Microsoft Pledges Conditional Support for ODF 241
Macthorpe writes "BetaNews is reporting that Microsoft has announced in a letter that they will support ODF as a format option, if it doesn't 'restrict choice among formats'. Citing their lack of opposition to the ratification of ODF as a standard, they go on to say: 'ODF's design may make it attractive to those users that are interested in a particular level of functionality in their productivity suite or developers who want to work that format. Open XML may be more attractive to those who want richer functionality [...] This is not to say that one is better than the other — just that they meet different needs in the marketplace.'"
Format (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most of us can survive without "rich" features.
Besides, by "rich", Microsoft probably means it'll make them rich if you get locked in to it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, if you say so. But any format that is intended for everyone, not just Microsoft customers, seems to hurt Microsoft. It shouldn't but that's their perception.
Feeding the troll... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, that's reality. The FOSSies, especially the Slashdot zealots, aren't interested in putting out quality software, they are only interested in strategically positioning technology as an attack on Microsoft. '
Oh, right... We just want to make software to hurt Microsoft.
The whole FOSS movement is just about hurting Microsoft. Through crap software nobody would ever use save for political/religious reasons, i.e. hating MS.
Boy, aren't there hordes of anti-MS masochistic fanatics?
Take a look at the whole "browser wars" non-issue: MS was giving away a browser with their OS, just like Lunix does, just like Apple does, etc.
First of all, typing Lunix is just about as pathetic as typing Micro$oft. Now that we got that out of the way, let's comment on this "non-issue".
So... I see that you don't understand that Linux is just a kernel, not a company. Furth
Re: (Score:2)
There's something that's going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Format (Score:5, Insightful)
Fortunately most of Microsoft's tactics have been revealed and companies are aware of them. They realize that cooperation with Microsoft ultimately means theft of their ideas, a violation of their ideas, and then their demise. Fortunately, though the rest of the world knows that these things have happened and know that there are alternatives. Whole countries use alternatives to Microsoft's products. Open source Linux is huge in other countries. Standardization on open technologies is extremely important to them. A country wishing to make a technology infrastructure needs to focus on open standards. That means the OS as well as the applications and the data formats. They realize they can't get that from Microsoft.
It is important to realize that Microsoft has a position that has never been seen before in history. They control so much of the world's computers. Countries know that it is important to not allow one company to continue. Even governments know it is important to not permit one company with a reputation of criminal activity to control their country's computers. Even in the US we are beginning to realize this.
No one is saying that Microsoft's demise will be immediate nor even noticeable for some time, but it will occur and it will occur because the rest of the world wasn't taken in by Microsoft's tactics. Battles will be won and lost by Microsoft and there will be times when it appears that Microsoft is winning again, but in the end common sense and a value system that is based in the rights of a country and the rights of the people instead of utter flagrant disregard for the rights and privacy of the people. Microsoft's 47 programs used to spy on the consumer as well as the WGA/WGN and other hidden tools in Vista should be enough to tell everyone that this inappropriate behavior on Microsoft's part must cease.
When all understand the building blocks that Microsoft uses (mostly proprietary technologies), such as DRM, such as DX10, such as closed document format, such as various programming APIs, then you'll understand that it is important to fight those technologies at all cost to ensure that we don't get locked into Microsoft's technologies which help to shore up their monopoly and to build monopolies in other technologies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A title made only for Vista and DirectX 10 needs to FLOP or at least struggle and then port and be successful before it will be a good business move. Guess who can help that happen? YOU.
Guess how you ensure the status quo continues? Do exactly what you are doing.
Want to make minor change? Write the company and say you would buy a Linu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The good thing that could bring a MS-made ODT plugin would be 100% compatibility between ODT and OOXML. While the plugin for MS Office from Sun is just fine, it's not possible to migrate old MS Docs seamlessly. This means that people won't switch.
I do want to make people use OpenOffice, and I use it myself, but I need to make sure that old documents will be translated with no page breaks problems and with no human interaction. And I also need to make sure
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Opensource scare MS in their own product because they lose the level of control they are used to having. If the community changes the development and the model behind it or even changes the license to something MS wouldn't agree with (the community or sun) MS would be left out of the picture or force into a situation they might not like.
I also suspect they w
Re: (Score:2)
I believe they tried that exact idea once before. I also remember it ending in a nasty lawsuit...
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno, are we talking about the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Then they will quickly add..."Saving this document in Open XML format will solve the problem...". Would you like to save in Open XML?
The default selection on here will be to select yes, and once one does that, it could become the default. Might I add...do not trust Microsoft.
Ahaa! (Score:2)
I'll let the pundits look into this new opened up front from Microsoft.
But I wonder...why, don't Microsoft partner up with the ODF folks to develop one "killer" standard?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You must be new here or forgot your tag.
MS wants to keep control (aka Vendor Lock In)
Think of MS as the RIAA of spreadsheets and memos.
If ODF becomes the defacto standard, MS looses control and everybody can get of the MS office upgrade treadmill.
ODF vs. Open XML (Score:3, Interesting)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ODF vs. Open XML (Score:4, Interesting)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me.. a friend of mine in college had multiple professors (I think it was department policy) who would only accept document submissions in PDF format. Reason being that there were just too many word processing programs/platfo
Re: (Score:2)
One of my professors also does the same PDF routine. Except he manages to comes across as a badass by telling us he wants PDFs because it is not proprietary. He also accepts W3C compliant HTML. Add to this that he is a really brilliant guy, and I a
grid fitting prevents that (Score:3, Informative)
a. Bob's screen
b. Joe's screen
c. Bob's printer
d. Joe's printer
e. something arbitrary, like EMUs or TWIPs
Whatever you choose, it'll look ugly nearly everywhere unless you relax the idea of exact formatting. Text layout normally fits letters to the grid of pixels. When you change the device, you need to redo the grid fitting (changing layout) or live with blurry/uneven text.
Re: (Score:2)
Open up OpenOffice and type "aaaaa"; then use a magnification tool to look at the pixels that make up the letters, all of the 'a' chars will all be different. The same thing should apply for all Office suites. Most everyday programs still fit letters to pixels because it's faster, but it's trivial to make letters straddle pixels on 100Mhz+ computers.
It's rare to see a printer
Re:grid fitting prevents that (Score:5, Insightful)
2. The reason for the differences is the fact that very little in a document is stored in absolute positions. Almost everything is stored relative to other things in the document. Images are generally stored as some offset from a text anchor, for example. This allows you to make broad sweeping changes to the document easily as you can add text or other elements and the rest of the document will re-flow (since everything is stored relatively) nicely. The downside is that you are now dependent on the layout engine to ensure integrity between devices, and differences in layout in one portion of the document effect the rest of the document being positioned relatively to it. This is why word processor documents can be subtly (or sometimes hugely) different when viewed on different machines.
This differs from a absolute positioning view of the document (think publishing software) where everything in the document is positioned in absolute terms (more or less). This makes the editing process more difficult, since adding big content pieces often means you have to revisit the various document elements and reposition them accordingly.
At the end of the day, your word processor and your publishing tool are really solving different problems. Your word processor document isn't meant for distribution, it's meant for revision. Your PDF file is difficult to revise, but the layout is more or less guaranteed on every machine.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Lets say I am a screen manufacturer. I currently create a screen of QVGA resolution (320×240). It is correctly sized for 96DPI having a diagonal of 4.16666667 inches. (If I calculated correctly). Now I decide to make a new screen of the same size, but usin
Re: (Score:2)
Most, if not all, desktop publishing apps allow linking text boxes and reflowing text between them. In most cases, that is all that is needed. Graphics and charts are g
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cheers!
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think consistency across versions is something that .pub files are known for. From what I've heard, you're lucky if your previous documents will even load when you upgrade MS Publisher. As for platforms, is there more than one choice? But desktop publishing is a different application than general word processing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft "richness" (Score:5, Interesting)
It's like eating a whole stick of butter with mayonnaise to dip it in. MS "richness" can't be good for you.
*hurls into the wastebasket*
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft Dictionary (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It makes me wonder, though... does ODF not have vendor-specific data hooks? If it does, then Microsoft is just blowing air, here.
It's like a cult. Re:Microsoft "richness" (Score:2)
It's like eating a whole stick of butter with mayonnaise to dip it in. MS "richness" can't be good for you.
It makes you think of "Super Size Me" doesn't it?
The only thing OOXML does for M$ that ODF won't is make M$ rich.
There's nothing really new here. M$ has issuing the same bullshit about translators and "different purposes" for months. They won't ever tell you what their different purpose is, of course, or what good translation that will never be perfect is. They just blather on about how "rich
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You're Powerpoint-type presentations at the office just won't have that flair when you put up six words on a huge projector. The senior vice-president of foozlages will get all up in your grill and stuff.
So sure, go ahead and save a document in ODF. Microsoft can't hel
Standards (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Standards (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We are talking about Microfsoft here, remember. Even chairs are very handy tools, it seems
Microsoft, fighting for the little guy... (Score:5, Funny)
It is very noble of Microsoft to complain about all these restrictive document format that seem to be so pervasive in the IT world. I applaud them for looking out for my interests and freedom to choose. I have to say though, I am a little worried about them. All this goodwill stuff is well and good, but I can't help feel that until they start to get a little bit more militant about protecting their own IPR and file format, their business will never get off of the ground!
This all strongly reminds me of a scene... (Score:3, Funny)
setSpacesLikeWord95 (Score:5, Funny)
My Needs (Score:3, Insightful)
Dear Microsoft,
Thank you for your input. However our needs in the marketplace seem to be different than your own. Most users don't find being locked into a Microsoft proprietary document format to be their most important need. How about you quit bitching about Apple locking people into their proprietary music player long enough to quit locking users into your Office document formats, or your Exchange email sever, or any of your products that refuse to support open standards. After all, Apple's MP3 player will let me play a standard MP3 and will allow me to rip a standard CD. How about you let us open an open standard document format?
Fuck you very much,
Your Users
Good news and bad news (Score:5, Insightful)
So they have a new tactic. This tactic basically amounts to saying: "Let's just have both standards, and let people pick the one they want. Oh... did we mention that OXML will be the default in all of our products?" Moreover, they are strongly implying that ODF is a lame duck, and that OXML has "more features" and is "richer." They are trying to paint ODF as the poor-man's format, with OXML being the format you use when you're serious.
The bad news is that this tactic will probably work. If OXML is the default format (in the dominant Office suite), people will view it as being the "serious" one and anything else as being "dumb." It doesn't matter that the additional "richness" is a bunch of features that these users will never activate. It also doesn't matter that the additional "richness" won't be maintained cleanly across platforms, during filetype conversions, and possibly even across software version changes. All that matters is building mindshare that truly believes that OXML is "the real deal" and that anything else is "that weird thing that geeks use."
So the counterattack from those of us who would prefer a true standard (such as ODF) to become the default need to use ODF as much as possible, and encourage others to do the same. ODF is the one that guarantees readability into the future, and that guarantees interoperability. We need to make this clear to everyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another bad news is that MS will somehow manage to "interpret" the ODF standard incorrectly and cripple its functionality making it look inferior in the eyes of the user.
I can see that as good news, if it takes "the Firefox way" : You have the choice between a free office suite that render ODF correctly and a paid for one that does render ODF incorrectly. People have no qualms about having many software installed (they can and do already read PDF documents with Adobe Acrobat Reader). Therefore increased mindshare for OpenOffice.org, and the start of the decline of MS-Office market share.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The ISO is supposed to be a technical organisation - a wtchdog for global interests and standards. If Microsoft's proposed format does not meet the technical requirements of a document standard, they must simply reject it, since it has been fast trcked.
"Let's just have both standards, and let people pick the one they want. Oh... did we mention that OXML will be the default in all of our products?"
Even if the ISO rejects the OOXML, Microsoft can still sup
I hate to say it, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, at least for my work on Mac OS X, the best writing tools are: TexShop with OmniGraffle for technical diagrams. Latex and OmniGraffle are a great combination!
You can download a plug-in (Score:2, Insightful)
On Automobiles and Airplanes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sorta like the Department of Homeland Security and the 'No Fly Lists' that they put out to limit people to ground level transportation? I'm sorry but if ODF becomes the standard everyone uses/wants then Microsoft can adapt or die like anyone else in the marketplace. We dont owe them any favors for half assed OSes with bugs all the way up and down the spectrum and trying to force DRM onto people and make themselves out to be the Piracy Police.
The fact they're putting so much time and effort into trying to kill ODF just goes to prove that the standard *IS* a much better designed one and that Microsoft cannot compete on a level playing field. Oh dont worry I fully expect that sooner or later they'll find a way to make it so you cant install open office or any alternative text editors onto their machines (what you thought that computer you bought was YOURS?)
File formats will become irrelvant (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I think file formats will become irrelevant to the end user.
It's really dumb that (for instance) we produce documents in Word, convert them to PDF, email them to someone else, who will read them on a computer screen. We are stuck in last generation technology, and people growing up with the web today just won't do it. Although many of us find it hard to believe, on-line systems will eventually replace Microsoft Word, OpenOffice etc. completely.
When that happens, the file formats will be irrelevant to the end user, just as web page formats are pretty much irrelevant to current web users. This is bad news for Microsoft, since they have an incredible amount of lock-in at the moment due to their proprietary formats. However, they are not going to be able to transition that lock-in to the web.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is?
Maybe for you, but I haven't used IE for over a year and I don't recall coming across a single site that I haven't been able to access. Although I've read that in the US lots of banks require IE - perhaps that's what gives you the impression that there are lots of IE sites?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Embedded media has long been an issue. These days a lot of sites are using flash-based players rather than serving WMV files that can't be viewed on other platforms. That's a definite improvement.
A lot of work done, some fine-tuning left to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I've never had a problem and I've been using hotmail since before MS bought them. I never use IE and only use windows at work.
what problems did you run into? Sluggish loading, buttons not lined up?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that US Customs [gripe2ed.com] is an internal corporate intranet app.
Re: (Score:2)
Fonts are going to hold compatibility back for some time though. PDF embeds the necessary fonts which makes it a nice format for sending to others. It's not easy to edit them though and even if you could edit it, yo
yes. (Score:2)
It's not much better for openoffice, though. Entering equations is not particularly easier, but at least OO.org won't crash while you enter them, and provides somewhat of a mechanism for inputting symbols that aren't in the eq
Richer as "representing dates before year 1900" (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The rest of the linked article is mostly bullshit. It isn't a problem with the XML format, it's a legacy limitation with Excel due to compatibility with the previous broken leader. Hash marks mean the date won't fit into the cell (increase the width of
So actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, with ODF being a fairly well documented open standard, there wasn't really any convincing way that they *could* object.
What makes MS very, very scared is widespread ODF adoption. Once state governments started to mandate open standards in government documents, it looked pretty much like ODF would get adopted. Not because ODF was superior, but because they had bothered to go through ANSI/ISO etc.
Since then, there has been a two pronged solution for microsoft. One has been to get OOXML to become a "proper standard", and the other is to browbeat state governments into giving up their policies. The former ran into problems, when IBM and others pointed out to ECMA that the OOXML spec was anything but open.
Microsoft cried foul straight away. Their argument "We didn't object to ODF, why are you objecting to OOXML?". The answer from IBM et al. was -- the OOXML standard sucks, and can only be implemented by someone who has the source code for all versions of MS-Office. It's not open, and until it is, we are not supporting it.
This "announcement" by MS, is nothing more than a warmed over restatement of this position, and mentions some esoteric features of OOXML that are not in ODF.
OpenXML is unworkable and dangerous because.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This reduces OpenXML to just marketing bullshit with no real substance, because we all know Microsoft will just use/store their old formats as a BLOB in an OpenXML wrapper which continues to ensure no-one else can read it, yet allows them to say that they are using a publically available standard.
Link to actual letter (Score:2)
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/letters/userchoi
It's a month old, but who's counting..?
They did the same thing with VC-1 (Score:3)
If it can be made profitable... (Score:2)
Business will support it.
Microsoft is not changing their tactic. Their tactic was this: push for a proprietary standard and if one cannot exist, accept what does exist, and then start making suggestions so it becomes clear MS are experts in that field.
Very few large businesses have a single option when they're pushing hard for something.
Business will support anything that can be made profitable. History shows us this. Governments support both oppressive governments and civil rights, both conservative Chr
Microsoft, Word and ODF (Score:2)
I really have to get the "For Sale" signs up on my bridges.
The consensus here seems to be that, for some reason, Microsoft is afraid of ODF. Does anyone honestly believe that Microsoft is not capable, or believes it is not capable, of delivering the best and most able word processor producing ODF files?
Thanks for the chuckle.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually maybe you should direct that question to Microsoft. If Microsoft is confident that they can deliver the best and most capable Office Suite that opens/writes ODF, and the users are asking for ODF, then what's the problem? Why doesn't Microsoft just shut up,
Scared? Hardly. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah. Sure. Microsoft is scared of competition in a free market. Because they've failed at it so dramatically in the past.
In a word (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are afraid of ODF because, unlike with the MS proprietary formats, one does not have to buy MS Software to be able to read and write it. This means that if ODF becomes popular or even mandatory in some cases, they then have to compete for real in that market, which they'd really rather not have to do.
Typical Microsoft bullshit ! (Score:3, Insightful)
The pledge to support 'ODF and other formats' is just a carrot - it's like
Besides, America is not the only country in the planet, so if the ISO is indeed the International Standards Organisation, it must not be influenced by a single commercial entity.
Independance (Score:2)
Organisations are trying to move away from Microsoft controlled formats for their documents, simply so they can choose which software to run and not have to use Microsoft simply because they are forced to.
Given the huge cost of Office it's no wonder many are trying alternatives.
Richer probably means works. (Score:2)
Open XML may be more attractive to those who want richer functionality...
The tone of this is not encouraging.
You ever import something into Word that it technically supports, but only as much as NT supported POSIX? The result is generally pretty craptastic. Who believes that even the simplest ODF document wont look like it was formatted by monkeys compared to the MS endorsed version?
But will it have security? (Score:2)
Just as the automobile can co-exist with the airplane, ODF and Open XML can and should co-exist, the team writes. They go on to imply that standards agencies should not place themselves in a role similar to restricting transportation solely to the ground level.
Since they're likening themselves to an airplane, does this mean they will expect users to take off their shoes, empty their pockets, etc. and go through a metal detector and X-ray search before using their Open XML format? Inquiring minds want to know ...
ODF trying to monopolize the standards process .. (Score:4, Informative)
translation: An open format that anyone can write to without conceding licensing restrictions to a single commercial company is in actuallity a monopoly.
"Certainly there's a place for ODF in the world, the interoperability team continues, and users are free to make that choice for whatever reasons they'd want to do so"
translation: We want to own the standard.
"We ensure our ability to add value by ensuring that we are masters of the schema [edge-op.org]"
"Microsoft perceives the standards process as one of four "toolsets"
translation: We'll pretend to support open standards while covertly working to push our own non-standard standard.
'Standards, Robertson told BetaNews, "are a very important tool to use to address interoperability
translation: We'll continue to play hunt the piñata with the formats as it's worked very well up to now in maintaining our monopoly on the desktop.
How about publishing an RFC the next time you 'innovate'?
"Support" ? Who said that ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft will "support" ODF in the sense that they will not contest the standardization of ODF as an ISO/IEC/ANSI standard if ISO/IEC also accepts OOXML as an international standard. Nobody at any point said anything about Microsoft releasing software that understands ODF.
Haha (Score:3, Insightful)
MS said that they don't want to get "locked-in" with ODF... That's rather ironic, anyways:
Recipe for a good standard format:
The fact you are the largest software company in the world shouldn't mean you should "own" any "standard". We don't need an standard that would function exactly the same as the defacto-standard from old office, that would be useless and will only make the world waste resources in the migration from one closed defacto-standard towards a closed "standard".
ISO will show a lot of incompetence if they actually approve two standards for exactly the same thing... If that happens we will have to replace ISO, really
No offense to MS, they make great products and all, but I would love to see people use their products because they are the best products and not because they are the only ones that implement their format correctly, I hate self-feeding monopolies.
Re:Can some one explain it to me (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft made the business decision to watch this standard grow . .
Re: (Score:2)
"OOXML sucks and we want everyone to use it instead of ODF so we can keep our monopoly."
But then again we all knew this already.
Re:Can some one explain it to me (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably not.
This looks to me like the type of jargon that is used to try to obscure a total lack of anything meaningful to say.
Stricktly speaking, it might say that ODF is fine but some people may want to use Open XML because it does more. The argument -- I believe -- is over whether the capabilities of Open XML are things that any sane person wants in a document standard.
Personally, I think the world would be a better place if Microsoft were forced to comply with an open document standard -- any document standard -- that they did not produce. When it comes to document formats, their constant, uncontrolled, (and largely unecessary?) format changes have cost users a fortune. Past time for their users to bring them to heel.
Re: (Score:2)
Ability to import your ms word documents with complete bug-for-bug compatibility is a sane want. it's not the best want ever, but it makes some sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1) Use their existing leverage in the market to push their own format anyway, possibly by providing a crappy bug-ridden conversion utility. This way, if people try to jump off the "sinking Microsoft format ship" then they will not be able to do so perfectly (i.e. loss of formatting/limbs/life)
2) Embrace, Extend, Extinguish (as one poster noted with Java). They will use the committees that they have already loaded wit
Re:Can some one explain it to me (Score:4, Insightful)
In English, with background:
"We need people to think that OpenOffice.org and other programs that use ODF are inferior products. So, we will constantly position our product and our formats as being more flexible, having more features. So, without saying it, what we are saying is that ODF sucks and OOXML is much, much better, but we'll support ODF anyway because other people seem to want to use it. Maybe we'll do another 'embrace, extend, extinguish' thing like we did with so many other standardds."
Re:Can some one explain it to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Really, please do read the OOXML standard. It reads like Microsoft putting into words every single quirk their products have ever had, and then knowing that no one else could possibly hope to implement it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Wow! I am shocked! *gasp*
Re: (Score:2)
I'm convinced that OOXML is not the result of somebody at Microsoft actually designing a standard, but rather the result of somebody reverse-engineering and documenting the existing Office software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I've got this nice bridge to sell, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
So let me see if I've got this straight:
OOXML is better than ODF because Java apps don't use native Microsoft widgets. But although wxWidgets demonstrates that non-MS products can indeed conform to Microsoft standards, that doesn't apparently count because you like Visual Studio. Neither of which points is in any way a non sequiteur, probably for reasons that will turn out to involve the mating rituals of crocodiles.
Really, if that's the sort of argument Microsoft are reduced to, I'm surprised the debate has lasted this long.
Arguments (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome in the real world. It has never been about arguments, it's about beliefs, convictions and emotions. The arguments are always chosen to support whatever people already believe. Marketeers understand this very well.
Being analytical is more the exception than the rule.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I find many *native* windows programs fit also into this category... For example. On my PC now, i have running:
IE 6
Firefox
Outlook 2003 v2.
Windows Media Player 9.
Every one of the above programs, differ from each other subtly, Outlook has blue re-arrange able menus, in a different f
Re:I've got this nice bridge to sell, too. (Score:5, Funny)
Are you trying to say that IE 7 was written in Java?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I can't believe that you said that with a straight face.
.NET 2.0 WinForms [vgmusic.com], Java Swing [vgmusic.com]
I decided to test your statement and draw up a menu that looks like the File and Edit menus of one of Microsoft's most ubiquitos programs, Notepad, using Visual Studio 2005 (C#) and NetBeans 5.5.1 (Java) using their default display types.
Here are some screenshots:
Main app: XP Comctl32 [vgmusic.com],
Edit menu: XP [vgmusic.com]