Hi.
Talking about organizing digital pictures, my selected option is also
ACDSee, as some others said here. And I must say I like much more the 2.3
version than the later ones: more simple, quick and effective (and small). I
have no problem about its speed finding files: using a database with
15-20.000 pictures it is a matter of few seconds to find the file you are
searching for. It is true, however, that I use to make the program shows the
files just as filenames, not thumbnails (except when I need them for some
specific purpose): obviously, you can't expect any program to display
hundreds of thumbnails too quickly.

Beside the mentioned features in previous e-mails, it also allows you to add
comments on your pictures (3.800 characters long, but whithout carriage
returns -what a stupid fault, isn't it?), as well as include that text in
your search for files, which is quite useful when you need to recall them by
habitat, place or other details. I quote a piece of the program help file:
"The file descriptions are stored in a hidden file called "descript.ion".
There is one such file for each folder.  If you copy, move or rename files
using ACDSee, the file descriptions remain attached to the files.  However,
copying, moving or renaming using other software such as Explorer will cause
file descriptions to be lost." (Such "descript.ion" file is really a
disguised plain text file, so it could be edited -or moved, copied, etc...-
with any text editor)

My files arrangement is like the one which Javier Lopez mentioned before,
and I find it works quite well (though I would never dare to affirm that it
is the best one), mainly because I find easier to remember a name (even a
wrong one) than a number. As it was also mentioned, if you ever want to
change any name along the whole database there is specific software
(freeware, by the way) which allows you to make it easily.

Hope this could be a help for somebody...
Best regards,
Alfonso Pina
Málaga, Spain
[log in to unmask]
www.eumed.net/malakos