Choose a sane naming convention for the Appdata folder

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Inspect the AppData folder.
2. Stoffi's data is stored in a bizarre folder name, for example: 
Stoffi.exe_Url_mi3dt042cio3oaulfyuglpiu00oq0dnq 

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Is it possible to bypass that folder completely and rather use the subfolder, 
which is far more sane?

If you need to cater for more than one folder, can't you rather use something 
simple like 001 and 002 instead of that random folder name?

What release of Stoffi are you using?
Test channel upgrade to 2.0.0.0

Original issue reported on code.google.com by wic...@gmail.com on 30 Apr 2011 at 11:31

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Version: 1.30.393.1053

This is a decision made by Microsoft and part of Windows.

Original comment by ephracis on 1 May 2011 at 4:27

• Changed state: WontFix

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Is this a WPF specific decision from MS?

Original comment by wic...@gmail.com on 1 May 2011 at 6:53

[GoogleCodeExporter]

This is a .NET specific decision. The user.config is part of the built in .NET 
system for storing and retrieving session settings for .NET (both WPF and 
WinForms) applications.

However, the audience that I want to reach (the most average person you can 
think of) will almost never even feel comfortable looking inside C:\Windows, 
and will probably be pretty scared when he/she looks into C:\Users\<me>\AppData 
(there's a lot of nasty stuff in there).

If someone wants to fiddle with user.config they should know what they are 
doing. The most sane way of dealing with that file should be inside Stoffi's 
control panel, not by diving into the file system.

So that's two reasons why I don't feel that this should even be tried to be 
solved. We would have to totally abandon parts of .NET and rewrite large part 
of Stoffi along with some of our packaging and upgrade tools, in order to clean 
up something that should not be used by most users in the first place. The 
calculation value=benefit/work tells me we should focus on other stuff instead. 
:)

Original comment by ephracis on 1 May 2011 at 9:49

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thank you :)

If you have a moment, I would love to understand more about your rationale in 
choosing WPF over WinForms.  

As a non-developer, it would give me some more insight as to the initial design 
decisions behind Stoffi.

Original comment by wic...@gmail.com on 1 May 2011 at 9:59

[GoogleCodeExporter]

The reason is because it is much much faster and it provides a great separation 
between the GUI and the underlying code.

The difference between them in pure performance is negligible (actually WPF is 
much much faster when it comes to animations - something I thought I could put 
into Stoffi at a later point, you even have a feature request for some 
animations). WPF can be faster if you have a video card which is good at vector 
calculations.

I also think that it looks a lot better and there are some great tools for 
doing stuff with WPF (such as Expression Blend). WPF provides a great way for 
styling and modifying a lot of the controls (Stoffi is actually extremely 
skinned from standard .NET look).

Besides, WPF is newer and I wanted to try out the newest stuff when I did 
Stoffi (which is my first Windows application ever). That's why I wanted to aim 
for Windows 7 features and I even tried out MediaFoundation but it turns out it 
was just easier to use BASS for playback instead. :)

Original comment by ephracis on 1 May 2011 at 11:17

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Original comment by christof...@stoffiplayer.com on 24 Apr 2012 at 4:58

• Added labels: Milestone-Xia