked by right clicking file and selecting properties. And latest version released by Google.

hi

i have downlaoded and the hash is

picasa-3-9-141-259.exe >
  MD5: F5E535745F0E2140C31623DF8F9AD746
  SHA-1: B3F7E2EE168811CB1D924EB34AFE2B0D8153F89F
  SHA-256: 482C1A547D8D3AA25EE446D30EA986DE63EF8C8D68B8D1109DD3D9B714E73E08


should be safe ?

thanks

  • 0

When downloading discontinued installers, I always try the Wayback Machine first. That way I'm downloading the files archived from the source website.

Here's the last installer for Picasa3.9 and the md5 matches the one posted above for picasa-3-9-141-259.exe.

 

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • 0
On 25/02/2024 at 09:41, techguru1 said:

xnview

faststone image viewer

Also good recommendations.  I've used FastStone Capture since 2006 and had a family license since early 2012.  I've never quite cared for XNView or FastStone Image Viewer personally, but both do work pretty well.

  • 0
On 25/02/2024 at 10:56, protocol7 said:

When downloading discontinued installers, I always try the Wayback Machine first. That way I'm downloading the files archived from the source website.

Here's the last installer for Picasa3.9 and the md5 matches the one posted above for picasa-3-9-141-259.exe.

 

Yes, this strategy is always worth trying first before resorting to trying File Hippo, UpToDown.com, or any other 3rd party site. You might be able to download the last version or one of the last versions from an archive of the original site before it went dark.  I've had pretty good success with using Internet Archive (Wayback Machine), especially for sites that were reasonably well-known and/or popular.  Sometimes even the lesser-known websites had visitors and were archived.

  • Like 1
  • Love 1
  • 0
On 25/02/2024 at 17:09, drugo said:

 

 

hi

i have downlaoded and the hash is

picasa-3-9-141-259.exe >
  MD5: F5E535745F0E2140C31623DF8F9AD746
  SHA-1: B3F7E2EE168811CB1D924EB34AFE2B0D8153F89F
  SHA-256: 482C1A547D8D3AA25EE446D30EA986DE63EF8C8D68B8D1109DD3D9B714E73E08


should be safe ?

thanks

yes

  • 0

Bonus Tip: Use Default Programs Editor to change the icon with a nice GUI independently of the default program association: https://defaultprogramseditor.com/

Since Windows 95, the Explorer Shell supports this capability :)

  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • In addition to the "sidebar app list" and "Collections" features, Microsoft will also deprecate the "Drop" feature. Before you publish this news and credit another site, here is the original source: https://x.com/i/status/2067838711870439583 .
    • Looks like the 7.1 is fake effects, can it at least do real 5.1? It says 'virtual 7.1' in all descriptions.
    • You can't, if you didn't notice, it doesn't support surround at all, it's right in the spec list.
    • Hi — I’m always interested in soundcards. Like displays, I just want to know I’m getting as much clean “sonic juice” into my brain as possible as the years take their toll. I’m not entirely sure what to take away from this review, though. It doesn’t really tell me whether the AE‑X is a good product or who it’s actually for. Most of what I’m getting is: there’s a driver to install, here’s what it looks like, and here’s what’s in the box. There’s a lot of emphasis on the SPDIF input. When you mention not needing to switch headphones between console and PC — does that mean the PC has to be powered on just to pass audio through? That seems like a fairly big waste of energy. Is this more something a streamer would use alongside a capture card? How are you testing the sound? (Also, you might want to clarify that you’re using the headphones in wired mode when you mention they’re wireless.) You mention the lack of EMI shielding — how much real‑world difference does that make compared with typical motherboard audio? On multi‑channel: what exactly isn’t supported? Does this mean Windows spatial audio (Dolby Atmos for Headphones, DTS Headphone:X, etc.) won’t work, or just that the card itself doesn’t decode surround formats? And are there any true multi‑driver “surround” headphones left that would even use that? You also highlight support for high‑impedance headphones — but what does that translate to in practice? How does it compare to driving the same headphones from a normal device, and does it make any difference for everyday, lower‑impedance models? In short, who is this card actually targeted at?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      89
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      74
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!