On 10.01.2015 21:24, Ken Sharp wrote:
winecfg: Group together Windows server versions
With each new release of Windows comes a desktop and a server version. This should make the list a bit more tidy.
I don't think such grouping makes much sense, a list is currently sorted by NT version, why mess it up?
On 11/01/15 11:15, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 10.01.2015 21:24, Ken Sharp wrote:
winecfg: Group together Windows server versions
With each new release of Windows comes a desktop and a server version. This should make the list a bit more tidy.
I don't think such grouping makes much sense, a list is currently sorted by NT version, why mess it up?
Because it's much tidier and users rarely care, or know, what "NT version" means. How many users really really really need Windows Server 2003 R2 when the default Windows 7 will do? It will just get much uglier with every new Windows release.
winecfg doesn't even list the NT versions so it's a fairly meaningless order to end users.
On 11.01.2015 14:28, Ken Sharp wrote:
On 11/01/15 11:15, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
On 10.01.2015 21:24, Ken Sharp wrote:
winecfg: Group together Windows server versions
With each new release of Windows comes a desktop and a server version. This should make the list a bit more tidy.
I don't think such grouping makes much sense, a list is currently sorted by NT version, why mess it up?
Because it's much tidier and users rarely care, or know, what "NT version" means. How many users really really really need Windows Server 2003 R2 when the default Windows 7 will do? It will just get much uglier with every new Windows release.
winecfg doesn't even list the NT versions so it's a fairly meaningless order to end users.
Okay, so you don't argue that it will mess it up :). Most users don't care I guess, but list currently attempts to show older versions at the end. It would probably help to show NT version too, and sort directly by something like "major << 16 | minor" value, but it could even more confusing.
By the way, is it solely your impression that it's hard to use as it is now or have you got any forum posts/bug reports where users complain about that?
On 11/01/15 12:14, Nikolay Sivov wrote:
Okay, so you don't argue that it will mess it up :). Most users don't care I guess, but list currently attempts to show older versions at the end. It would probably help to show NT version too, and sort directly by something like "major << 16 | minor" value, but it could even more confusing.
Indeed. I had considered adding NT kernel versions but most users won't know what that means (and talking about "kernels" to Linux noobs will just confuse things further).
How often do we see "try Windows 2012 R2 mode as a workaround"?
By the way, is it solely your impression that it's hard to use as it is now or have you got any forum posts/bug reports where users complain about that?
Add some Windows versions and try it out. Windows 10 will be out soon, as I'm sure will yet another Windows Server title based on the same kernel.
On Sun, 11 Jan 2015 15:14:25 +0300 Nikolay Sivov bunglehead@gmail.com wrote:
By the way, is it solely your impression that it's hard to use as it is now or have you got any forum posts/bug reports where users complain about that?
The current order seems perfectly clear to me, and I haven't seen a single complaint on the forum about it. A few people have asked why older versions of Windows aren't on the list (mostly right after they were removed from 64 bit wineprefixes), but it's easy to explain why, and no one has had trouble understanding or accepting the explanation that those versions of Windows did not exist in 64 bit.
-
Ken Sharp -
Nikolay Sivov -
Rosanne DiMesio