Next week is the last week of August. Fall is starting to loom which, in the customization world, is when things start getting exciting again.  Here's some of the highlights from this past week.

• WinCustomize Magazine: August 2007 (emailer in process of being sent)
• This week in skinning
• ObjectBar 2.1 beta was updated this week for Object Desktop users.
• Stardock Virtual Desktops got updated for Object Desktop users.
• TweakVista was released
• DesktopX 3.5 beta was updated this week
• Internal Stardock IconDeveloper 2.0 beta updated

We've also become increasingly aware of an issue that is going to become more pronounced as users move to Windows Vista: The UAC makes it a lot tougher to have system monitorng plugins.  That is, if you use Litestep, Aston Shell, DesktopX, AveDesk, ObjectBar, etc. Odds are you are going to have some difficulty with some of those CPU meters, memory monitors, drive space info, network speed info, etc. plugins.  DXPerf in DesktopX, for instance, is dead on Vista.  It will have to be rewritten from scratch. The entire NT-based sub-structure now falls under the purvue of the Vista UAC which prevents it from running.  Definitely a bummer.  But new plugins will be made, it will just take time.

And lastly, BIG kudos to the community for producing the best community suite we've seen in years: Citrium. A big hand to Buzz, fairy, Don, WebGizmos, Night Train, and everyone else who helped create that awesome suite.

Have a good weekend!

Windows Vista delivered some outstanding icons.  The new icons in Vista are natively 256 pixel by 256 pixel images.  This is great from an aesthetics point of view.

But there are some downsides.

First, any icon (whether in a program or elsewhere) that doesn't have a 256x256 version gets its 48x48 version used even if a higher resolution icon is available (such as 128x128 icons).  This means that many of the great icon packages of all time that supported the 128x128 Windows XP icon format won't look great under Windows Vista.

Secondly, as you can imagine 256x256 is pretty big.  To put it in perspective, the icon in this news item is only 128x128.  A 256x256 image is FOUR TIMES bigger.  So you're talking about a lot of artwork needed to make it look good (a lot more detail needed). This vastly increases the artistic capability necessary to make them.

The article linked below talks about some of the challenges. What do you think is going to happen? 

You can now use Microsoft Word 2007 to post your blogs on JoeUser.com.

To do it, do the following:

Choose new blog from Word 2007. Then, for the API choose MetaWebBlog and for the Posting URL use this:

https://www.joeuser.com/api/xmlrpc.aspx

Then enter your UserID and PW from JoeUser.com and voila.

And that's it!

The number of college students I meet these days whose life goals are purely to accumulate wealth is getting pretty distressing.

They pick their career paths based on the path of least resistance to "getting rich".  When they meet me and ask me questions, my answers tend not to be reassuring.

What I tell them is this: Do something you love that happens to make money. Because if you love what you do, you'll tend to get very very good at it.  And only through being the top of your career path, whatever that might be, will you ever make a lot of money.

There is, a second problem they have to face too -- to love what you do you can't have money be the object.  I got into computer game development and desktop utility software because I loved doing it.

For instance, back in the late 90s, when we were fiddling around with customizing the way Windows looked, nobody had any idea if anyone wanted to do this sort of thing.  The term "skinning" wasn't really known outside of Quake yet.  And there was, contrary to what some people have tried to argue, no "community" of skinners or developers out there.  But we loved tinkiner with how our computers looked and felt and over time found other people who felt the same and teamed up.  But we had no idea whether it would make money nor did we really care.

The problem with materialism as a goal is that it is ultimately empty.  The first problem is that money is a means. Not an end.  Personally, I tend to use money to buy me time.  That is, I'll purchase services to provide more time that I can then spend with my family (for example).

The second problem with materialism is that you get into diminishing returns more rapidly than many people (especially ambitious college students) realize.  The lifetstle of a billionaire and someone who has $50 million is probably indistinguishable.  By contrast, there's a huge difference in lifestyle between someone who makes $20k and $50k.

In my limited experience, I'd say the real point of dimishing returns hits somewhere after $10 million in liquid assets.  You can buy a dream home for $5 million (if you don't live in a super expensive area to begin with).  The best cars that aren't obnoxiously conspicuous are less than $200k.  And a chartered private jet costs about $10k per ride. 

In short, what happens after $10 million is you simply have more of the same.  It starts happening actually before that.  So the quality of life of the person who brings in $4 million a year and $20 million a year might be remarkably difficult to discern -- materially.

But the quality of life of someone who loves what they do for a living and has time to spend with their friends and family is very easy to discern.

Summer is starting to wane. I have 3 honey bee hives this year. All 3 I started this year.

One is doing great. It has 3 mediums full of bees.

One is doing not so great with 2 mediums full of bees and starting on a third but with a pile of dead bees in front of the hive.

And the last is doing terrible. 1 medium mostly full of bees with little progress being made.

I'm not sure what the deal is with the last two hives here.  I think one was exposed to some pesticides but I have no idea what the problem is with the failing hive.

Barring a miracle, I'm going to lose at least one if not two of the hives.

I admit it. I'm an iconphile. Back in the Windows 3.0 days, I used to go and change all my Windows icons by hand. I thought this was pretty impressive. Admittedly, it didn't help me pick up women for some reason.

Since then, icons have come a very long way. A VERY long way. With Windows Vista, the end-user icon experience out of the box is beautiful. But from an icon creator's point of view, the lack of backward compatibility and effort to support has gone up tremendously. As a result, we've seen a lot fewer custom icons made for Windows Vista than one might have expected.

Microsoft made three decisions with Windows Vista that will forever affect the way we look at icon making on Windows.

Microsoft Decision #1: 256x256 icons
First, Microsoft created a new icon size -- 256x256. For users, that's great. Having icons that are 256 pixels by 256 pixels means you will have beautiful icons that are incredibly detailed. But from an artist's point of view, it means that each and every icon is basically a work of art.

Years ago, I used to make icons. At 32x32 for the "big" icons and 16x16 for the "small", even someone with only moderate art skills could make pretty decent looking icons. Today, not only does such high resolution icons mean that only talented artists can make them, it takes talented artists with a lot of time to dedicate to them.

A full set of icons for Windows Vista is around 120 icons. You can get away with as "few" as 40 icons for most casual users but someone who wants a complete desktop makeover needs well over 100 icons. that's a serious amount of time and effort.

In the Pirate Suite, over 120 icons were made all supporting 256x256 pixel icons.  The effort involved in going from 128x128 was more than double because now you have to create some serious artwork.  How do you think this will affect hobbyist icon packages going forward?

Microsoft Decision #2: No Desktop Scaling
The second decision Microsoft made that has affected icon creation is the decision to have programs displayed with either a down-scaled 256x256 icon or an un-scaled 48x48 icon. This decision is baffling for many reasons.

Check out this screenshot. See how the Windows Vista icons are noticeably bigger than the third-party icons? That's because the third-party icons don't supply a 256x256 icon. But here's the kicker -- the "large" icons are only displayed at 96x96 and will use the 48x48 icon size even if a 128x128 icon is available.

For instance, see the Galactic Civilizations II icon? You can see how it's smaller than the new Vista icons. This inconsistency is visually maddening to me. But what is even worse is that the GalCiv II icon has a 128x128 alpha blended icon in it. They could have used the 128x128 icon! In Windows XP, Microsoft encouraged ISVs to use the "new" 128x128 icon size. Many did. And in Windows Vista, they've been orphaned. They're not used.

Would it have really been difficult for Microsoft to downscale 128x128 icons like they do 256x256 ones? As a result, every single program will need an updated icon and every icon made will need an updated version or face being displayed as a stunted looking icon.

It gets even more obnoxious: Even though the icons on your screen are displayed at 96x96 pixels when you choose "large icons" on Windows Vista, it will not use the 96x96 icon that is in there. See here for what I mean.

To sum this up: Windows Vista will display either a down-sized 256x256 icon if you have large icons or it will simply display a 48x48 icon (or 32x32) inside of a box. It will do this even if the icon in question has an exact match for the display size.

Microsoft Decision #3: "Live Folders"
One of the coolest visual parts of Windows Vista in my opinion are the Live Folder Previews. When I look at a selection of folders, I can see some of the files that are inside. It looks really cool.

But on the other hand, it also makes changing folder icons impossible without third-party software if you want to keep the live previews and still change the folder.

Since the Windows 3.0 days, I've liked changing my folder icons. Sometimes I did it for purely cosmetic reasons, other times I did it because I wanted a particular folder to stand out. But on Vista, you lose those live previews.

On Windows Vista, you can change folder icons as follows by right clicking on folder, choose customize and press the change icon button. See here for what I mean.

Now, if you can find a stand-alone icon (because Windows Vista breaks Windows XP .ICL files) you will lose the customization and have an icon that is probably smaller than your other icons.

The Impact
There's no denying that aesthetically, Windows Vista is light-years ahead of Windows XP in the icon department. The icons that come with it are beautiful. And by forcing developers and others to make 256x256 sized icon or have their icons displayed in second class citizen mode will likely result in a much more visually impressive Windows experience for end-users -- eventually.

But during the transition, it means we'll be seeing an awful lot of stunted looking icons on our desktops that, to me, seems completely unnecessary. Ignoring 128x128 icons entirely seems to be a big missed opportunity. The difficulty for users to create and use customized icons on Windows Vista has meant a slow-down in the number of customize Windows icons.

Hardly the end of the world but for those of us who like pretty, consistent icons, it's a bummer at how it was implemented. What's your take? Icons schmicons or do you too like changing your icons around?

Originally posted at Neowin.net

In the Eastern part of the United States bald-faced hornets are pretty common. They make large, spherical nests in trees and elsewhere. The are black with white faces and are quite scary looking.

But before you go to try to wipe them out, consider this - they are generally pretty docile, don't harass people, and have cool looking nests.  Not enough? Okay, they eat pests, most notably, they eat yellow jackets. A lot of them.

Yellow jackets are one of the most annoying bugs out there.  They're the wasp that looks like a bee and is always getting into your food if you're out on the patio. Yellow jackets will crawl into an open soda can (if you've ever been stung by a bug while drinking soda, it was a yellow jacket).

So having some bald-faced hornets around can really make a big difference.

This summer, we found a growing nest in our main tree in the backyward. It was tempting to exterminate it but we decided to hold off.  Our mercy was rewarded with the first summer since we've lived here of no yellow jackets. I can sit out on my patio with food and drink and read without having a bunch of yellow jackets buzzing around me.

So next time you see a bald-faced hornet, don't be too quick to try to swat it, they're beneficial insects.

With Summer starting to draw to a close we're starting to put together our Fall release schedule.  Here's a head's up on what is in the pipeline:

Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar v1.7.  This update is going into beta shortly after labor day (early September) with a final release probably early October depending on player feedback. 

Galactic Civilizations II: Twilight of the Arnor. This is our second expansion pack and will require either Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar or Galactic Civilizations II: Gold Edition since the story takes place after the events in Dark Avatar and builds on some of the features in Dark Avatar.  This is scheduled to come out this November.

Galactic Civilizations II: v2.0.  This will be a free update for all users of Galactic Civilizations II.  For users of Dark Avatar and Twilight of the Arnor a host of new features will show up in here based on player feedback. It will likely have a lot of new AI work based on new strategies we've seen people come up with that the AI can learn from.  Target date: Undetermined.