بدعم العربية، ممكن للعربية، معرب جزئياً، معرب سطحياً، مسـتعرب
Microsoft, at least in the old days of multiple versions (prior to Windows 2000 and Office 2000), had two Arabized versions of almost everything they produced:
- Arabic-localized, which purported to serve the needs of the Arabic-speaking masses who had little or no use for English. All the menus, help notes, error messages, etc., are in Arabic.
- Arabic-enabled, which is the English-US or some European version, but somewhat modified to read and write Arabic.
From my painful experience, I can say that all their Arabic-localized versions were and still are significantly inferior to other versions. It is a lot better, especially today, to get the US or European version and enable it to handle Arabic content. But that is a separate topic.
The following excerpt is from the sales literature of a software vendor, and it explains the difference between the two Arabized versions, and uses the standard Micorosft terminology:
كذلك تتوفر النسخة العربية من وندوز 98 في إصدارين مختلفين علي نفس القرص المضغوط:
إصدار بدعم اللغة العربية
وهو يوفر دعما كاملا للعمل باللغة العربية وواجهة استخدام (القوائم ومربعات الحوار والتعليمات ..الخ) باللغة الإنجليزية.
إصدار باعتماد اللغة العربية
وهو يوفر دعما كاملا للغة العربية وواجهة استخدام (القوائم ومربعات الحوار والتعليمات ..الخ) باللغة العربية.
ويمكن للمستخدم اختيار الإصدار الذي يناسب متطلباته وتثبيته علي جهاز الحاسب الخاص به، كل طبقا لاحتياجاته
This terminology is reflected in Microsoft's own pages:
يتضمن نظام وندوز إن تي وركستيشن 4.0 بدعم اللغة العربية مزايا كثيرة تستفيد منها كافة بيئات العمل التي تعتمد على الكمبيوتر في تشغيل تطبيقات متخصصة في مجال الأعمال وفي إدارة كميات هائلة من البيانات. ويعتبر هذا المنتج هو أول نظام تشغيل باللغة العربية تم تصميمه خصيصا لمؤسسات العمل والشركات
Having presented Microsoft's own terminology, I must say that although it is relevant, it is by no means imperative to conform to it. If the expression in question were a menu item, I would say it might be confusing to the user to use an alternative term, but even in that situation, one might paranthetically suggest a different term.
For Arabic-enabled, I think that Microsoft's term is OK, but Alaa's suggestion is just as good.
I would suggest معرب جزئياً أو معرب سطحياً for Arabic-enabled, and معرب كاملاً fro Arabic-localized. That would streamline the terminology. I am also tempted to suggest مسـتعرب which is the term that was used for the supposed genealogical branch that came about through intermarriage with Arab natives.
Now for a few random notes about the need to be cautious when dealing with Microsoft's terminology:
Microsoft's Arabization efforts have been mediocre at best. At one level, one must take into consideration a number of extenuating circumstances: the sheer volume of literature, the staggering list of terms and expressions, the overriding need for consistency, even if it leads to a bastardized style, the required production speed in today's business environment, and the dismal dearth of well-trained translators.
Because of pure bottom-line considerations, Microsoft's production philossophy has often moved along the lines of "produce first, correct later." This way, production schedules are met, and the public is generally forgiving once the patches are made available, and the bugs disappear.
Unfortunately, when it comes to Arabization, this philosophy drops a critical element: There are no patches. There is no concerted effort to go back to heaps of unreadable texts and make them readable.
The main reason is the lack of leverage exercised by Arabic-speaking consumers, who have failed to translate their buying power into a positive force for change.
The most disturbing example of Microsoft's failings is the Office XP Proofing Tools, which not only is useless, but also represents a quality regression from the Office 2000 spellchecker, which was at least usable. To the best of my knowledge, this $90 program has been received by Arabs with an abject lack of protest. No official or popular voice has been heard. In a couple of months, Office 2003 will be issued, and with it we may see yet another version of the proofing tools, most probably without any improvements.
I cite these facts only to warn against blind acceptance of Microsoft's terminology.