 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
I have heard that the Windows Vista Ultimate Edition will also include the MUI. Can somebody confirm that information? --ALE! 13:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Correct - it is available in Ultimate through Windows Update (it is called Language Packs).
- On XP (Office) Language Packs are not MUI - they are just language packs, more-or-less equivilant to changing the Windows interface language from the language bar, but for Office, instead of Windows. Is this different on Vista? Does Vista still have a language bar? Also, Microsoft said that MUI is not available on Vista: is there a new name? Is MUI for Vista called a language pack now? It still possible to get old style (office)language packs for Office 2007 (ie things that more-or-less only change the display language of Office). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.214.18.240 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Contradictory edit
I'm not at all sure what this article is even trying to say! It seems contradictory.
"Functionally, Microsoft MUIs perform the same task as localized versions of Windows and Office. File and folder names are translated in localized versions, but not in the MUIs." and "That is, MUIs do not contain translated registry entries, but localized versions do. This is useful if the user wishes to run a program that requires the English version of Windows, while having his Windows in another language.
Then they don't perform the same task do they??
"For example, while a localized version of Windows or Office would translate the folder names (Spanish Inicio instead of Windows Start) ..."
Start is a folder name?
Could someone write this so it makes sense please? Candy 11:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I attempted to rewrite. Please let me know if this is more clear. --Imsaguy 23:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Propose not to merge edit
Since LIP and MUI and two separate and distinct technologies which are often confused, I would propose not to merge. Later if the articles are expanded for each one, it'll create more confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.147.202 (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)