On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:57, Johannes Wiedersich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Kelly Clowers wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:42, lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 12:09:27PM -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote: >>> That shouldn't be there in the first place. You end up with hundreds >>> of megabytes of totally useless thumbnails >> >> They are not useless, they keep thumbnail display times reasonable. >> I have used programs that generate thumbnails on the fly, per session >> and it is slow and annoying. > > YMMV, but on my system I don't see a significant speed gain with or > without thumbnails. I just deleted some 700MB of thumbnails and I guess > it just takes about the same time to regenerate the thumbnail as it had > taken to find and display the right thumbnails from out of that large > archive (it took some 3-5 min to rm -rf it, and I am sorry I didn't > count their number beforehand). > > FWIW I tested with gthumb.
I can barely see a difference in gthumb, but it is very noticeable konqueror. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
