vs.

One of these is Windows Vista by default and one of these is Windows XP with WindowBlinds 5.5 running.  Of course, if you look closely at the text in the notepad windows, it's pretty easy to tell.

But check out that the non-Vista actually is more consistently Vista than Vista (you'll know what I mean when you look at the non-theme aware app pictured).

The shareware Windows shell replacement program, Talisman has been updated to 2.99.  Talisman can replace the default Windows shell with one that is highly customized and skinnable.

New in version 2.99:

- Windows Vista support.
- New "Theme Manager 3.0 beta", including: Theme Manager, Theme Installer, Theme Builder, Shape Builder, Object Collector.
- New TSHAPE 3.0 format for alpha-blended Shape objects.
- New "Resize" function for Shape objects. Now you can resize an unlocked Shape object by dragging its bottom-right (8x8 pixels) conner.
- New internal commands: restart, poweroff, hibernate. Use these commands to directly restart/shutdown or hibernate computer without Windows dialog.
- And more

Talisman is $24.95 to register.

Yahoo has released the 4th version of their popular widget enabler, Yahoo Widgets (formerly called Konfabualtor).

Yahoo says the new version is faster and uses less memory.  Having used it over the weekend, we were very impressed with its performance and overall level of polish. A new Yahoo Widget Finder comes with it which makes it easy to find more widgets without having to visit the website. The presentation and polish was simply incredible, far beyond anything else out there.

It also comes with a Yahoo dock which appears to be Yahoo's answer to the Vista Sidebar.  While we didn't find this feature particularly useful (we turned it off after a few hours), others may find it a great way to display widgets in a sort of minimized form.

Yahoo Widgets includes a number of widgets that make full use of the underlying technology and have a degree of professional quality not found elsewhere. A number of nice web integration features make downloading and adding widgets to your desktop very easy (which is a major reason why WC doesn't have a Yahoo Widgets area -- the web integration between the app and the site is very tight).

For anyone interested in widgets/gadgets, it's definitely worth checking out.

Years ago Stardock developed DesktopX with had the concept of putting "live objects" on the desktop. If you check out the DesktopX object gallery and look at the really old ones, you can see what was envisioned -- something beyond icons but not quite mini applications.

When Konfabulator was released, 3 years later, it got so much attention that everyone suddenly assumed there was a huge demand for "widgets".  And the world was blessed with thousands of weather, stock, and other "mini applications" and the creation of live objects seemingly disappeared.

But do people use widgets?  I have to admit, on my system, I rarely have any widgets running. They look cool in a screenshot.  By contrast, I DID use desktop objects even if they were largely cosmetic. 

The line between desktop objects and widgets is very blurred. People were making clocks and calendars and weather and media player objects right from the start. But for the most part, people were doing what amounts to creating smart icons .

So I'm curious, how many people out there are using widgets. If not, would you use desktop objects if people were making them?

The purpose of this thread is to outline and discuss the difference in formats between WindowBlinds (from Stardock) and .msstyles on XP (created by Microsoft).

In my opinion, the format of a skin ultimately determines what kinds of skins are made for it.

For example, Winamp 2's skin format is very basic but talented skin authors, working within those confines, can produce outstanding results.  By contrast, Windows Media Player skins are more free form than Winamp 2.  Anything done with a Winamp 2 skin could be done by a Media Player skin but the opposite was not true.

We'll start with MSStyles on XP.

MSStyles on XP
On Windows XP, Microsoft created a skin format called .msstyles. Microsoft initially created Luna.msstyles (they subsequently have released a couple of other .msstyles).  Microsoft didn't intend third parties to use .msstyles so they required that they be digitally signed by Microsoft to be used.

However, even before Windows XP was publicly available, people had managed to patch the fiile uxtheme.dll to disable digital signing checking and the world of XP msstyles was born.

The .msstyles format allows skinners to change the Start bar, Start menu, virtually every major control, the border of a window, and the frame of a window.

The limitations on .msstyles borders do not support alpha blending, borders cannot be larger than 2 or 3 pixels and the title bar is limited in size.

Skinners can also not add additional title bar buttons or move title bar buttons.

Animations, title bar text backgrounds, system icon placement are also not supported.

However, IMO, these limitations have generally not been a problem any more than Winamp 2's limitations were a problem.  Many users prefer clean, minimalistic skins and msstyles can deliver that.

WindowBlinds

The WindowBlinds formats have evolved over the course of years based on demands of users.

There are two formats currently (UIS1 and UIS2).  UIS1 is a simpler format that is similar in scope to what MSStyles but allows additional title bar buttons and the movement of title bar buttons.  But otherwise is fairly equivalent.

Most skinners use UIS2.  UIS2 allows for animations, alpha-blended controls and title bars (i.e. title bars you can see through or have anti-aliased edges and such), alpha blended Start menus, Start bars, etc.

Besides alpha blended controls, the most noticeable difference users will see are the borders and title bars can be sized any way the skinner chooses. 

As a result, a skinner could create borders that are very thick or with very large title bars. Buttons can be placed anywhere (including the sides and bottom of a window). Additional buttons such as links, roll-up buttons, etc. can be created as well.

The plus side is that WindowBlinds allows a more free-form sense of skinning.  The downside is that skinners can hang themselves with this freedom so you can end up with gaudy or "bloated" looking skins.  When done well, you can create some truly amazing things too. 

Since it is a super-set of what msstyles can do, WindowBlinds can create minimalistic skins. In fact, WindowBlinds skins can do away with title bars and borders entirely if the skinner chooses to make a skin with just a nub to move the window around. 

SkinStudio can convert .msstyles to WindowBlinds format. However, not all msstyles convert perfectly without tweaking the settings in the conversion dialog.

As far as formats go, like Winamp vs. Windows Media Player, it ultimately comes down to what skins you want to use and what kind of skin you want to make.

Msstyles are IMO easier to make than WindowBlinds skins and if msstyles can produce the skin you want, then that's the way to go.  On the other hand, skinners may find msstyles limitations to confining for what they want to make and want their skins to run natively on XP and Vista which WindowBlinds skins do.

If there are any questions or comments on these skin formats, please comment here.  There are lots of experts on both formats hanging around who can answer detailed questions on these topics.

Which would you rather have?

A program with a complex and very rich skin format that requires a lot of work to make a skin for but the result can be truly unique (say the Winamp 5 approach).

Or

A program with a very simple skin format that is very easy to create for but results in skins that might look similar (say the Winamp 2 approach)

The article linked below is about how a long time music fan was forced to become a pirate due to the absurdities of DRM.

While I personally don't have any philosophical issues with copy protection/DRM, I have said for years that many DRM/copy protection schemes are counter productive -- they turn legitimate users into pirates.

When Galactic Civilizations II was released with no copy protection whatsoever, some people said that we must not care about piracy.  Of course we do. We worked hard on the game and hope/expect people who want it to pay for it.  But there are too many times when copy protection and DRM end up hurting legitimate customers.

Stardock and TotalGaming.net don't use DRM.  Our delivery program, Stardock Central, uses SSD (Secure Software Delivery) which in essence functions as a way to verify that the user downloading it is who they are (basic activation) but after that, you're done. There's no DRM, digital license, net connection, etc. needed. And even if you lose your serial #, CD, etc. no problem, the automated system will resend you everything you need in email.

What we think people who publish games and music need to remember is this: The goal is not to eliminate piracy. The goal is to increase sales.  People who are dedicated to stealing your product will steal it. 

The focus should be making sure it's more convenient to buy your product than to steal it. It can be a delicate balance. But as the story linked below shows, too many publishers are obsessed at eliminating piracy rather than reducing sales lost to piracy.

Read the whole thing below.

For those of you who have been through a Stardock-run game beta program, welcome back. You know what you're in for so most of this will be just like what you've heard from us before.

But for those of you who haven't ever gone through a Stardock game beta, this post is designed to get your expectations ready.

Sins of a Solar Empire Beta 1 Objectives:

The goal of beta 1 is for us to test out the game engine. How well does it run on a wide range of PCs? How is the perfomance? How is compatibility?

There has been much discussion on galciv2.com by players who note that our games usually require few "patches" to fix major bugs. This is why. We release publicly the games during early beta to nail down these issues long before it hits the shelves. 

These days, many "beta" programs are little more than late-term demos designed with marketing in mind as well as nailing down final balancing issues.  That's not what this beta is for.

There will be at least 3 major beta releases. Possibly 4 depending on how well public feedback is.

There are no NDAs involved. If you don't like what we're doing, tell us.  We do not require NDAs precisely because we don't want you to feel any constraints on giving feedback. 

Most of you have no doubt played games where you later hear the beta testers didn't think the game was ready for release but they were stuck under NDA.  I've never seen an example where the beta testers were wrong.

Beta 1 specifics

In beta 1, it's a single player game. The multiplayer functionality has been disabled. The reason for this is because many game mechanics "work fine" when you're playing against another human on-line. People will work around problematic design decisions. But in the real world, the single player experience has to be good and so we want players to be able to tell us what issues they run into.

Beta 1 only has one of the 3 factions in it. The other two are currently disabled. They'll come in later when we've sorted out things with engine compatibility, performance, etc.

Setting Expectations

Those who were in any of the GalCiv betas know that the early betas for these games aren't very fun. I don't expect Sins to be any different. Think of your favorite PC RTS of all time. Starcraft, Total Annihiation, etc.  Imagine if in Starcraft you ran out of crystals very quickly. Imagine if in TA if the commander didn't have a Dgun how "rushing" might have gone.  It only takes a few little tweaks to turn a classic game into disaster.

That doesn't mean we don't want to get your feedback on game mechanics, but what we mostly need to find out from you for beta 1 is how well the game runs on your computer and how stable it is for you.

If you'd like to see our Galactic Civilizations II beta schedule to see how that went click below:

https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=162&aid=64347

Here is what was posted about beta 1 and 2 of Galactic Civilizations II:

March: Beta 1
Goal: Compatibility and performance.  How well does the new 3D engine work? Does it blow up on people? What hardare issues will people have?
Feedback we need: If it doesn't run on your computer or has some problem, we need to know your hardware specifications, what OS you're running, etc.
Feedback we DON'T need: Spelling errors, complaints about missing features, "suggestions" on UI, complaints about game balancing or "that it's not fun" (beta 1 won't be fun, we'll make it our business to ensure it's not fun in order to keep focus on the compatibility and performance ). "This game sucks, where's the starbases? Where are the fleets? I hate to say this but this is a big step backwards from GalCiv 1. Perhaps you should read up on about the differences between 'alphas' and 'betas' and think over your obvious ignorance on basic software development. I'll check back in a few months to see if you'e managed to cobble together a decent game but I won't count on it. In the meantime, I'll be on Usenet and IRC making sure everyone knows you guys suck."

May: Beta 2
Goal: Performance/Compatibility still. But now with the focus moving towards user interface design. Is the UI looking okay? Is it intuitive? Are the basic game mechanics easy to figure out? Can you play the game without needing a manual (the game will have a manual but a well designed game shouldn't need much of one)
Feedback we need: Suggestions/complaints on UI. Crashing issues. Performance and compatibility.
Feedback we DON'T need: Spelling errors, complaints about missing features, , complaints about game balancing or "that it's not fun" (beta 2 should be playable but it won't be balanced yet). "First off, you spelled 'manufacturing' as 'manufaturing'. Secondly, I can't believe that a capital ship only takes 4 months to build but a fighter take 3 months. Hello? Why bother with a fighter?"

I've seen a lot of people take a bit of a snobby attitude about wallpaper making -- that it is somehow "easier" to make wallpapers than skins.

While I agree it is less time consuming to make a wallpaper than a skin. The artistic merit of wallpaper making is no different than any other form of art creation IMO.

Rather, making a wallpaper is a good way of getting a snapshot of the artistic talent.  Making a good wallpaper requires both artistic talent in creation and a good eye for usability. Clearly, most people (including myself) lack either one or both of these qualities.

So while almost anyone can make a wallpaper. Very few people can make good wallpapers. 

In my view, the time to make something doesn't reflect the talent involved. It just involves the amount of overall effort.

Back in the OS/2 days, I used to make icons like crazy. On OS/2, the sizes were 20x20 and 40x40.  On Windows they were 16x16 and 32x32.

You could use a free icon editor or buy fairly good icon editors that let you edit the icons pixel by pixel.

In Windows XP, things started to change.  Now icons could be alpha-blended and they could be up to 128x128.  Making a 128x128 icon is a whole different discipline than making a 32x32 icon. One is pixel art, the other involves some serious graphics design.

I can't make a 128x128 icon that's particularly good and neither can most other people -- even many who could create quite nice 32x32 icons.

In Windows Vista, Microsoft did two more things -- they allow users to view individual folders with icons at different sizes and they made all the icons nice enough to encourage people to have their icons at higher resolution. 

In addition, Microsoft made the default format 256x256.  In fact, if you don't make an icon 256x256, then the icon will be displayed as a rather weird looking tile on the desktop with the icon in 32x32.  This is true even if there's a 128x128 -- it won't even scale them up!

It's really changed the way we look at how to make icons.  Are there any other old icon makers here or current icon makers? What do you think how things have evolved.  It's been quite a journey!