Talisman: critical review

Published on August 5, 2004 By sacrat In OS Customization

It might be not too honest for me to write about a competing application (I belong to a volunteer Aston support/design group), but all written below is my personal opinion. In other words, here I speak for myself as a user.

According to the official homepage , Talisman is a "desktop alternative and shell-replacement for Windows 9xsacrat and NT/2000/XP". Actually it can work in two modes: together with Windows Explorer and as a standalone shell.

The thing, that amaze most people, new to the Talisman is a large number of beautiful themes. Actually I think, that Talisman is clearly one of the most beautiful shell replacement applications, available today. A theme can contain buttons, icons and plugins, which is normal for most modern shells. But unlike most of them Talisman can use HTML elements inside themes. That brings designers some really interesting features. For example, there are themes with dynamic content, like web pages and even games. Designers can easily guess, how much freedom it gives: flash animation, dynamic menus, even 3D graphics via VRML...

The rest is quite typical: multistate buttons, plugins, hotkeys for some actions... Combining all available eements it's possible to make some really interesting stuff, so skinners, who're looking for a good way to apply their imagination should take a look.

But like all the good feelings one's freedom euphoria has to pass as soon as you try to do actual work. Even in it's latest builds Talisman is buggy (though now it's much better, than a year before). For example, you can try loading a theme and finally stay with an empty screen and a lonely Taskbar with few flashing buttons. Or right in the middle of your work it just crashes without any reason. Another annoying "feature" is Talisman's resource usage. Talisman is slow. Sometimes incredibly slow (laters versions trend to work faster). From one side this is a retribution for embedded HTML elements, from another - numerous design flaws.

Overall Talisman, even in its latest incarnations is too crude for the daily use. Its performance and stability improve, but too slowly. It might be a good "one button" interface for media centers or libraries (where you don't change themes twice a day), but it's definitely not intended (yet) for active use.

Talisman Desktop is the main application, developped by Lighttek, Russian software company specialized on Windows customization software; other interesting Lighttek products are: Alteros and Icontoy.

Comments (Page 2)

sacrat

on Aug 12, 2004

BlueDev: the driver is the latest stable one. If you need more details about graphical glithes, e-mail me, we could talk about it more.
Draginol:
1) I'm referring to a percent of Aston community, not the whole world

And yes, alternative shells are not that popular yet. Many people doesn't know about them at all. The same applies to the whole Windows customization in general.
2) Draginol, plese do two simple things. The first: read my recent comparative review and check all it yourself. The second: use Aston for at least a month, try to use forums also (where you may ask people about their preferences of file organizations and so on). Hope this helps.
Aston offers a different way of Desktop and work organization. Do understand, what the DIFFERENT word mean? Next, there IS a tray filtering (you missed it

) And the third... There are very few stable and really useful WDMs. I was checking this area recently. From YOUR position a garbage on the Desktop is normal. From MY position (and position of many Aston users) grouping Dekstop icons as palen items is more effective.
3) I've heard that from you already. No need to say again: I'm not going to buy it, so this kind of PR doesn't work. You also missed, that WB has glitches "missing" in MSStyles, so it really has "more features"

Draginol

on Aug 12, 2004

1) The alternative shell community has not really grown that much over the years. By contrast, desktop customization is pretty popular. I.e. millions and millions of users.

2) You're not going to get users willing to try a product for a month for deciding on it. Not having drag and drop, not being able to store stuff on your desktop and not having taskbar grouping are show stoppers for lots and lots of people.

3) It doesn't matter whether you agree or not on what WindowBlinds can do. It just shows, to me and others who are into this stuff, that your credibility has some issues. WindowBlinds can run .msstyles btw because it is a superset. That's not an opinion, that is an easily demonstratable fact. I again challange you: Show us some of these visual "glitches". WB can run in theme aware mode just like msstyles and so will only skin the same amount.

sacrat

on Aug 12, 2004

@Draginol: "Feel free to post a screenshot of thise "visual glitches" that make WB "nearly useless"."
So, here we go: ftp://ftp.astonshell.com/blindbugs.zip (I'd post them right here if someone shares me some space). There's a basic set (got for the 15 minutes)
Comments on each shot:
Console: as you clearly see, the text line is hidden by the skin.
Cyrillic: you don't like Russians, rigt?

A funny font problem (surely, I could change it manually).
Menuitem: in some reasons certain windows don't want to be redrawn when running WB.
Notworking: the process of getting mail looks more interesting with WB...
Oneicon: making Opera (not only Opera) and WB work together is a tough task.
If you share a version of Windows Blinds, that "works flawlessy" I'd be happy to test it.

BlueDev

on Aug 12, 2004

sacrat - I checked out those visual glitches and can see we were talking about entirely different things, so obviously my comment regarding the video drivers is useless. My glitches were more along the lines of odd stripes and bands of color that would appear on certain buttons with certain skins. Different things.

sacrat

on Aug 12, 2004

I made few more. As soon as i find a space for hosting them, I'll collect them to the article.
I'd liked Draginol to comment these screens (who asked for the shots?)

Draginol

on Aug 12, 2004

Well I looked at them and it's really hard to comment since you didn't even mention what version of WindowBlinds you're using. But I'll comment based on what I can see:

In general I'd say this: For someone who is touting alternative shells in which nearly every theme you download has significant cosmetic issues due to it not being perfectly transferrable to a given target system and only then at a specific resolution, you are amazingly sensitive to "issues" in WindowBlinds and seemingly unwilling to try to even go to the options to tailor WB to your needs. For examples:

1) Your console window. XP doesn't skin console windows at all. It's OFF by default in WindowBlinds because it isn't something that all users will be able to use. But you turn it off and try to turn the fact that WB even does console windows at all into some kind of negative.

2) Cryilic, I don't know what version of WindowBlinds you're using. I've not heard reports of WB having issues in Russian but it's possible.

3) Menu skinning is something exclusive to WindowBlinds. XP can't skin menus because some apps behave badly. Perhaps the app you have there is one such app. But it is something that A) is OFF by default in WindowBlinds and can obviously be toggled on and off based on your own needs and c) Has a PER application setting so if there is some application with strange owner drawn menus you can exclude the menu skinning on just that app.

4) I don't know what app that is, but I have a screenshot below of most of the apps I could identify all running just fine.

5) Opera runs just fine with WindowBlinds (see screenshot below I took).

Now, Sacrat, if you want to really get obnoxious we could to various tit for tat of "Hey look at how program X does something funny on my system!" we can do that. None of your screenshots (other than the Crylic) show a "bug" in WindowBlinds. They show an incompatibility between a WB feature in a specific program in which you, the user, have full control over fixing. That would be like me bitching that every time I try an Aston theme it has short cuts to programs I don't have.

It's like the guy who gets Doom 3, turns on every visual option and then screams because his system has problems with all the visual candy turned on. At some point, especially in Windows customization, the user has to take some responsibility for their own systems. If you're using some obscure app with funky menus that combine icons and checkboxes and such all together, it's really up to the user to take the 30 seconds to exclude the app's menus. It's not a "bug" in WindowBlinds (if you want to get right down to it, it's the app's job to properly set the ownerdraw parameters but some developers don't bother). That's a basic premise of alternative shells that's for sure.

Users who download a given Aston theme have to go through and tweak it up for their own systems. You know this. And yet here you make these statements that WindowBlinds is buggy and when asked to put up and shut up this is the best you can do? Show some menu skin problem on some app in which you could easily turn it off? Or a skinned console window you could fix yourself? In a perfect world, these programs would automatically detect the user's setup and adjust themselves. But we aren't in a perfect world. And if you had loaded up WindowBlinds with its DEFAULT configuration, none of the issues you show screenshots of would have occurred (other than the crylic issue which I'll have to look into).

Your screenshots demonstrate to me that you essentially went out of your way to find something to nit-pick (except for the Crylic which if WB does have problems with foreign language versions of Windows then that's legitimate). I mean come on, you're picking on WB because when you turned on console window skinning you had some problem? Or turning on menu skins and then finding some app that you don't identify as having problems with that? And then you turn around and advocate for people tossing out the Windows shell in exchange for some alternative one made in Russia? A double standard don't you think?

If you were some newbie, I'd tend to be more understanding. But for goodness sakes, you're touting ALTERNATIVE SHELLS and then you turn around showing screenshots that essentially (other htan the crylic one) boil down to you not being willing to use the per application feature or uncheck a given feature that on your system gives you problems. That's quite a double standard.

It boils down to this: With WindowBlinds, a user MAY have to tweak the settings to make sure it's compatible with their system. With an alternative shell, such as Aston, they WILL have to tweak it to make it compatible with their system (whether that be fix broken short cuts or run at the "correct" resolution and not change it).

My screenshot is, at least, represenative of what the typical WindowBlinds user is going to experience. Someone having a problem with WindowBlinds is going to be the exception, not the norm. I think a random look at the topics in http://www.astonshell.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=2 would make someone conclude that someone touting Aston is in a glass house to be throwing stones at the world's most popular desktop customization program - WindowBlinds.

sacrat

on Aug 13, 2004

Calm down, Draginol.
First of all, I know, that most of the problems, seen on the screenshots can be fixed by some tweaking. But will your favorite non-tech user do the same?
Next, the number of "incompatible" or problematic applications seems to be too large for me. Without all this "advanced" stuff MSStules cause much less problems, so comparing both running "out of the box" I must say, that WB is more problematic. So, overall, the whole talk is about two things:
There ARE quite many incompatible applications
Does one want to tweak WB just in order to get it work?
The more, visual glitches are not only annoying, but sometimes (console, mailchecker) doesn't let one work with the application he/she likes.
Besides, as you started talking about me and alt shells... Most shells work flawlessly without tweaking, and this tweaking has nothing to do with visual bugs.

Draginol

on Aug 13, 2004

Well to answer that: First off, the average non-tech is not going to CHANGE the defaults. If you hadn't change the defaults, you wouldn't have had those issues. So WB "out of the box" would have been fine other than the Crylic issue which you still haven't mentioned which version of WB you were using.

Secondly, the average non-tech isn't going to be running obscure shareware programs that do funky things. You didn't identify what programs those were but I couldn't recognize them and I use a lot of software.

Thirdly, default or not, nearly EVERY Aston theme (as well as Litestep, Hoverdesk, DesktopX, etc.) has to be tweaked considerably. Do you think the averge non-techie is going to understand why they can't click on MS Word and have it just load up?

You are applying a double standard here that I find a bit repugnant. For WB, you go and change the defaults and then say "See, WB has problems on this unspecificied program running on Russian Windows!"

But then you turn around and say this:

Most shells work flawlessly without tweaking, and this tweaking has nothing to do with visual bugs

You're just not credible when you say things like this. Especially when the FIRST post on the Aston forum on its site says:

All these fantastic looking themes have premade buttons for applications I dont want to use :-/

For example, Universal, is an amazing looking theme. One of the best so far. But it has multiple buttons for things I dont want that i can't change. It has PS6, totalcommand and ICQ. Three applications I never plan to use. I understand that they are very nice looking buttons and the rollover effects are very nice but its very starnge clicking on ICQ to start up MSN.

There's nothing "buggy" about WindowBlinds if there is some application that draws its own funky menus. It just means WB can't work with that particular program without the user excluding that particular feature on that app (which takes only a few seconds to do). It's not some "bug" in WindowBlinds any more than Aston not being able to scan a user's system to see what apps are on their system and modify the theme on the fly appropriately.

I showed a screenshot above with Opera. Where's the Opera bugs you claimed? I am copying a file on the network. Where's the bug there? THis is what most people running WB experience. That's why it's so heavily in use. And the biggest reason alternative shells aren't popular is because they require so much work to tweak them for your own system.

sacrat

on Aug 13, 2004

OK. The programs, which are seen on the shots are:
FAR manager, Opera, Download Master, Abilon and The BAT. These ones i use daily.
Previous versions of Aston used to use pre-made buttons for launching ICQ, Word and so on. The same was common with other shells. Now you don't need that stuff. You configure a panel plugin ONCE and if theme supports it properly, then you won't have to change anything.
Besides, one can still work with Aston (or any other shell) unconfigured. He may have useless menu elements, buttons and so on. But he will still be able to work with it. Unconfigured WB simply doesn't let you work with unless you tweak certain applications' appearance. That's the difference. So it's up to a certain user to decide what to use. i'd personally prefer to configure a path to the specified application, but never see a trash on the output screen.

Neil Banfield

on Aug 13, 2004

sacrat : I have looked at your problems and have the following comments:

1) The russian font issue is most likely a side effect of the font the skin decided to use for its menus. If that font didn't support the Cyrillic chars then you would get a problem. This is NOT a WindowBlinds problem. You could do the same by setting that font for menus in classic mode. HOOGE OS_53 isn't exactly a standard font!

2) The BAT. Your progressbar issue with it painting the progressbar slightly incorrectly is probably due to the app being themeaware and the WB version being WB shareware. One version fo WB shareware had part of the progressbar skinning code enabled by mistake and thats what happens. Non shareware versions of WB should not have that problem and the upcoming 4.4 shareware release should not either.

The circular progress indicator painted perfectly here for me. Its possible your problem occured because of a colour scheme combination that is used by that skin. If so again this isn't a WB bug as you could do the same thing in classic mode.

3) Your console windows. Assuming you left everything at defaults, your console windows can't be being skinned by WB. This means the problem is actually being caused by something else. In particular look for a process called SDMCP on your machine. Its part of DesktopX and ObjectBar but its not included with WIndowBlinds. That process has been known to cause clipping of command prompts for some reason when it loads during bootup. This is being investigated by Stardock still.

4) Without knowing which application your one icon issue occured in and how to reproduce I can't really say much about it other than to say it may well be a side effect of the skin defining a custom tick image while the app assumed (incorrectly) that the tick would be transparent and could be overlayed onto the background. We don't know what is under that tick, could it be just an empty circle?

5) Your menu not being painted totally. I was unable to reproduce this with abilon and WB 4.38.

I would suggest you wait for WB 4.4 to be released, try that out and if you still have problems then let us know. Obviously issue number 1 certainly isn't going to go away.

Draginol

on Aug 13, 2004

Besides, one can still work with Aston (or any other shell) unconfigured. He may have useless menu elements, buttons and so on. But he will still be able to work with it. Unconfigured WB simply doesn't let you work with unless you tweak certain applications' appearance. That's the difference

Except you already reconfigured WB from its defaults. If you hadn't tweaked WB from the defaults (out of the box) you wouldn't have experienced any of those problems. That's the difference.

sacrat

on Aug 13, 2004

OK. So what were these talks about WB being a successor to MSS about then? If console and menus cannot be skinned without glitches. BTW, i've pointed out other GUI elements. And what about bottom tabs? They're looking really funny with WB turned on (I know, i shouldn't use it). In other words, one should either fight with numerous bugs or just stay with an analog of MSStyles, which you have to pay for.

Draginol

on Aug 14, 2004

Are you kidding? Did you read what Neil wrote? Or are you just trolling at this point?

As for your comment about msstyles, feel free to educate yourself on WindowBlinds: http://www.windowblinds.net/wb4

I'll say it again: For a guy touting an alternative shell, you seem to have an amazingly low threshold of pain. Hence: TROLL. WindowBlinds out of the box, even if you turn on all the features, works fine for pretty much anyone. That's why it's so popular. People have to go out of their way to download it. Alterantive shells, including Aston, *require* tweaking on every theme for it to be fully usable. Maybe you don't think it's a big deal to have an ICQ button on your theme even if you don't have ICQ but I suspect most normal people consider that to be kind of glitchy. It's not Aston's fault, it's just the nature of alternative shells. Yet you give that a pass but if some (STILL UNSPECIFIED VERSION) of WindowBlinds is incompatible with some app on your system, it's part of the "numerous" WindowBlinds bugs.

sacrat

on Aug 14, 2004

My apologizes: I haven't seen Neil's post before replying (technical resons) to you, Draginol.
So, if these were not bugs, let's clear some things.
All the data I provided is referred to Windows Blinds 4.0 enhanced. Just downloaded WB 4.3 shareware and installed it instead (with the default options).
1) This is a font problem, indeed. But IIRC such problems are typical to all languages, using non-latin alphabets (characters). Still for such a mass product, using skins with non-unicode or latin-only fonts is not a good idea. It's fixeable, though (for those, who know, how to do it);
2) The BAT is not a skinnable application. Just checked it on WB 4.3 and a different set of skins the problem was the same;
3) WB 4.3 sw doesn't skin console windows, so I'm unable to reproduce this (if only I manage to get the full version for testing); And I use neither DesktopX not ObjectBar.
4) The "feature" with the menus, having transparent regions around (I assume it's a buggy "shadow", which somehow is still painted normally around) remained in 4.3 under all tested applications.
5) Unable to confirm with WB 4.3 sw as it doesn't skin menus at all.

sacrat

on Aug 14, 2004

Continue using WB 4.3: completely wiped out WB 4.0 and the menu transparency glitch has disappeared. Seemed to be the bug of that version. Noticed some incorrect drawings with some default skins: checking.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!