AoM 0.6 - Yearly Updates included for registered users only

Skywalka · Post by **Skywalka** » Tue Dec 28, 2004 11:27 pm

Just kidding

How long untill we reach the one year mark? Two months?

Post by **PetriW** » Wed Dec 29, 2004 5:51 am

If you're willing to pay my salary it'll be out in a couple of days. If not you have to wait!!!!

And I posted an updated changelog 2 weeks ago!
http://www.anidb.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14360#14360

Skywalka · Post by **Skywalka** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:00 pm

I think you should just think about renaming this version to AoM 2006 *snicker*

The "06" would still remain in the name and at the current development speed we would reach AoM 1.0 in 2010

And I think it sounds a lot better - and when I compare the current with the new version, you should really either change the numbering or do what I just proposed - the new GUI looks so different there needs to be something to reflect that much of a change

Post by **PetriW** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 9:42 pm

Teaser:

Skywalka · Post by **Skywalka** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:34 am

I really like the font and the colors - will the image be what AoM will look like on every computer?

Or do you use a color scheme in Windows XP that produces that transition in the title like I do (WindowBlinds)?

Post by **PetriW** » Sat Jan 01, 2005 10:54 am

I'm using a windows xp color theme called Blue2ful.

JaLooNz · Post by **JaLooNz** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 2:43 am

Also like Souluna in style. ( 1 | 2 )

BTW will there be a drop-down combo boxes with a few styles pre-made? And also an editable option for the combo boxes?

Skywalka · Post by **Skywalka** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:35 am

Thanks for the info, expected something like that

Post by **PetriW** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 2:31 pm

JaLooNz wrote:BTW will there be a drop-down combo boxes with a few styles pre-made? And also an editable option for the combo boxes?

Eh? Don't understand this one.

MaJutsu · Post by **MaJutsu** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:12 pm

if i understood it right it is cool
if i didnÄt i suggest it:
what about a skinnable client ^^

Post by **PetriW** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:24 pm

MaJutsu wrote:what about a skinnable client ^^

The client will never be skinnable, wasted effort on something that noone needs.

DonGato · Post by **DonGato** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 7:56 pm

PetriW wrote:
MaJutsu wrote:what about a skinnable client ^^
The client will never be skinnable, wasted effort on something that noone needs.

Marvelous wise words.

Skywalka · Post by **Skywalka** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:49 pm

Yeah I agree.

Skin your whole Windows XP instead.

maverik26 · Post by **maverik26** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:16 pm

What for do you need skins?
I never used a differnent skin for any of the programs i own.
Why? The dafault "skin" most times is good enought and in some cases even take lower ressources.
So i agree. It would be wasted time at the moment.

Elberet · Post by **Elberet** » Sun Jan 02, 2005 10:34 pm

maverik26 wrote:The dafault "skin" most times is good enought and in some cases even take lower ressources.

Wrong. Windows XP has two styles of skins. In the skin mode, bitmaps are dynamically resized and copied into the window area to form the user interface elements. In the normal mode, Windows instead draws different colored lines. Drawing lines is of course much simpler then interpolating and copying bitmaps, but the difference in performance in these two modes is marginal at best. However, this difference is always the same, no matter which particular style you pick - as long as you let Windows itself do the work (by installing a modified uxtheme.dll, for example).

Application-specific styling is something entirely different. WinAMP, Trillian and similar highly skinable applications have their own window drawing routines that are completely separate from Windows. Implementing something like that into AoM would _definately_ be a waste of time...