I'm happy to think like a programmer and not a photographer.  If I was thinking like a photographer I might ask why you need to habitually shoot 9 fps just to get one good shot.    No, all joking aside, Qimage has to cater to the needs of more than just the photographer.  It has to work for the photojournalist, casual shooter, graphic artist, and a lot of other people that will be using it to do a lot more than sorting images shot so fast that the OS can't keep up.  It's fine that Nikon made customized software that must open each file and interrogate the contents: fast cameras will benefit from that.  But as a programmer, I must work with the data I have.  Qimage already sorted properly by date prior to 118 when you claimed it didn't and you posted those erroneous "file dates" that were not really file dates but rather the Nikon embedded shot times (reply 21 in this thread).  I think 120 is better in that it sorts more logically for photos that have the exact same date/time stamp but given that you are the only one to complain in 12 years, I doubt it'll get used by more than a handful of people.

So thanks again for the feedback and you're welcome for customizing Qimage just for you... even if there were a couple bumps along the way.

Just glad to be able to close the case on this one.

Mike