> Why would they need to be "complete"? I think they should better contain
> the
> stuff you want to change.

I haven't looked at the .cfg file mechanism yet, so I guess they don't : ).

> The thing is with my suggstion that it doesn't make assumptions on how
> users use this ability, it just provides it.

I know, however it seems to me that providing this generic facility is much
more complicated to achieve from a GUI point of view. If there were a lot
of settings that would benefit from it, and the user demand was there, I'd
agree. As it is, I'd rather (as a user) just toggle the 2 or 3 settings
that are genuinely important to have very quickly from their respective
menus.

> Well, as long as there's only one option that has this then I agree. But I
> can very well imagine that users can think of several existing options
> that would differ, and I also think we'll see more options in the future
> that users would want to have differently set in different "profiles".

Maybe you're right, but unless that demand is there, I don't think it's
worth doing. Put it another way - the spdif out option is useful right now,
and as it only affects the iRivers (from what I can see of the code), I
think it's OK to hard-code it until somebody wants to do the profiles.

> I generally like to see things done with the big picture taken into
> account rather than doing a quick-fix that fixes a single problem just
> now, or at least first given a proper thought.

I totally agree in principle, I just question whether pragmatically this is
worth doing at this point and whether it doesn't complicate the UI for not
enough benefit?

--
gl