just some thougth that ocurred here and deserves some mentioning.
i´m just concerned about further enhancing some finishing aspects of the application in mind because it is a BIG aspect of a gui to take control of the entire application area and custom it like juce does.
if anyone wants to use the default os dependent behavior about the bounding frame for the application it´s should be just a matter of choosing it, but of course, anyone using an alternative gui doesn´t want to do this, the gui should provide treatment for the app frame and the title bar together with the client area.
otherwise what´s the point to use the alternative gui? to make a nice and different graphical application but surrounded with the mediocre frame, title bar and dependent finishing of the operating system?
some other expensive, large and complex libraries miss this important point, which is advertised for juce: to be pixel by pixel equal, whatever OS it runs on, and that includes the application frame and title bar.
in other libraries if you wish the same finishing to include the bounding frame and titlebar, you´re on your own, no support included inside the lib whatsoever (with juce as an exception), which means that it will be necessary to get deep inside GDI32 calls to perform this kind of finishing, which totally misses the objective in using an alternative gui: to encapsulate the complex works of the OS so one can focus on the programming task of the application itself instead of concerning about the graphical interface.
people that thinks that the application should have the normal and average OS behavior to me are short minded, that should be an option given to the programmer, if he wishes to uses “average” windows appearance it´s just a matter of making it average by having the entire control of the bounding application area but making the finishing similar to the OS.
"The main issue with JUCE as far as its use on Windows is concerned is its look’n’feel quite different from your average Windows one: an XP/Vista skin is seriously required…"
the point that this comment i´ve found on the net misses is: i “can” do a vista skin (or mac skin maybe… or a nextstep skin…) with juce (it has facilities for treating the application frame included), even if i don´t have vista installed, in other libs i “can´t or won´t” (unless doing some complex surgery inside the lib, trying to compensate the missing work that should be done on those in first place), those will have the OS skin only… and that´s it… period.