Author Topic: Left panels removed in 2.8 - recompile skins? (Read 76263 times)

Pike84 · « **Reply #25 on:** 23 Jul '03 - 22:57 »

:laugh:

Rah'Dick · « **Reply #26 on:** 24 Jul '03 - 02:57 »

Hell, yeah! :evil:

uRRada · « **Reply #27 on:** 24 Jul '03 - 09:32 »

The next step will be integrating player main panel
to Info window.

Cool -)))

(I am serious)

Torkell · « **Reply #28 on:** 24 Jul '03 - 09:36 »

He's right, y'know...

This popped up on my PC just now while I was using XMPlay:

NVidia use BASS, too:

And this is what my sound card looks like:

Is anyone worried at the amount of influence Ian must have to accomplish this?

Ralesk · « **Reply #29 on:** 24 Jul '03 - 15:49 »

I think those that require (only a few do, indeed, I have seen it!) retouching and it can be done without significantly changing the design, should be changed by the skin authors accordingly, and the two versions should be kept on the site. Those that need more of a rework --- I saw we eagerly wait you's version 2s, and the old one should be still kept as in archive. Abruptly killing out skins and thusly harming the availability of skins for people who prefer the pre 2.8 system would be ungood.

Pike84 · « **Reply #30 on:** 24 Jul '03 - 20:13 »

Quote

Abruptly killing out skins and thusly harming the availability of skins for people who prefer the pre 2.8 system would be ungood.

..I guess, but is there really anything preferable in the earlier versions? I think XMPlay has only gotten better and better in time. Well it's no big deal, though. If some people want the old versions of skins saved, then fine. It's not like they'd take huge amounts of space or anything

.

Brightguy · « **Reply #31 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 01:32 »

Well, what about Boggy's suggestion?

If the skin contains the old extra panels, couldn't 2.8 then just use them like 2.7 did? If it doesn't contain the old panels, then use the new method. That way all the work put into some of the old panels wouldn't just go to waste. Also, people who like the old panels could use a classic 2.7 skin.

I think it's a good compromise... but is it practical? What does everyone else think?

Irrational86 · « **Reply #32 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 06:04 »

That'd be a little bit of bloatage

Olego · « **Reply #33 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 09:45 »

Being somewhat selfish and proud of XMPlay, I vote for releasing 2.703 (like 1.703--or was it?), and making new skins be a part of 3.0 package. In addition, 3.0 would natively support CDs because, well, BASS already does. 3.0 would have DSP volume control, and all the other nifty features. How does that sound?

~Olego~

Torkell · « **Reply #34 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 10:04 »

Hmm... maybe 3.0 will also contain the fabled VERSIONINFO resource?

Seriously, it's a good idea. Changes of this magnitude should deserve a major version number change, and as such should happen for 3.0 along with native MIDI (and I mean REAL support, not fancy DirectMusic stuff) and CD support.

Pike84 · « **Reply #35 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 10:13 »

Hmm.. Lots of different view points and opinions circling around. I have a bit mixed feelings about this, because it's basically all the same to me personally. Some people have found it confusing to have all the different panels and settings on the gui, so removing the obsolete panels completely could help in this. However, if the default skin will be changed anyway, and then it's pointed out clearly, which skins have these leftovers, then I guess it wouldn't be a problem saving the panels in the other skins..

Ralesk · « **Reply #36 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 13:47 »

Quote

If the skin contains the old extra panels, couldn't 2.8 then just use them like 2.7 did? If it doesn't contain the old panels, then use the new method. That way all the work put into some of the old panels wouldn't just go to waste. Also, people who like the old panels could use a classic 2.7 skin.

It works JUST like that with current skins. The only panel that remains is the Output options one, people. You just cannot switch to the other left wide panels. Most skins don't have a problem with that, but two skins by Rah explicitely and visibly name the other panels, therefore they sorta (only in aesthetics) break on the new version. This is why they _need_ to be redone. The main look of any skin is not harmed, though.
No need to panic, most skins work. And to be honest I don't want them to be recompiled, it doesn't matter if a skin is 76k or 56k, does it?

Quote

That'd be a little bit of bloatage

There will always be people who don't like the new system, though I personally love it. What IS the problem with versioning the skins like we already do on the skins page?
If someone is /really/ concerned about 20k of size difference (honestly, I couldn't care about that on a 1200baud modem...), then the best option is to have a skins archive of pre-2.8 skins, perhaps on the support site, and have the neutered 2.8+ skins here on the xmplay site.

Quote

Being somewhat selfish and proud of XMPlay, I vote for releasing 2.703 (like 1.703--or was it?)

'Twas 1.702. For us it would be 2.7.12 or so, ..15 is in the 2.8 system

Ooooh, I released soooper sikrit version numbers

Torkell · « **Reply #37 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 19:40 »

Does that mean Ian's finally put in a VERSIONINFO resource?

Ralesk · « **Reply #38 on:** 25 Jul '03 - 21:34 »

I don't know, but hasn't there been manual versioning like *, + or 2.6/7 or something?

Ian @ un4seen · « **Reply #39 on:** 26 Jul '03 - 13:34 »

Nah, still no VERSIONINFO

Anyway... I think I'll leave the existing skins that look fine as they are, and just recompile the couple that need a little altering (ie. to remove the obsolete panel names).

Tsorovan · « **Reply #40 on:** 26 Jul '03 - 14:06 »

Annoying question: what's the rational explanation for keeping the output options panel at all? Okay, you might say it's good for people who like to do conversions and external encoding and other shenanigans oftentimes, but for those who sit and change those thingamabobs all the time could it not then be kept to the Save... dialog? Saveable info of course.

Ralesk · « **Reply #41 on:** 26 Jul '03 - 18:31 »

What has the save FILE dialog got to do with the fiddling you do while listening, even if you do that only once in a lifetime?

Tsorovan · « **Reply #42 on:** 27 Jul '03 - 11:31 »

I wasn't clear enough, sorry.
The output options are mostly something you set once (or few times) unless you render tracks to WAV or use the external encoder. So, the output options could be in the options dialog and mirrored (with a checkbox saying "always use these options" or something) in the save dialog. With the checkbox checked, the dialog would pop up for the first track you want to process in the save dialog, otherwise just quietly go on with the whole deal, yes? Stupid idea? If I'm wrong let me know.

That would make it possible to get rid of the left panel altogether. Just a thought...

Vesh · « **Reply #43 on:** 29 Jul '03 - 02:45 »

I'm sure this is a sticky, evil question, but will we be able to skin the options window eventually? >=]

I can think of some sweet ways to handle skinning those tabs. Programatically and graphically.

Tsorovan · « **Reply #44 on:** 29 Jul '03 - 08:32 »

Jesus God Almighty from Nazareth the glam rock band...

Brightguy · « **Reply #45 on:** 29 Jul '03 - 09:01 »

It would make the default XMPlay GUI kind of unbalanced (maybe not as much as you would think...), but indeed it seems as if the Output Options panel does not need to be used and could be removed.

I'll just use the "Options and stuff" window from now on, so it makes you wonder why this panel was singled out to not be removed. (Perhaps it would have looked all right if all the panels were still accessible from the left panel. I find it odd that only one panel was left; yet this panel is still included in the new window.) All the options from every panel (plus extras from playlist & info window) are available from "Options and stuff".

Tsorovan · « **Reply #46 on:** 29 Jul '03 - 09:38 »

You are right it would make the UI unbalanced...if one is actually using that 10-track playlist (I'm sure that's what you're hinting at, aye?) or if one prefers symmetric aesthetics over functionality. I for one can't understand why one would use the little bugger, but that's not for me to decide I suppose.

Then again, this is nothing I, myself, really need, because I've removed that thing in my own skin, plus I run the program in mini-mode at all times, so I'm not bothered by it. But just for usability's sake (and glorious minimalism) I thought it would be a nice thing.

Ah well, time to digest this new version for a while before revising my list of ultimata, Napoleon style!

[Off Topic]
BTW, can anyone think of a way to design a non-sucking lower-case 'e' at 4x4 pixels? Ah...no you say? Ack, too bad. I need a high-end monitor so I don't have to resort to making my own custom hinted fonts. 1280x960 on a 19" is gruesome.

Torkell · « **Reply #47 on:** 29 Jul '03 - 11:28 »

While moving to a common option dialog is both good and bad, losing the left panel totally is a bad thing, as it's a lot more useful than an extra dialog for getting at the equaliser, reverb, auto-amp etc. It's easier to get at it that way than to pull up another dialog, IMO.

Brightguy · « **Reply #48 on:** 29 Jul '03 - 11:51 »

« Last Edit: July 26th, 2003, 13:37pm by Ian @ un4seen »

Woah Boggy, you really did figure out the secrets of YaBB, or something.

Good signature!

First of all, look at the time: 13:37pm (er--impossible! And look at the numbers.)
Second of all, how could Ian have edited the message three days before it was even posted!

Heh... BoggyB's really playing around with us...toying with our minds!

Torkell · « **Reply #49 on:** 29 Jul '03 - 13:26 »

It's not impossible - « Last Edit: July 29th, 2003, 13:37 by Ian @ un4seen »

Poll

Left panels removed in 2.8 - recompile skins?

Author Topic: Left panels removed in 2.8 - recompile skins? (Read 76263 times)

uRRada