PicturesToExe Deluxe 5.6 Beta 13

[fh1805]

Just to ensure that any further discussion on the subject of PTE code size is based on solid facts, I've just created a sequence comprising a single Black Slide and no music. Using PTE v4.49 the exe file was 288K; using PTE V5.52 the exe file was 324K and using v5.6 beta12 it was 342K. That is just 54K of code increase from v4.49 to v5.6. And for that we get all the wonderfully rich features of Pan, Zoom, Rotate as well as all those fantastic transition effects including the 3D ones.

The size of the final exe is dictated by the following factors:

- the music files (if WAV then expect around 10MB per minute; if MP3 then expect around 1MB per minute)

- the image files (suitably sized 1024x768 files will be of the order 150KB-250KB each; suitably sized 1920x1200 files will be of the order 425KB-525KB each)

The PTE overhead, in comparison, is miniscule.

Just to complete the statistical analysis: the PTE project file itself contained 196 lines of code in v4.49, 228 lines of code in v5.52 and 230 lines of code in v5.6 beta12. So, yes, the pte file is getting more complex. But we must expect that. We cannot have all the new function without an increase in the complexity of the software and the project file.

In response to Steve Newcomb's comment about it taking longer to Create exe's. I haven't noticed this. Steve, are your new sound files the same format (and therefore a similar size) as the older ones? Are your new image files of a comparable size to your older ones? Are the new sequences of comparable running time and complexity compared to the older ones? Is the background activity in your PC (firewall, anti-virus, etc.) the same as it was in days gone by?

It is easy to point the accusatory finger at new software when, in fact, we have overlooked a more fundamental change in our own methods and/or material.

regards,

Peter

[sanewcomb]

In response to Steve Newcomb's comment about it taking longer to Create exe's. I haven't noticed this.

It is good to hear some people have the same times. I used to hear the click almost as soon as I hit the button, but now it takes many minutes to make a 100 slide show with lots of animation. I have also noticed a large increase in the time it takes to start the program, or rather load up the previous project to start working on it. The thumbnails take more time to load both on the slide line and the explorer type file window. But both of these are more observations than complaints. I don't do either activity that much relative to working on the shows and I do support adding features to the program over time.

Steve, are your new sound files the same format (and therefore a similar size) as the older ones? Are your new image files of a comparable size to your older ones? Are the new sequences of comparable running time and complexity compared to the older ones? Is the background activity in your PC (firewall, anti-virus, etc.) the same as it was in days gone by?

For the most part I would say yes. The image files are identical (same camera), the music files are MP3s of 128k and 198k, and the PC is configured the same. One possible difference that may explain the slowdown on my machine is the free space on the harddrives (I have 4 drives, 5 partitions) is most likely less than before, although that fluctuates. What I should do is pull out an old version of P2E 5.x and compile a show to see if it does it as fast as I remember. Could be a memory problem (internal) as well!

It is easy to point the accusatory finger at new software when, in fact, we have overlooked a more fundamental change in our own methods and/or material.

Good point and true enough.

Thanks for your input Peter.

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA

P.S. I don't have any issue with P2E's code size (it's amazingly small) or CPU use, particularly relative to any other program. My observations were based on previous versions of P2E, and my perceived loss of some "wow" moments while using it. Even the amount of time it takes to do these specific tasks (on my machine) is acceptable for making the slideshows. I'll look closer at my machine to see if the harddrive situation is causing the delays.

[Igor]

Steve,

Please try Create function with newest Beta 14. If the problem still exists, please let me know:

1) How often it happens (rarely, often, always)?

2) Particular projects or all?

Thanks in advance.

[fh1805]

Steve,

Do other files take longer to open as well e.g. Word, Excel, images into Photoshop? If so, it could be something like anti-virus checks. Just a thought!

regards,

Peter

[sanewcomb]

.....The thumbnails take more time to load both on the slide line ....

After further observations I'm pretty sure the thumbnails on the slide line do take longer to load and this is most likely due to the miniviewer or whatever it is called. On slides that have complex animations and multiple files, the thumbnail takes noticeably more time than simple slides.

This is not a complaint, though maybe if the thumbnails themselves were cached it would speed up reopening of projects (on a side note, I can't believe IrfanView still does not cache thumbnails). Not a major item and it should be put near the bottom of the list of things to do, to be looked at in free time (if there ever is free time at WnSoft!).

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA

[sanewcomb]

Do other files take longer to open as well e.g. Word, Excel, images into Photoshop? If so, it could be something like anti-virus checks. Just a thought!

Peter,

I'm quite sure it's not an anti-virus check problem. But some of the slowness I'm observing is probably due to a "long" installation of Win XP and hard drives that are fuller than they should be for optimal performance. By long I mean it has been some years since it was installed, with inumeral programs (mostly small shareware, but they still add up) installed and removed. The Registry is now over 7MB and I have a reinstall scheduled that should clear most of this up, as well as freeing up more disk space.

Thanks for the thought.

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA