[Wine]june 2005 release and 'registry' ?
dansawyer at earthlink.net
Sat Jul 9 13:07:38 CDT 2005
Given that we take your point, how can winecfg be made 'optional'. There
are many of us that are trying to use wine and find winecfg creates
roadblocks. If winecfg will be unnecessary then why not remain with the
config option. At least that is easily managable.
Mike Hearn wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 07:01:16 +0200, Felix Nawothnig wrote:
>>I'll submit a preliminary patch (introducing the not yet configurable
>>DSound settings) showing how I think this should be done later today.
>Felix and I talked this stuff over on IRC, I think we came to some
>understanding on where winecfg is going and why it's designed the way it
>For everybody: generally, we should resist the temptation to do yet more
>UI overhauls. Yes, the linked tabs thing is not ideal. It's more an
>artifact of the Property Sheet control than anything else. However, a few
>things which are less ideal are:
>a) Treeviews: tried, didn't work very well. Treeviews have generally poor
> usability anyway
>b) Tri-state checkboxes: not really clear what the third state means, but
> for now it may be a quick fix
>c) Opening up new windows for each app: hard to implement in the code.
>A much better way forward is simply to fix the damn bugs that winecfg
>settings invariably exist to work around :)
>Eg, even "Windows Version" will hopefully be fixed sometime later this
>year (?) by switching us to 2K/XP mode by default and by nailing the last
>DCOM problems. Desktop mode will eventually (I hope) become the
>"winedesktop" program that was done years ago, I'm not sure what AJ plans
>are here though.
>Eventually nobody should have to use winecfg for anything. Let's spend our
>time fixing the bugs and increasing automation rather than arguing about
>the best way to represent a list of hacks in the UI :)
>wine-users mailing list
>wine-users at winehq.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the wine-users