Difference between revisions of "WindowsVista"
From Apache OpenOffice Wiki
(vista 64 bit shell extensions) |
(→Other Stuff) |
||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
* Support for Default Programs (application to file type association) | * Support for Default Programs (application to file type association) | ||
* Usage of new standard file open dialog (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71290) | * Usage of new standard file open dialog (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71290) | ||
| − | * Provide Live Icons in Documents | + | * Provide Live Icons in Documents (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71526) |
| − | ** The default size for generating such | + | ** The default size for generating such live icons was changed from 128x128 pixel up to 256x256 pixel. |
This works fine for Windows Vista and Windows XP. Because those icons are used also on other platforms | This works fine for Windows Vista and Windows XP. Because those icons are used also on other platforms | ||
(and we do not wish to have more then one icon inside the same file) we have to test Windows 98, KDE, Gnome also. | (and we do not wish to have more then one icon inside the same file) we have to test Windows 98, KDE, Gnome also. | ||
| − | E.g. | + | E.g. FreeDesktop.Org recommend using of 128x128 as pixel size ... but first test showed that there isnt a real problem |
using other resolutions. Further tests are planned. | using other resolutions. Further tests are planned. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Update: | ||
| + | The specification for thumbnails on FreeDesktop.org (http://jens.triq.net/thumbnail-spec/directory.html) seams to be | ||
| + | non-full-negotiable to OOo. First this specification is in status draft ... second it adress thumbnails available on the file system | ||
| + | ("... This is the .thumbnails directory located in the users home. ...") But here we are talking about an image representation | ||
| + | retrieved from the file itself showing the content of the file. That's slightly different. Further it's not sure if specifications | ||
| + | of FreeDesktop.org can be applied to OOo in general. OOo is available on Linux - yes. But it's also available for other platforms | ||
| + | (Windows, Solaris etcpp). Can FreeDesktop.org realy deal with that ? | ||
| + | Seams that the specification for OOo Thumbnails (http://specs.openoffice.org/appwide/desktop_integration/ooo_file_thumbnails.sxw) must | ||
| + | be changed to make it more clear. | ||
| + | |||
* Security | * Security | ||
** Digitally signing of all executables and DLL's | ** Digitally signing of all executables and DLL's | ||
| Line 51: | Line 62: | ||
Analyzing the code we found out, that there is only a small dependency back to the set of office libraries. | Analyzing the code we found out, that there is only a small dependency back to the set of office libraries. | ||
(zip, stlport). So it seams not be a big problem to have 64 bit shell extensions combined with a 32 bit office. | (zip, stlport). So it seams not be a big problem to have 64 bit shell extensions combined with a 32 bit office. | ||
| + | |||
| + | That's are the results of searching a suitable 64bit compiler for windows: | ||
| + | Only the newest Visual Studio 2005 is ready to compile C++ 64bit code. Further only versions >= Visual Studio 2005 Standard | ||
| + | will support that. | ||
| + | see also "http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hs24szh9(VS.80).aspx". | ||
| + | The newest compiler supported by the StarOffice/OpenOffice build environment is Visual Studio 2003. | ||
| + | So compiling 64bit components require a switch to the new compiler (at least partially). | ||
Revision as of 11:33, 24 November 2006
Contents
Preparations for Windows Vista
Search and Organization
- Document meta data is provided to the system
- open: Provide additional meta data (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70944)
- The native FileOpen/Save dialogs are used to support virtual folders
- started: Enable full text search in ODF documents through the new desktop search (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71112)
Security
User Account Control (UAC)
- The installation and update is fully UAC aware and performs the proper elevation to an administrator account
- There are no known UAC issues during runtime
Speech recognition
Windows Logo Program
a lot of stuff comes with the Windows Logo Programs
- Works with Windows Vista
- Certified for Windows Vista
Other Stuff
- Support for Default Programs (application to file type association)
- Usage of new standard file open dialog (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71290)
- Provide Live Icons in Documents (http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=71526)
- The default size for generating such live icons was changed from 128x128 pixel up to 256x256 pixel.
This works fine for Windows Vista and Windows XP. Because those icons are used also on other platforms (and we do not wish to have more then one icon inside the same file) we have to test Windows 98, KDE, Gnome also. E.g. FreeDesktop.Org recommend using of 128x128 as pixel size ... but first test showed that there isnt a real problem using other resolutions. Further tests are planned.
Update: The specification for thumbnails on FreeDesktop.org (http://jens.triq.net/thumbnail-spec/directory.html) seams to be non-full-negotiable to OOo. First this specification is in status draft ... second it adress thumbnails available on the file system ("... This is the .thumbnails directory located in the users home. ...") But here we are talking about an image representation retrieved from the file itself showing the content of the file. That's slightly different. Further it's not sure if specifications of FreeDesktop.org can be applied to OOo in general. OOo is available on Linux - yes. But it's also available for other platforms (Windows, Solaris etcpp). Can FreeDesktop.org realy deal with that ? Seams that the specification for OOo Thumbnails (http://specs.openoffice.org/appwide/desktop_integration/ooo_file_thumbnails.sxw) must be changed to make it more clear.
- Security
- Digitally signing of all executables and DLL's
- Vista 64Bit
- Shell extensions for Vista 64 Bit must be also compiled as 64 Bit components.
It's no problem to run a 32 bit compiled executable on a 64 bit Vista machine. But that's not true for shell extensions which are started within the context of the windows explorer. Because the explorer itself is compiled as 64 bit component it requires that all used libraries (at least a shell extension will be such library) must be 64 bit ready also. Analyzing the code we found out, that there is only a small dependency back to the set of office libraries. (zip, stlport). So it seams not be a big problem to have 64 bit shell extensions combined with a 32 bit office.
That's are the results of searching a suitable 64bit compiler for windows: Only the newest Visual Studio 2005 is ready to compile C++ 64bit code. Further only versions >= Visual Studio 2005 Standard will support that. see also "http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hs24szh9(VS.80).aspx". The newest compiler supported by the StarOffice/OpenOffice build environment is Visual Studio 2003. So compiling 64bit components require a switch to the new compiler (at least partially).
