Microsoft to Continue Mac Support 275
rakeswell writes "Though Microsoft's five-year agreement to support some Microsoft applications on the Mac has come to a close, Microsoft announces that it will continue its support of the platform. This means that new versions of Office, IE, ODBC, and Palm synchronization will be made available for Mac OS X. Also, they intend to build in .NET support for the Mac, though Microsoft says that they do not intend to push .NET for Mac developers."
Palm? (Score:2, Flamebait)
MS did this for OSX? I did not know that..
Re:Palm? (Score:2, Informative)
Hope that helps!
"If PacMan had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to electronic music"
Re:Palm? (Score:2)
Microsoft do however apear to be writing the entourage conduit themselves according to KnowledgeBase Article Q311587.
Could the article mean PocketPCs instead? Is there an ActiveSync for Mac?
Obvious (?) reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obvious (?) reasons (Score:4, Informative)
DigiTunnel [gracion.com]
PiePants [mac.com]
Re:Obvious (?) reasons (Score:2, Flamebait)
Uhhh... so their argument that they're not a monopoly is, according to you, that they not only have their software running on 95% of x86, but also on ppc computers as well?
Re:Obvious (?) reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Obvious (?) reasons (Score:2)
Re:Obvious (?) reasons (Score:2)
I'm thinking of buying a new iMac or a G4 tower soon, but I would like to do some windows development on it while OSX matures.
Re:Obvious (?) reasons (Score:2)
Re:proving it's not a monopoly... (Score:2, Interesting)
1) M$ signed a contract to support Mac Office/IE/OE for the next 5 years.
2) M$ gave Apple an *undisclosed sum of money* as an out of court settlement
3) M$ buys the non-voting stock as a public sign of good will
4) Apple stops prosecuting M$ for copying System 7, and stealing source code from the OS and Quicktime to develop Windows stuff. The third time M$ and Apple came to legal blows over stealing source.
Support? (Score:3, Offtopic)
If this is what they mean by support, then I'd suggest the Mac folks could do better by hiring a few net-researchers instead.
Re:Support? (Score:3, Interesting)
But I do know one thing....Microsoft supports its developers. With the MSDN Library and the Platform SDK documentation, one can find pretty much anything
Troll (Score:2)
More support information than you'll ever need. Oh, you need still MORE information? Perhaps you're then not the right person who should admin these boxes.
Re:Put down the pipe... (Score:2)
Right in front of you. It's called the Enter key
Seriously, though, you can use the entire Windows UI without touching the mouse (which is useful when my hamster's batteries die). Learn to love the keyboard.
Re:Put down the pipe... (Score:2)
Seriously, though, you can use the entire Windows UI without touching the mouse (which is useful when my hamster's batteries die). Learn to love the keyboard.
I'd like to know the answer too (as using the keyboard isn't an answer).
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Well... (Score:1, Insightful)
Interestingly is to see how they keep their hand clean on this.
At least, the Mac BU team is really committed to the mac. They are really proving mac people with good software, even though it's MS software.
It would be interesting though to see what kind of limit MS put on the BU team.
Apple should hired all the BU team
Products. (Score:4, Informative)
...and I will continue using Appleworks, Mozilla, and Palm Desktop, because I don't want to support MS any more than strictly necessary.
It's a shame that the Mac developers who put out stuff like Office:Mac are working for such an ethically bankrupt company. They do really good work.
--saint
Re:Products. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Products. (Score:4, Funny)
I always thought it was funny that the only element of Office that _didn't_ start on the Mac is Access, which is widely derided for being such a complete and utter piece of shit.
Of course, even so, Macs are not suitable for Serious Business Use.
Oh, well. I've got one on my desk, and really, that's all that concerns me.
--saint
Re:Products. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Products. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Products. (Score:5, Insightful)
well, I guess that would depend on your business now, wouldnt it? I currently work for a hardware company which deals mainly in hp and sun servers. our office is windows only, except me. I do all the web work and perl programming, but i also do support for all of the office PCs. As far as pure usage goes, I have no problems communicating with anyone in the office, with the sole exception of access, which has no mac client/solution at this point. Hopefully the MBU will get to work on that. Anyway, my point is, if you are running a wintel workplace, it really isnt that hard to integrate macs into the workplace. if you run an all *nix office, it might be even easier, although i havent had the pleasure of finding out yet.
Re:Products. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Products. (Score:2)
/Brian
Re:Products. (Score:2)
Re:Products. (Score:2, Informative)
Of course, the mac desktop database market was a bit crouded then. Besides Filemaker, there was MS File, Acius' 4D, Ashton-Tate's dBase Mac, Omni III, Borland's Reflex. And that was also right about the time that Apple was about the time Apple was distributing Hypercard with every mac, pretty much destroying the Mac database market (Can you believe they tried calling Hypercard "System Software" in order to distribute it with the OS?)
Misinterpretation. (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm. Judging from some of the responses I got to this, I should have used explicit sarcasm tags.
I support Macs for a college -- I'm well aware that they are perfectly suited to anything that a typical office requires. I just think it's sort of odd that a reliable computer with quality hardware, a pretty much crashproof OS that's Unix-based to boot, and the best office suite on the market is usually dismissed out of hand as being for "graphics and stuff."
Serious Business Use [tm] is not a problem, but Macs have an unjust reputation as being too lightweight to handle it.
--saint
Re:Products. (Score:3, Insightful)
I always thought it was funny that the only element of Office that _didn't_ start on the Mac is Access, which is widely derided for being such a complete and utter piece of shit
Name one desktop RDBMS with front end that comes even close to being as good as access (and don't say fileMaker, it's about as relational as DbaseII
The problem with access is that there are idiots out there at attempt to run their web sites off it.
Re:Products. (Score:2)
Sybase SQL Anywhere, formerly Watcom SQL. Blows Access completely to smithereens
Honesitly, I have never seen this product before. I've checked out the specs [sybase.com], and it appears that it does not offer a front end like access. (the ability to create data entry forms and reports in the database itself.)
Creating forms in Access is a nice way to knock up a quick, simple, but effective data driven 'application' without having to resort to a real programming language. I have created dozens of such solutions for people, on access 97 and access 2k.
Anyway, that aside, I will download an eval copy because I do like to sound of some of the replication features.
As a single user back end database, it might very way blow Access out of the water for it's "data store", but then again, microsoft offers MSDE for free, which would blow SQL anywhere out of the water.
Re:Products. (Score:2, Interesting)
I will admit that Microsoft has made database administration a snap with its various databases, especially SQL Server 7 on Win2K, which is the last MS database product with which I worked. Sybase really dropped the ball on making their version usable. If you look at what Microsoft and Sybase did with SQL Server after they parted company, it's easy to see that Microsoft has done amazing things starting from the same code base and Sybase has let itself fall way behind. Well, that was the situation a couple years ago, when I last worked with these databases. Anyway, Microsoft may be an evil empire and all that, but most of their competitors have done more to screw themselves than Microsoft ever did to help them.
Also, getting back to SQL Anywhere, the original creators were the Watcom folks up in Waterloo, Ontario. Sybase acquired their technology when they purchased Powersoft. The real magic was done by Watcom.
Re:Products. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, the reason that Word/Excel are part of Mac Office is that they were written from the start (pretty much) to run on the Mac. Word & Excel had graphical interfaces on the Mac well before Word for Windows came out. The Mac versions of these apps were eventually built from the same codebase as their Windows counterparts using a windows portability library (WLM) developed internally at microsoft which was shipped as part of Visual C++ Macintosh Edition (which was the first project I worked on at MS). Access was always a Windows-only app and since they reimplemented all of the windows controls (to support Access Basic & Databinding) it would be pretty tricky to port it to the Mac.
Re:Products. (Score:2)
Now, what you say is true with regard to Paradox.
Re:Products. (Score:2)
Re:Products. (Score:4, Interesting)
That statement isn't quite as silly as it sounds; I once spent the better part of a summer working on an inventory database, and the first thing I did was convert it from an Excel spreadsheet to FileMaker. I don't know if they converted it back... hope they didn't...
/Brian
Re:Products. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Products. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Products. (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't be naive....they make plenty of money, and that's why they stay there.
Re:Products. (Score:3, Interesting)
Quote:
-----
It's a shame that the Mac developers who put out stuff like Office:Mac are working for such an ethically bankrupt company. They do really good work.
------
I think these guys are among the most staunch Mac people. Willing to even work for the Beast to make sure we have a good version of Office.
I know some of these guys and trust me they are staunch Apple supporters.
Re:Products. (Score:3, Informative)
Thing is, Microsoft needs those people there. To those of you who only jumped on the bandwagon with OS X, you've probably been only passingly familiar with the monstrosity that was Word 6. It was pretty much a straight port of Word 95 (or so I've heard) and was one of the worst recieved Mac apps ever; MS created the MacBU not long after that and junked the compatibility layer.
The end result is that Mac users who do use Microsoft Office get a product created by die-hard Mac addicts for die-hard Mac addicts, and the result is polished, functional software that has been getting grudging raves (as in "it's so bad, but it feels so good") ever since Office 98 came out. I don't use it myself -- I rarely even use IE unless I need to view a java page (Mozilla is my regular browser). But those who use it are using good software.
Just another excuse for us Macheads to laugh at PC users
/Brian
palm? (Score:4, Informative)
I didn't know Microsoft had any control over that? I though it was these guys [palm.com].
Re:palm? (Score:5, Informative)
Now it is MS's responsibility to make the conduit that connects Entoruge with the new version of HotSync. Now, weither or not MS creates the programing in-house, or contracts it out like the PC version, I don't know.
Course, I could be wrong. Any one care to correct if I am?
Re:palm? (Score:2)
I think what the article means is a version of ActiveSync (that's what Microsoft's PocketPCs use) for Mac, because there currently isn't one. ActiveSync syncs to Outlook/Entourage, so it makes sense that this functionality would come with an Office X update.
Re:palm? (Score:3, Informative)
Well thanks... (Score:1, Troll)
well, duh (Score:1)
Having said that, however, I would like to see Redmond pick up the pace a bit with respect to their OS X support. I can't even drag & drop text within Word without it crashing on me, and IE's nice enough but still feels like a port without any polish (especially compared to OmniWeb, which to be fair has it's own problems).
Re:well, duh (Score:2)
Check out Fire [epicware.com] and Proteus [indigofield.com]. Both are tremendous IM clients... the only thing lacking from either - unfortunately - is file transfer. Proteus has this coming RSN, apparently.
And this move is a surprise WHY? (Score:5, Insightful)
Scenario #1: Microsoft dumps Apple, focuses solely upon Windows. Courts notice behavior. Courts say "Now you are going too far with the monopoly thing, Mr. Sedaka, would you please do the honors?" (cue Breaking Up Is Hard To Do).
Meanwhile, a cadre of users are pissed, and start buying products other than Microsoft. The market for such products becomes large enough to be noticed, and somebody else moves in and starts making money. This Will Not Do.
Scenario #2: MS continues support for the Mac. As a result, most Mac users use IE, Word, Office, Excel, etc. for Mac. Competition in those areas is stifled.
In addition, MS can better spread their
Which course of action would YOU take?
Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? (Score:2)
When you also consider that Office is a Top Ten title on the Mac [amazon.com], then you realize that MS is making a ton of money off of Mac users.
Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? (Score:2)
Microsoft's philosophy summed up in two sentences!
Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? (Score:2)
Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? (Score:2)
http://europe.cnn.com/2001/TECH/ptech/07/23/mic
500,000 copies of Office 2001 for Macintosh for a price of around $400 each (depends on where you buy it) means they have brought in $200 million USD on just Office 2001 in about a year or so. MS Office 98 has sold 3.5 million copies so MS has brought in almost 1.5 *billion* USD on that product.
It's a cash cow for them.. Of course they are not discontinuing it!
Wouldn't the courts love this (Score:5, Insightful)
It is actually in Microsoft's best interest to make Office X even if it wan't that profitable. Microsoft knows that Apple doesn't pose a threat to it's market share. By supporting Apple's OS they say to the courts that they're really not that bad.
Willy
Oooops (Score:4, Funny)
yes, of course they will (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:yes, of course they will (Score:1)
While I bet they do make a significant profit doing Office:Mac, your statement was wrong. Dead wrong
MS & Apple facts (Score:5, Informative)
Try your facts right before you quote (Score:2, Informative)
hmm sold their Apple stock ? i can't find that information on google [google.com] word was released on an apple first ? 9/29/1983 Microsoft introduces Word for MS-DOS 1.00 here [216.239.39.100] must of been a really old apple Microsoft already have a Unix product line (albeit a small one) here [microsoft.com] so when listing items as fact please quote your sources instead of nonsense
Re:Try your facts right before you quote (Score:2, Informative)
Facts? haha :) (Score:2)
Here we go:
4. MS also gets early access & influence into Apple's R&D. As Apple is one of the biggest innovators in the industry (and one who MS has "borrowed" from liberally over the years) this is likely an important consideration to MS.
Apple innovators? Since when? What did they innovate? Some products are nice, but does Apple have large researchlabs which do research on a large group of fields at a high level, like Microsoft and IBM have? I doubt it.
6. MS Word & MS Excel were originally Mac applications.
Not true, MS released word long before Apple made the macintosh. True, it wasn't graphical, but it WAS word. Also, MS first released the graphical wysiwyg version of word on the windows platform and then on Apple's platform.
7. MS's Mac products are some of MS's best products. MS IE for the Mac is far more standards compliant then the Windows version (their being on different code bases likely helps.) MS Office v.X for the Mac is a far more polished product then Office XP is.
Office for the PC is released before the Mac versions, not at the same time. So flaws in design are fixed in the first release of the Mac version after the PC version. Also: the Mac version has some different functionality sets compared to the PC version, since Mac users want different functionality in some areas. So 'polished' is subjective here
About IE for the Mac, I can be short: you're wrong. It's a pain, because IE on the mac behaves differently f.e. with framesets in an IFRAME tag (i.e.: not as expected). Plus: IE6 isn't released yet for the mac, it is for the PC.
9. Contrary to the hopes of many MS having a product line on the Unix-based MacOS X does not mean it would be easy to retarget it to Unix et al. Much of MS Office for the Mac is based on Apple-only parts of the system, relies on the Quartz drawing layer & Aqua UI, etc.
In general, a relative small part of an application is used to render a gui. A big part of an application is simply 'application logic'. IE and Office are somewhat build with COM objects, a technology that isn't present on Mac nor Unix. Porting that tech over to Unix (which they did for IE for Solaris) is the first step to have any MS product on Unix. I don't see the problem why MS couldn't easily port COM based applications to Unix because they already have a COM supportlayer on Unix.
10. Many large corporations, institutions and government agencies have Macs that they require support for. Were MS to drop Office support for the Mac these places might be encouraged to (re)consider MS Office alternatives.
I think when MS drops support for Office for Mac, Mac is dead, at least in the business area. It's that simple. For the same reasons why there still ain't much desktops running Linux in large corporations: MS office isn't supported on that platform.
Wrong on every count (Score:2)
Earth to clueless, Earth to clueless: Apple has been doing tons of research for years now, supporting numerous projects (unfortunately notorious for not being capitalized upon), "Apple Fellows" etc. Yes, they're a big R&D place, larger then almost any other corporation of their scale. Sorry you haven't been paying attention.
MS Word for DOS was released first. Very little if any of that code made it into MS Word for Mac. Later when MS released MS Windows they also shipped MS Word for Windows. For many years MS Word was written in psuedo-code based on Apple's abandoned Mac-App framework which MS had to continue developing to support their platform-shared Word codebase. It was only recently that the two codebases became separated.
The two are on alternate release schedules but not migrated ones, ie each version isn't just a bugfix for the other but also receives new features. However for the last two versions of MS Office for Mac vs MS Office for Windows there has been more "good stuff" done on the Mac side then on the Windows side. Don't just believe me on this, check with any reviewer who has done a comparison.As to the browsers: Google on "Browser Compatibility" and check out the notes - latest MS IE on Mac *remains* more standards complaint.
Oh, so sad, where to start.
OK, are you aware that MS has been shipping Office on Mac (sans Access & until recently a decent Exchange client) for years now? This wasn't done via magic, there is a COM-architecture MS has cobbled together for MacOS.
However you're right (finally on something!); I did pick the two easiest examples of why it would be difficult. The most important is that MS Office v.X is Carbon based. It is running within the MacOS legacy/compatibility libraries and thus not "on Unix". While it does require MacOS X it is really a port of the the pre-X MS Office and as such relies on all of that old code and those old calls, just cleaned up a bit.
So unless someone is proposing to port Apple's Carbon layer elsewhere we're not going to see Office v.X going anywhere either. As MS hasn't the rights & Apple hasn't the interest I feel pretty safe stating it ain't gonna happen.
Y'know, about 5 minutes of research would have corrected you on each point so far. You gotta learn about not trying to correct folks who do know what they're talking about when you clearly don't.
Er, jump from?First off I agree partially: MS Office is a key application for MacOS. "Dead" I disagree with but yeah, big hit. On the other hand I just gave lots of reasons why MS won't be doing this (Reading For Comprehension, try it!)
I suppose it boils down to MS would be foolish to drop Mac, it would likely hurt MS as badly as it would Apple (profits a small component, PR/monopoly a big one, customers getting spooked and (re)considering alternatives being the biggest, etc.) however in the end I expect the Mac platform would survive. I'm particularly sanguine as it's an easy platform to develop for and there's a number of good Office alternatives maturing, while painful I expect they could come to bat and in the process give them legitimacy MS desperately wants to avoid.
Re:Facts? haha :) (Score:2)
The answers (in order) Yes, since the company was founded, Personal computers, PDA's, digital cameras, digital movies, etc.Did Apple invent those things? No, but they were working on them or producing them as products very early on - often years before their competitors
does Apple have large research labs which do research on a large group of fields at a high level, like Microsoft and IBM have?
Sadly Apple no longer does as much since they disbanded the Apple Research Labs (née Advanced Technology Group) in 97. Though prior to that time it was a well respected research lab. When Microsoft made their famous investment in Apple stock it was part of a larger settlement in which Apple and Microsoft cross-licensed each others patent portfolios - only Apple had MORE patents so Microsoft payed an undisclosed sum (above and beyond their stock purchase) to balance things out.
While Apple no longer pursues that degree of primary research I think it's still fair to call them an "innovator" Apple invented technologies like Quicktime, and IEEE 1394 (firewire) are still important and moving forward and their use of those technologies developed by others remains innovative - especially when compared to other PC hardware manufacturers.
Not true, MS released word long before Apple made the macintosh. True, it wasn't graphical, but it WAS word.
True, though I wouldn't call from 1983 "long before Apple made the macintosh"
Also, MS first released the graphical wysiwyg version of word on the windows platform and then on Apple's platform.
Untrue. Microsoft word for the Mac came out in 1984. Word for windows came out in 1989. From Microsoft's site: "...Microsoft Word, which first shipped for MS-DOS in 1983, on the Macintosh platform in 1984, and on the Windows platform in 1989. "
In general, a relative small part of an application is used to render a gui. A big part of an application is simply 'application logic'.
Still excel, word, etc. on the mac are all written with "Carbon" which is MacOS only. I think porting the Mac (both 9 and X - it's the same code) application to UNIX would be just as non-trivial as porting straight from windows to UNIX.
I think when MS drops support for Office for Mac, Mac is dead, at least in the business area.
It's already dead (in the business area) but killing office wouldn't kill the Mac since it would still have it's core of designers and education. People that, while it isn't their primary reason for having their computer, still need a word processor. Microsoft doesn't want to risk giving a competitor that small, but highly profitable, niche.
Great, Plam sync... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great, Plam sync... (Score:2)
lock-in (Score:4, Insightful)
The only reason that I can see why they haven't already made Office/IE for Linux is that MS has a bug up their butt about the GPL. Don't be surprised if they release their lock-in magic for FreeBSD before long.
Supporting (or should that be "supporting") Apple is a big win for them in another way too, though, because a certain percentage of Apple users are going to realize that they're mostly using MS products, and are going to find the idea of a switch to an MS platform that much more palatable. Especially given the price advantage of the (admitedly flakey) commodity hardware platform.
What the Linux community needs to do in response (IMO) is also support OS/X as well as we can, so that we make Linux (and, by extension, the BSDs) another viable out for Mac users. And gain the sympathy of the more loyal Mac users, who will surely appreciate having more software (esp. free software) available for their platform.
I know that I'm brushing up my ObjC and starting to browse the GNUstep [gnustep.org] sites.
/rubs eyes (Score:3, Funny)
what it said:
The premise of
What I saw the first read:
The premise of
IOW: here they fscking go again.
Oh, and this gem in the comments:
Mac ODBC doens't work unless you aren't actually using it...
MMmmph, snort, ahahahahhhhaaa.
Yeah, my car doesn't work when I don't use it, either.
/me reaches for a cluebyfour
Naaah, you'd just duck.
.
.Net? (Score:1)
Translation (Score:3, Insightful)
"As long as we can use the Mac version of MS Office as a cudgel to beat you with, you will continue to do everything we tell you to. There's no need to extend the contract."
Seriously... would Apple even dare to put Netscape back into Mac OS? All they have to do is merely think about it and Microsoft would start threatening them. Ditto for web services, media services, and whatever market Microsoft wants to park its steamroller in on any particular day.
Apple really ought to make an effort to get OpenOffice working really, really well as a native Mac OS X application. Then they should use the Mozilla technology to integrate a web browser into the Finder. If done well enough (and we know how good Apple is at desktop stuff), they could make Microsoft irrelevant on the Macintosh platform -- and then they wouldn't have to let Bill push them around anymore.
Re:Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
As a Mac user, I really hope they don't. OpenOffice is awful compared to the Mac version of Office and OO is being developed to be cross platform and then ported. Office for Mac is written specifically for the Mac. I don't want crappy ported software that looks like it belongs on Windows, I want good Mac software (same argument applies in reverse when I'm using my Windows box btw).
Then they should use the Mozilla technology to integrate a web browser into the Finder.
Again, please don't. Mozilla is awful - it makes no attempt to fit in with Mac OS and advertises that fact as one of it's features (customizable interface - does that sound like a Mac experience to you?). Mozilla fits in really well with Linux with it's customizability and it's general look and feel of the interface, but it does not fit into Mac OS. It's saving grace however may be Chimera (or some similar name) which is taking the Mozilla engine and putting a proper OS X interface on it using native widgets (not just trying to simulate them).
If done well enough (and we know how good Apple is at desktop stuff), they could make Microsoft irrelevant on the Macintosh platform
Microsoft has no power on the Macintosh platform - we use their products because they happen to be good, not because we need to. AppleWorks is an excellent office alternative which reads and writes Office files. Mac users have already shown that if MS puts out a bad version of Office they are happy to either not upgrade or switch to AppleWorks - it happened when Word 6.0 came out as a Windows port instead of a real Mac version.
Basically, Mac users are picky about their user interfaces, that's what makes the Mac platform so much easier to use - anything that doesn't conform to the human interface guidlines is hammered in reviews and given really bad publicity all over the place, resulting in really poor sales. Mac users don't want Windows software and they don't want Linux software, they want Mac software that looks *and feels* like Mac software, just looking the same does not cut it.
Re:Translation (Score:4, Interesting)
How can you say something like this? If Apple puts resources in to making OO run great on OSX, why would you complain about that? Or, perhaps you don't like choice, especially when Microsoft holds so much power over the office suites on Mac. Yes, Appleworks is great (I've been a big fan since ClarisWorks) but it's not really a competitor to MS Office, in large part because it doesn't focus on cross-platform support the way OO is. The fact that MS Office is dominant on Windows goes the majority of the way towards making it the dominant office suite on Macs. I personally agree with the parent and think Apple should pour at least some resources in to OO and eventually release their own version of the thing, with the UI set up to work perfectly with OSX. Would you complain about this?
And as for Mozilla... it might suck now on OSX, but it's a damn fine piece of technology, and the fact that it can be heavily customized means that it can be configured for full OSX style UI with some Javascript and CSS. You're not forced to use it, but this could be the default behavior for the OSX binary distribution of the program. Apple could even do it themselves, or... hell, even you could do it! Anyone can! Meanwhile, you're still stuck with a dated version of IE (which is hideously slow whenever I've used it on Mac) and Omniweb, which still needs DOM work. With these as your alternate choices, how can you say that this would be a bad thing?
But then... I left the Mac because I wanted the freedom to choose for myself what to use rather than what was handed to me. I guess things haven't changed that much then. sigh
A Browser is not a OS GUI. (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Steve is against it (good)
2) It's crap. Good for browsing the web, bad for browsing my hard drive.
Now, the browser wars on OSX. Omniweb's winning. The latest version of OW is faster than just about everything except Opera (which can't do anything). Mozilla still has some CSS issues (hoping they'll be worked out by 1.0) and it's UI is crap. IE and Omniweb load the fastest, and OW even loads some pages correctly that IE doesn't. Now OW runs all the java apps I need correctly, and if they can just get some Javascript issues worked out it'll be flawless. That, and tabbed browsing.
OpenOffice.
I'd start using it if it can read word doc's, do everything entourage can, do everything excel can, do everything powerpoint can, and do 1/3rd of the things word can. Oh yeah, and run with a superb GUI that blends in with OSX (like MS Office). Really, All of the office X apps are the best in their categories (Except Microsoft Messenger). I don't see anything on the current market that would make me consider switching...
Just be thankful nobody uses MSN.
Re:Translation (Score:2)
That being said, Mozilla doesn't fit into Linux either, except insofar as nothing on Linux makes any attempt to fit with anything else (cross-toolkit-wise; Linux is a sorry, sad hodgepodge. I don't mind it, personally, but still, it's dumb).
The rest of your points are spot-on. Mac users want Mac software that works. It's ironic, really, that 5% of the market has such freedom of choice, while the other 95% are, by and large, locked into certain choices if they are to interoperate. Still, I'm not complaining.
(...types the Win98 user into mozilla... but we have a G4 in the living room, really!)
--Dan
Re:Translation (Score:2)
First, I specified that i meant 'cross-toolkit', not merely cross-app. Second, I listed a whack of toolkits, like gtk, qt, xaw, tk, the crap XFree apps come with, etc.
Then I listed a ton of apps that theme themselves, like XMMS, Mozilla, licq with the QT plugin (one app, several looks, great idea), freeamp, gqmpeg. Then I mentioned windowmanagers (WM dockapps are different from other apps, and behave entirely differently too), and pointed out how Enlightenment's interface TOTALLY changes - not just look, but basic functionality - when you so much as change themes.
Yeah, all GTK apps look the same, and all KDE apps look the same, but don't fool yourself into thinking that Linux has anything even remotely resembling a consistant interface. Windows isn't that much better, and MacOS, while significantly better, and while the usability guidelines are strictly adhered to, even in Quicktime/iTunes, has its share.
Linux is just the worst of the lot, that's all.
--Dan
Re:Translation (Score:2)
Who would not want to have choice in software? You choose what you want. For me the best thing is to have as many apps as possible on a platform. Then I can choose which one is right for me. I can hardly imagine that FORD, GM, HONDA...etc...would only make one type of car. In the same way I cannot imagine only having one choice on any platform.
As far as IE being great on OS X it's a mtter of choice. Give me mozilla any day....
Re:Translation (Score:2)
I choose Mac software not crappy ported software. Simple. The Mac only has a consistent interface because it's users moan incessently about any product that doesn't fit in properly. Mozilla works on OS X so you have your choice but if Apple were to include it with the OS in any way shape or form it would be a sad day for the consistency of the Mac interface.
Re:Translation (Score:2)
What makes software crappy is not that it was ported but what effort was placed in proting the software.
Re:Translation (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong, the entire sweet is specifically written for Mac. Of course there will be code reuse, but none of it is a port of the windows version nor is it specifically designed to be used for both. To prove this to yourself look at a) incompatible file formats between the mac and windows versions (not including Office vX) b) the difference in features between platforms. The mac business unit is a separate division of MS that creates it's own products.
Have you used the Finder in MacOS X? (Score:2)
Apple have relied on the initial, great design for OS9 for so long that when they attempt to build something 'better', they just end up with a slow, bloated pile of crap.
Seriously, OS9, Windows 2000/XP and Linux/Xfree86 beat the crap out of MacOS X for performance and functionality.
They don't look as nicely-put-together in some respects, but neither do they force you to wait watching a spinning beach-ball for anything like as long. It just feels clumsy, every action requiring a small delay due to abysmal redraw speed. Not direct and snappy like it should feel.
I've frozen my plans to purchase more Macs for the staff at my business because Apple can't even get it to run well on a G4 Powerbook. And this is just the OS! Attempt to actually run a couple of applications and performance drops still further.
Office on the Mac? Great, but don't think my users would appreciate the sluggishness of the Mac compared to a cheaper, faster x86 desktop.
.NET? OpenSTEP? Its all about the frameworks baby! (Score:3, Insightful)
People tend to forget that OSX has its own framework - the one based on OpenStep. This is also represented on Linux as GNUStep. Mewonders exactly what Mickey is trying to achieve wihh
Re:.NET? OpenSTEP? Its all about the frameworks ba (Score:2)
You might also call Java a "framework."
Heh... (Score:2)
Almost makes me want to switch to a Mac.
What Did Apple Give Up For This? (Score:2)
Examples:
Excel - bye bye the much superior MacBasic.
MS Word 1.0 - Microsoft gets original look and feel license that eventually provides grounds to torpedo the famous lawsuit.
The mentioned 5 year agreement - Apple licenses a crapload of patents to Microsoft.
Now we have this. What will we see as a result? Apple drpping Quicktime in favor of Windows Media Player?
I am SURE that Microsft would not miss the opportunity to extract it's pound of flesh.
Re:What Did Apple Give Up For This? (Score:2)
While I agree that while Apple is no friend of free software, I think it would have been quite possible for the free software community to come up with a modern look and feel that would not have been challenged by Apple. Other companies did with their products. Who knows, it may have even been better if people had been forced to innovate rather than just copying what Apple developed.
No HTML rendering? (Score:2, Funny)
COMPANY SUPPORTS PROFITABLE MONOPOLY PRODUCT!! (Score:2, Funny)
A company that holds a monpoly position in a highly profitable market segment decides to keep selling into that market, without in any way threatening their other monopoly markets.
Economists everywhere are in an uproar.
Also in the news, the version of the monopoly product in the market the company does not control will continue to lack desirable, nay, vital features found in the version that they sell into the market they do control.
Pundits agree that such a daring and novel business method should be protected by a patent.
WTF? Palm? (Score:2)
Since when was Palm [palm.com] a Microsoft application?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:WTF? Palm? (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Funny, when considering the APSL... (Score:2)
B F'n D (Score:2)
- The argument that there is real competition in desktop OSes gets a LOT weaker, thereby undermining M$'s defense in the anti-trust suit;
- The mere fact that M$ stops supporting the Mac (or even neglecting to provide
.NET support for it) will undermine M$'s position in the antitrust suit because the remaining (sane) states will argue even harder that M$ should be broken up because these would be continuing actions attempting to cement a 100% monopoly on the desktop by using M$'s market power in office applications to undermine Apple; and
- M$ will have no one left to imitate.
I can't wait for my new TiBook to arrive -- it will be a M$-free environment that I can use at work now that everything I need in my office is webified. I see my productivity going up substantially now that my work will not be constantly interrupted by the Blue Screen of Death.Re:Thank God (Score:1)
Re:Thank God (Score:2)
Re:IE for Solaris/HP-UX (Score:2)
Re:IE for Solaris/HP-UX (Score:2)
Why are you running Solaris x86 on a machine that's perfectly capable of running Windows?
I think that's some of the reasoning behind not porting IE to Linux. Obviously, most of the compatibility layer for Unix is already done, but why encourage people to use an different OS on the hardware you 0wn?
IE 5 and OE 5 for Solaris are quite good. But AFAICT they were written to convince large organizations who already have a pile of Solaris/HPUX client boxes that it's safe to switch all their servers to IIS and start using features that are only supported in IE. Of course, how long the customers actually keep the Unix boxes after that, who knows. Must suck to be on that team, knowing that the most important thing you provide to Microsoft is a feature checkbox in the brochure....
I'm experimentally running Debian/SPARC woody on my Ultra 10 at work. Now that I have Evolution and a choice of konq and galeon, I'm mostly happy. But when I have to boot back into Solaris you can bet I'm going to be using IE5 and OE5 again.
Re:IE for Solaris/HP-UX (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ODBC HAH!!!! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:Office on Apple is good because (Score:5, Informative)
Bzzt. Wrong.
There are a few different development environments available for OS X. Not the least of which is a full GNU toolchain (actually the NATIVE toolchain) and it ships on a CD with each and every copy of OS X. Carbon and Coca are supported by a very nice IDE (also on the same CD). If you really must, there is also a Metroworks IDE and toolchain, which is one of the best around.
Having come from Linux (since Linux 0.95!), I'm right at home developing on OS X. Having used a pile of different IDEs, Project Builder is very fine piece of work, RAD tools and all.
J