Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Here everybody can post his problems with PhotoLine
Benutzeravatar
OldRadioGuy
Mitglied
Beiträge: 418
Registriert: Fr 24 Apr 2009 19:09
Wohnort: Austin, Texas, USA

Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Beitrag von OldRadioGuy »

:? Files saved to the desktop in PL are not immediately viewable on the desktop until you do a Refresh.

1. Edit a file in PL
2. Save to the desktop as a jpg
3. Close PL
4. Look for the file thumbnail on the desktop. It's not there.
5. Right click on the desktop and select "Refresh"
6. The thumbnail of the mysterious file appears.

I have tested this with PL 32 and PL 64. The behavior is the same. Files in gif, png, and tif all produce thumbnails after the refresh. A PLD file appears as a generic PL icon after refresh. How a PSD file behaves after being saved to the desktop by PL seems to depend on what direction the wind is blowing or what I had for lunch today. Sometimes it will be a thumbnail and sometimes it will be the generic icon for my default viewer after Refresh. (I do have the PSD thumbnail utility installed.)

Anyway, all of this seems odd. All the other applications I have will produce either a generic icon or a thumbnail on the desktop if I save a file there -- without having to do a desktop Refresh.

Bob
PhotoLine 24.xx |DxO PureRAW 4 |Various Third-Party Plugins | macOS 14.11 | Apple M2 Max | 64 GB Memory | E-M1markIII.
RalfK
Mitglied
Beiträge: 1
Registriert: So 13 Mär 2011 09:21

Re: Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Beitrag von RalfK »

Hi,

I can confirm this.

Cheers Ralf
and
Mitglied
Beiträge: 125
Registriert: Mi 03 Feb 2010 14:36

Re: Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Beitrag von and »

Confirmed (Vista 64).
Windows 10 64 Bit You better watch out, there may be dogs about.
Benutzeravatar
gmhofmann
Beta Tester
Beiträge: 763
Registriert: Di 19 Nov 2002 17:22
Wohnort: Dieter-Schwarz-Stadt

Re: Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Beitrag von gmhofmann »

Not confirmed (Win XP)
Benutzeravatar
Aldarion
Mitglied
Beiträge: 55
Registriert: Di 07 Jul 2009 20:32

Re: Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Beitrag von Aldarion »

Doesn't happen here (Windows 7 x64 SP1). I do remember however that I have seen such behaviour in the past when genereating EXIF thumbnails with exiftool (command line program). It does not happen anymore, so I think this could have been a bug in Windows 7 that was resolved with SP1. If you don't have SP1 installed yet, installing it may be worth a try.
Benutzeravatar
OldRadioGuy
Mitglied
Beiträge: 418
Registriert: Fr 24 Apr 2009 19:09
Wohnort: Austin, Texas, USA

Re: Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Beitrag von OldRadioGuy »

Aldarion hat geschrieben:Doesn't happen here (Windows 7 x64 SP1). I do remember however that I have seen such behaviour in the past when genereating EXIF thumbnails with exiftool (command line program). It does not happen anymore, so I think this could have been a bug in Windows 7 that was resolved with SP1. If you don't have SP1 installed yet, installing it may be worth a try.
Installing Windows 7 SP1 64-bit made no difference on my system. Still no icons on PL-saved-to-desktop files until I right click on the desktop and select Refresh.

When SP1 was installing, I did notice there appeared to be a desktop module reported as being installed. But I am seeing no difference.

Bob
PhotoLine 24.xx |DxO PureRAW 4 |Various Third-Party Plugins | macOS 14.11 | Apple M2 Max | 64 GB Memory | E-M1markIII.
Benutzeravatar
Aldarion
Mitglied
Beiträge: 55
Registriert: Di 07 Jul 2009 20:32

Re: Apparent bug in 16.51 in Windows 7, 64-bit

Beitrag von Aldarion »

I've played around with this a bit and I can indeed reproduce a similar problem . My observations indicate that in most cases, the thumbnail appears first with the lower part gray, but refreshes automatically within a second. Sometimes (1 of 10) however, the refresh does not happen and the gray part persists. When this happens, even pressing F5 repeatedly does not help and the half-baked icon remains. This doesn't exactly match your description.

So I correct myself. Yes, such a problem exists. It happens with other programs as well (exiftool is one).

Rgds Al