In development

Post by **Nach** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:01 am

Noxious Ninja wrote:
KaOSoFt wrote:I like Nach's one because it's simpler, but there is something I don't like. The bottom edge at emulation screen, I think game image should limit with windows one, not like that not-filled space there.
That's a status bar. Tons of GUI programs use those.

Yeah, like pf's screenshot uses it too.

Nightcrawler · Post by **Nightcrawler** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 1:22 pm

Noxious Ninja wrote:
Nightcrawler wrote:Nice to see ZSNES is finally catching up to the new millenium.

Perhaps this will pave the way for a debugging interface in ZSNES.

If I had to choose, I think I like Pagefault's GUI better.
You... like the file chooser?

Well, he said it would use the standard windows Open File dialog box.. so that fixes that in Windows. I could care less about any other version.

Besides, you can add a shortcut to your ROMs directory on the left hand side. I don't think it's that bad even if that is the one.

Jipcy · Post by **Jipcy** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:22 pm

creaothceann wrote:Personally, I don't like menus (especially as in VBA) - they have the annoying nature to vanish after selecting an option. Why not make one menu button called "Settings", and open a window with tabs...

YES! Please god don't make every setting menu-based like VBA. Or at least have both menu-based and dialog-box based (seen somewhat in Snes9x). It's very time-consuming and annoying to change multiple settings when browsing through a menu.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:24 pm

I'm all for having no menus whatsoever. Just use a toolbar for a few common functions, like all the N64 emulators, then have all the configuration in one dialog box.

Dmog · Post by **Dmog** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:04 pm

Sucks to see that the current GUI will soon be history. But if the new gui makes some stuff much less of an hassle to code, than it's not that bad I guess.

Post by **Agozer** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 9:16 pm

Just out of curiosity: What will become of the DOS port?

SquareHead · Post by **SquareHead** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:18 pm

I don't suppose there will be a command line only version?

Damnit all to hell I am a moron. I vote QT. Though PF's looks just as good.

DataPath · Post by **DataPath** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 10:44 pm

Putting my vote in for GTK.

FYI - For a long time, GTK-Win was a second-class citizen.

Gtk-Win since about 2.6 or so has gotten full attention, and it's well maintained.

Cyrus · Post by **Cyrus** » Wed Jul 13, 2005 11:28 pm

So this is the top secret stuff you were talking about in IRC? Nice work but a main reason I've always used zsnes instead of snes9x is because of its conveniant interface. With a few keys you can do anything you need to. The new interface would change all that... When the new GUI is used is it possible to also update the old interface?

Jipcy · Post by **Jipcy** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:28 am

pagefault wrote:Also the old original GUI should be still available in all ports as long as the DOS version is around.

xamenus · Post by **xamenus** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:31 am

I added a poll for determining which API is more popular.

rlbond · Post by **rlbond** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:07 am

My question is:

Will you be able to load roms with just a controller (with an arcade machine for example)? With the current GUI you can assign a key to "load" and then use joypad1 to select a rom. If you can use joypad1 in the select rom dialog boxes, than I'm all for the gui change.

Also, can you use the menu (and the load rom dialog box) in fullscreen? Or does it have to go to windowed mode first? Honestly, this is the thing I like most about the current GUI: you never have to change resolutions once zsnes has loaded. I vote for whichever gui can do this.

An excellent example is kega fusion's load rom dialog box -- it comes up in full screen. If this would work with a controller, it would be perfect.

tehnick · Post by **tehnick** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 6:34 am

Definitely GTK, just about all of the popular Linux programs use it. I would like it to fit in with my other skinned GTK apps.

Post by **Nach** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:34 pm

IceFox wrote:I added a poll for determining which API is more popular.

I don't think it's fair to vote until pagefault shows off what he did with his.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:10 pm

tehnick wrote:Definitely GTK, just about all of the popular Linux programs use it. I would like it to fit in with my other skinned GTK apps.

The GTK folks need to get with the times and write a skinning engine to use Qt themes.

cdbsi · Post by **cdbsi** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 12:13 am

Great work guys! I don't mind what you guys do to the GUI, just as long as you keep the GUI background effects such as snow, water, and the burning effect. If the new version didn't have the snow effect, then it wouldn't feel like ZSNES to me!

I am sure that someone could create a skin that could be a good replacement to the old GUI.

I really like the GUI for Project 64, where there is a mixture of options in a menu, and in settings windows. I also like the way that the rom is selected, with the sortable detailed list.

AWESOME!

Keep up the great work guys!

Truth Unknown · Post by **Truth Unknown** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 1:26 am

I really like the BG animations as well. I you guys keep those, I can be happier than anything.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 2:18 am

True X Unknown wrote:I really like the BG animations as well. I you guys keep those, I can be happier than anything.

I don't see why not.

marvelus10 · Post by **marvelus10** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 8:39 pm

If it means I can drag and drop it to my secondary monitor then yes im all game, but I dont like the idea of having the bar at the top when in
full screen mode.

DOLLS (J) [!] · Post by **DOLLS (J) [!]** » Fri Jul 15, 2005 9:01 pm

Qt feels a little stiff to me (can't explain better), plus it has more than 1 Mb overhead.

What's the overhead for each version?

Post by **Nach** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 7:07 pm

c61746961 wrote:Qt feels a little stiff to me (can't explain better), plus it has more than 1 Mb overhead.

What's the overhead for each version?

Qt 4 does not have 1 MB overhead. Only a few hundred KB.

Kagerato · Post by **Kagerato** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 8:53 pm

Go with Qt.

For all the claims that Qt is bloated, there is little evidence to support it. Qt does take longer to compile than GTK2 with the GNU compiler collection, but there's a more significant reason for that. Qt is primarily C++, and GTK is primarily C. Comparing their compilation times (which differ by about fifteen minutes on my newest machine) is an invalid comparison -- the compiler is not the same. There have been assertions that GCC 4 has a much improved g++ compiler (as far as speed goes), but there is little experimental data for that as well.

Qt is a more robust and responsive toolkit from what I've seen in programs that use it. Simple elements such as the drawing of widgets meld better with the overall operating system. This is part of the actual library itself, not any individual cross-platform implementations. Use GTK and Qt in both win32 and several linux distributions to see what I mean.

Comparing the runtime libraries of GTK and Qt is often folly, because both have optional dependencies. GTK's runtimes can get up beyond 20 mbyte if one starts taking in code from GNOME, for example. How large either toolkit is depends on several factors: what components are built, whether the library is compiled for debugging, and whether you statically link the runtime or create shared libraries. From my experience, Qt has been somewhat smaller.

Qt 4 is GPL'ed, so GTK advocates no longer have that as any sort of advantage.

Many programmers support both toolkits, with most of the modern thinkers leaning towards Qt. A C++ API means extensibility (such as the creation of new widgets) is simpler and thus easier for programmers who like object-orientation.

Post by **Nach** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:11 pm

Kagerato wrote: Qt 4 is GPL'ed, so GTK advocates no longer have that as any sort of advantage.

As is Qt 3.

Noxious Ninja · Post by **Noxious Ninja** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 9:23 pm

Kagerato wrote:Qt does take longer to compile than GTK2 with the GNU compiler collection, but there's a more significant reason for that. Qt is primarily C++, and GTK is primarily C. Comparing their compilation times (which differ by about fifteen minutes on my newest machine) is an invalid comparison -- the compiler is not the same. There have been assertions that GCC 4 has a much improved g++ compiler (as far as speed goes), but there is little experimental data for that as well.

Don't forget that the scope of Qt is far more than GTK - Qt is equivalent to GTK + Cairo + STLPort + libxml2, at least.

kevman · Post by **kevman** » Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:03 pm

What's Qt's perfomance like under Windows?

I use Xchat under Windows (which uses GTK), and I don't mind telling you its performance is SHIT. A 500 Mhz computer can barely run it.

ZSNES board

In development

Which API should be used for the new ZSNES GUI?