PDA

View Full Version : First details of Office 2007 for Mac. All new UI.


MacBytes
Sep 17, 2006, 09:15 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: 3rd Party Software
Link: First details of Office 2007 for Mac. All new UI. (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060917221536)
Description:: Office 2007 for Mac will have an all-new UI that borrows from the "Ribbon" concept in Office 2007 for Windows, along with XML file formats and of course Universal Binary codebase. The bad news? It's not due for another year.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 17, 2006, 09:30 PM
This is huge - shouldn't it be posted on the front page?

dreamsINdigital
Sep 17, 2006, 09:47 PM
Well nice to know that it is being worked on.

sushi
Sep 17, 2006, 09:50 PM
IMHO, Office 97 for Windows and Office 98 for the Mac was the best combo. Menus were identical. Simple to go back and forth between the two.

I hope that Office 2007 for Mac and Windows shares this commonality. It makes it so much easier to use, and makes it more platform independent.

clayj
Sep 17, 2006, 09:56 PM
I still don't think the Mac version of Office will be called "Office 2007". It causes too much confusion for the support folks. It's more likely that it'll be called "Office 2008" on the Mac, particularly since it'll almost be 2008 when it's released.

projectle
Sep 17, 2006, 10:25 PM
Remember, Microsoft committed to the Office 2007 name while Office 12 was still to ship in September 2006.
Most of their stuff was named for the next year so that it did not seem "outdated" by the time it gets pushed out the door. That is why Microsoft changed their naming structure to XP and Vista because the marketing team and bankers took the lead to make sure that the next Windows 2000 would not seem so last century.

EricNau
Sep 17, 2006, 10:28 PM
This is good news. :)

GoCubsGo
Sep 17, 2006, 10:29 PM
Wow this is nice! But...I want it now, not 2009 when it is really going to come out.
In the end, it is MS...remember vista? Yeah me neither.

bluebomberman
Sep 17, 2006, 10:44 PM
This is huge - shouldn't it be posted on the front page?

I don't expect it to hit the front page until more concrete details emerge (like screenshots, for instance...). It's just too far away from hitting the shelves...

Zadillo
Sep 17, 2006, 10:56 PM
Definitely good news. I've actually been enjoying the Office 2007 beta for Windows, so it will be nice if some of the ideas in it to make their way to the OS X version of Office.

stevehp
Sep 17, 2006, 10:56 PM
I have the Beta for Windows that Microsoft put out on their site. I think it's awful.

swingerofbirch
Sep 17, 2006, 11:10 PM
It makes sense in some ways that Apple hasn't told Microsoft what the UI of Leopard will be, but in other ways, as one of the largest Apple developers, it seems a bit snarky to keep them in the dark. It also seems it will delay their development of Office, as they don't want to put out a product that doesn't play nicely with Leopard's UI.

mtoddy
Sep 17, 2006, 11:22 PM
i just want better exchange support in entourage

mcarnes
Sep 18, 2006, 12:03 AM
3rd Q 2007! You've got to be kidding me. Lazy MS bums.

x86isslow
Sep 18, 2006, 12:13 AM
3rd Q 2007! You've got to be kidding me. Lazy MS bums.

I think it has to do more with having to make sure its compatible with the Windows version. That's why it ships staggered a few months after Office for Windows.

sierra oscar
Sep 18, 2006, 12:15 AM
I think the latter part of 2007 will be too late - I for one, will probably give up and find another word app in the meantime if my productivity is suffering via Rosetta. I will switch from the MS Office suite of apps indefinitely if Apple come out with something comparable before then. (currently I've no alternative, I need to use Word with Endnote - nothing else does this yet).

Superdrive
Sep 18, 2006, 12:21 AM
Hopefully MS will not screw anything up this time around. I think the refinements made from Office v.X to Office 2004 were nice touches. With an all new UI (which is not required by any means, because it probably won't get simplified) there is a huge opportunity to cause trouble. I look forward to speed and, hopefully, simplicity.

dmelgar
Sep 18, 2006, 12:21 AM
I keep wondering when OpenOffice / Neooffice will be good enough to that people won't have to stay in the Microsoft trap. I only use Office because I have to, I certainly don't want to. If the compatability problems with OpenOffice were resolved I'd stick with that. I do have some peeves about OpenOffice. I use the outline view in Word all the time and its missing from OpenOffice.

If Microsoft knew how to develop software they could/should have been developing the Mac version in parallel to the Windows version, not afterwards. Thereby making a simultaneous announce. But it seems that MS has forgotten how to write software. Given how many years its taken to write Vista. Helps Apple though.

mdntcallr
Sep 18, 2006, 12:26 AM
This is good news. We need a new and full quality version of Office.
There are major issues though...
We need it to Have in the Macintosh Version of office:
All of the new features and abilities of Windows Version
Be able to communicate in a workgroup.
Upgrade version of Entourage to Match more of the address book functions and more of Outlook. it's kinda weird looking
Get more integrated support of some of of the files and data, to be fully actionable by Mac OS 10.5
Also, give full MSN messenger, and WMA Video files.

we need full compatibility, not handicapped!

Multimedia
Sep 18, 2006, 12:29 AM
I guess Vista is more important than Mac Office. Can't believe it will take another year to make it UB. Only monkeys at work there? :rolleyes:

Abstract
Sep 18, 2006, 12:44 AM
^^Well it is a big change for such a big application, and the Mac BU is quite good at what they do and is solely dedicated to Macs. Also, there aren't a lot of people who work there, and they likely do what they can.

And just be glad that the Mac version of Office is always better than the version for Microsoft. ;) That just shows you that the people at the MacBU wants the version on Apple to be good.

It makes sense in some ways that Apple hasn't told Microsoft what the UI of Leopard will be.....

Of course they Microsoft knows most of the details. They probably got a version at WWDC like other developers. ;) They don't know all the cool features, but they know enough to continue to develop for it, much like every other software company. And besides, the other features offered by Apple in Leopard probably aren't relevent to what's offered in Office.

p0intblank
Sep 18, 2006, 12:48 AM
This is great news, but why is Microsoft so freakin' slow with everything they do?

yoda13
Sep 18, 2006, 12:50 AM
This does not surprise me at all...I figured it would take a while...not this long...but I am still not surprised...

IJ Reilly
Sep 18, 2006, 01:03 AM
This is great news, but why is Microsoft so freakin' slow with everything they do?

Why should they hurry? Does anyone really expect Microsoft to be prompt or good?

GreatDrok
Sep 18, 2006, 01:14 AM
Office:mac does not follow the Apple user interface guidelines, why should MS care what the Leopard UI is going to be like? :mad:

It is also buggy and cannot reliably share files with the Windows version with terrible examples such as pasting an Excel chart or an image into Powerpoint which looks fine on the Mac but is either distorted or completely absent on PC. :eek: In Word I am very careful to use styles and still page layout isn't reliable between platforms. To reliably share documents the only choice is OpenOffice/NeoOffice.

If MS knew the first thing about portable file formats they wouldn't have to spend forever testing the file compatibility. Most new Mac users I have converted are pretty happy with NeoOffice Aqua because it looks good, is native code, actually looks more like Office on the PC than Office:mac and has enough compatibility to MS Office without the pricetag.

ipedro
Sep 18, 2006, 01:19 AM
3rd Quarter of 2007?

iWork 3 will likely be released in January 2007 @ MacWorld and will probably be the final nail in the coffin of Office for Mac users looking for a simplified office suite that allows them to deliver great looking office documents without all the technical knowhow.

PowerPoint has already been surpassed by a wide margin by Keynote. Pages is on its way to doing the same. Cells, numbers or whatever it will be called can easily jump over Excel if Apple delivers their simplified UI to their upcoming spreadsheet application.

... runs to book tickets to San Francisco. Moscone Center, here I come!

ro2nie
Sep 18, 2006, 01:44 AM
The solution here is Apple making new "office like" applications for the iWork suite.
Why do we still need to depend on MS? :mad:

ro2nie
Sep 18, 2006, 01:49 AM
Why should they hurry? Does anyone really expect Microsoft to be prompt or good?

They always like to frustrate us. Just read this page (http://microsuck.com/content/whatsbad.shtml) and see what their techniques are...

BWhaler
Sep 18, 2006, 01:51 AM
So, over 2 years after Apple announced the move to Intel, Microsoft is going to give us a native application?

2 years later?

Sure, I understand they can't trump the PC guys, but this is the problem with Microsoft.

They are too big for their own good.

I just hope Apple gets some balls and makes iWork 07 a serious Office killer. They don't have to market it that way so they can keep the folks in Redmond happy.

But for we Mac folks, it'll be great to never use Office again.

Come on Apple...you can do it.

superleccy
Sep 18, 2006, 02:21 AM
I can't get excited about this.

I still have a G4, but my Dad has an Intel iMac, and Office seems to runs fine under Rosetta.

OK, so the current version of Office isn't wonderful, but I can't think of any new "features" or "enhancements" that would make me want to part with my hard earned cash... especially by giving it to M$.

SL

Philberttheduck
Sep 18, 2006, 02:31 AM
if this is all true, do you think iWork '07 will include a word-esque format in their "Pages" and/or "Spreadsheet"? If Apple was being "business-y", then they'll too wait til '08 before they incorporate the MS Word,Excel into their iWork.

That'd be a bitch. Let's hope iWork '07 includes a friggin better school/office-friendly format in Pages. I'm pretty much tired of dealing with MS.

arn
Sep 18, 2006, 02:58 AM
So, over 2 years after Apple announced the move to Intel, Microsoft is going to give us a native application?

2 years later?

Sure, I understand they can't trump the PC guys, but this is the problem with Microsoft.


To be fair, Office is a huge app (with some assembly apparently) and they had to switch development platforms (to Xcode).

arn

iMikeT
Sep 18, 2006, 03:03 AM
I'll stick with iWork.

Neuro
Sep 18, 2006, 03:11 AM
This is great news, but why is Microsoft so freakin' slow with everything they do?

Totally agree. It's not like a couple more developers would make a dent in their profits. They need to get it to market asap before everyone starts using cracked Office for Windows on Parellis or VMWare...

Veldek
Sep 18, 2006, 03:57 AM
To be fair, Office is a huge app (with some assembly apparently) and they had to switch development platforms (to Xcode).

arnThat's true, but as far as I understood they managed to complete this part, so they should be able to release a universal binary patch quite soon. Nevertheless they won't do this...

BornAgainMac
Sep 18, 2006, 05:23 AM
Microsoft doesn't have anyone to copy from to make this App so it will take longer. I look forward to iWork. If I need Excel, I'll use the old version that was delivered back in 2004.

Messenger probaby required a lot of overtime by the Microsoft Mac team and delayed Office. I am glad they dumped IE and Media player for the Mac.

ro2nie
Sep 18, 2006, 05:27 AM
To be fair, Office is a huge app (with some assembly apparently) and they had to switch development platforms (to Xcode).
arn

Yer, and Adobe applications are even bigger, but they will be released sooner than expected. (think they will be released by the end of this year, or early 07)
Microsoft dropped VirtualPC, Windows media player for mac, and Internet explorer....so now, they should drop Office and MSN messenger (since everyone uses Adium now)...
Apple should improve iWork and make it a proper office suite. Come on Apple!

bigandy
Sep 18, 2006, 05:29 AM
IMHO, Office 97 for Windows and Office 98 for the Mac was the best combo. Menus were identical. Simple to go back and forth between the two.

I hope that Office 2007 for Mac and Windows shares this commonality. It makes it so much easier to use, and makes it more platform independent.
except have you seen office 2007? i hope it doesn't look like that. i hope it looks a whole lot better.

ChipperVW
Sep 18, 2006, 05:43 AM
I know it's somewhat limited to the entire Office suite. But I've been using Pages and Keynote a lot more lately and really like them!

I could probably live without Office. :)

alFR
Sep 18, 2006, 06:30 AM
And just be glad that the Mac version of Office is always better than the version for Microsoft. ;) That just shows you that the people at the MacBU wants the version on Apple to be good.

<sarcasm>
Yeah, be glad that Entourage is so much better than Outlook (particularly in terms of Exchange integration) and that the Mac version of Office comes with all the PC apps, including Access, Publisher, Infopath and Project.....
</sarcasm>

thestaton
Sep 18, 2006, 06:35 AM
if they follow the Vista time table this will be called Office 2009 :D

nplima
Sep 18, 2006, 06:57 AM
Originally Posted by p0intblank
This is great news, but why is Microsoft so freakin' slow with everything they do?

Well, you can blame it on the consumers. Microsoft 0wns over 80% of the desktop operating system market share, so they don't even need to try that hard.
Besides, people are clueless enough to accept that a .doc file created under Word97 cannot be properly imported to Word99 because it's a different version.
This way, by keeping things slightly broken, MS ensures that on people's minds there is always need to upgrade to the next version. It also helps if people considering alternative software are left wondering "if these incompatibilites exist between different versions of the same product, I don't even want to know what would happen if I used Openoffice!".

Panu
Sep 18, 2006, 07:06 AM
I think one of the reasons that Vista is late and, in places, internally inconsistent is that there are thousands of developers working on it. That must be a project-management nightmare.

The Mac development team is separate, more compact, and more manageable. On the other hand, the Mac applications are based on the Windows code, so even though the Mac team is more efficient, they have to wait for the code from the Windows team.

So I expect that there will be delays caused by the second factor that will be mostly cancelled out by the first factor.

Panu
Sep 18, 2006, 07:17 AM
Microsoft is mainly concerned about the enterprise, which is why Windows tells you to consult with your system administrator, even if he lives in your bathroom mirror. Microsoft's main customer base doesn't care that Windows is reliant on a system administrator, because they'd have one anyway. Office 2007 is even more concentrated on the enterprise than before. It is first and foremost a development platform. Second, its new user interface is designed for klutzes who want to make sumpin purdy without learning anything first.

Apple addresses the needs of what I call the standalone professional market: photographers, artists, musicians, and writers. Microsoft isn't even aware that that market segment exists. Microsoft sees these people as home users, even though they have much in common with the needs of the enterprise. The new UI for Office 2007 is great for ham-handed executives and corporations who have developers to customize Office applications for internal needs, and even for casual users, but since standalone professionals don't need a development platform or a klutz-proof UI, they may find themselves very frustrated.

Expert users have to learn the applications from scratch because the UI change is so radical. That's the part I hope they don't port to the Mac.

I could be wrong, since I was unable to penetrate the new UI in the beta. It could turn out to be okay, I suppose.

lord patton
Sep 18, 2006, 08:01 AM
To be fair, Office is a huge app (with some assembly apparently) and they had to switch development platforms (to Xcode).

arn

Anyone care to speculate on the signifigance of getting all their developers on a single development platform (Xcode?).

Does it set them up to make more transitions, more easily, in the future? Increase the pool of Mac-capable coders?

I'd love to hear what some hard-cord knowledgable types think about this (RacerX?) It seems to be highly significant beyond just the port to Intel.

PlaceofDis
Sep 18, 2006, 08:18 AM
Anyone care to speculate on the signifigance of getting all their developers on a single development platform (Xcode?).

Does it set them up to make more transitions, more easily, in the future? Increase the pool of Mac-capable coders?

I'd love to hear what some hard-cord knowledgable types think about this (RacerX?) It seems to be highly significant beyond just the port to Intel.

the significance of using Xcode is that it makes it simple to make Universal Bianaries of the apps coded in it. this is why devs are using it, because they have to be able to produce apps for PPC and x86

anthonylambert
Sep 18, 2006, 08:28 AM
Did anyone else notice the earlier press release that said MS was dropping support for VB and scripting in Word and Excel? Is this a clever move by MS to keep the Macintosh firmly out of the corporate market or what?

Tony

lord patton
Sep 18, 2006, 09:03 AM
the significance of using Xcode is that it makes it simple to make Universal Bianaries of the apps coded in it. this is why devs are using it, because they have to be able to produce apps for PPC and x86

This I know. But Xcode has been Apple's own (and preferred) tool for awhile. Are there long term, strategic benefits for Apple to get everyone on board (beyond the PPC to x86 switch)?

just curious.

heisetax
Sep 18, 2006, 09:17 AM
This is good news. We need a new and full quality version of Office.
There are major issues though...
We need it to Have in the Macintosh Version of office:
All of the new features and abilities of Windows Version
Be able to communicate in a workgroup.
Upgrade version of Entourage to Match more of the address book functions and more of Outlook. it's kinda weird looking
Get more integrated support of some of of the files and data, to be fully actionable by Mac OS 10.5
Also, give full MSN messenger, and WMA Video files.

we need full compatibility, not handicapped!


Remember MS is also ending support for Visual Basic Macros in the new Mac Office version. For those that use VB Macros that will bring a larger gap between Mac & Windows versions.

I agree with you that we need the two versions to be much more alike. But if history repeats itself, MS will continue to widen the gap between the two.

Bill the TaxMan
a User of Excel for Mac since version 1.0

heisetax
Sep 18, 2006, 09:27 AM
I guess Vista is more important than Mac Office. Can't believe it will take another year to make it UB. Only monkeys at work there? :rolleyes:


Rember it took MS at least 6 months longer to upgrade Virtual PC than it did Office 2004 for Mac. At that time they admitted that the programming was more difficult than they expwcted. Things may be worse for them this time. It took them at least a year after the G5 was out before Virtual PC supported the G5. This time it will be nearly 2 years before there is a UB version of Mac Office. Also being a year away means that it will be easy for the time to be put into 2008. This time I do not expect them to admit that the programming was too difficult for them to do in a timely manner.

Bill the TaxMan

Project
Sep 18, 2006, 09:31 AM
You cant blame Microsoft for wanting to incorporate the UB into the next full version of Office.

And with that, Office 2007:Mac is on time. No delays like the Windows version (which hasnt saw an update in over 3 years). We actually dont have it that bad on the Mac.

Good to see system wide OpenDocument support in Leopard though. Sooner we loosen ourselves from the .doc grip the better.

mkrishnan
Sep 18, 2006, 09:35 AM
This I know. But Xcode has been Apple's own (and preferred) tool for awhile. Are there long term, strategic benefits for Apple to get everyone on board (beyond the PPC to x86 switch)?

I think the long term benefit is analogous to MS wanting people to use Visual Studio. XCode is the de facto Apple development platform. It rolls all new APIs immediately to all developers in the same fashion.

Whenever major changes happen, the less kludgey and the more official software is, the more easily it'll convert -- for instance, Cocoa software in XCode converted to universal binary the most easily. So as downstream changes continue to occur -- as multithreading for instance becomes more and more important and the OS needs to be more and more optimized to use multiple cores (as now every single Mac has more than one core), XCode will help ensure that there are compliant apps out. And as the compiler is optimized, companies will be able to easily upgrade their apps to take advantage of the improvements....

heisetax
Sep 18, 2006, 09:42 AM
The solution here is Apple making new "office like" applications for the iWork suite.
Why do we still need to depend on MS? :mad:


This all sounds good, but Apple has shown that it is not a reliable partner when it comes to software. They ended AppleWorks support. That has happened with many of their programs in the past. If they were serious about Pages, I would think that it would be much better by now. Many people have worked with replacement spreadsheets, but none have been able to come close to replacing Excel. This has been true since the 1984/85 introduction of version 1 until the present. If one has small spreadsheet needs then it is easy to find a replacement. If one uses much of Excel's abilities, then there still is no replacement. I haven't found one yet that I could use to run my income tax prep program. Until then I have to stay with Excel Mac.

Like others I would like to be MS free, but I do not envision that to be anytime soon.

Bill the TaxMan

scott523
Sep 18, 2006, 10:00 AM
3rd Q 2007! You've got to be kidding me. Lazy MS bums.

Omg this is the disaster. I thought Steve Jobs made everyone translate their software by the end of this year? Microsoft really hates us (Apple fans)..:mad:
This is not the right step to get Windows people on board but this would mean people would be forced to live with Rosetta for another year.

kingtj
Sep 18, 2006, 10:01 AM
I'd tend to agree with you, sushi, except my biggest gripe with Office '97 for Windows was the poor default behavior of text alignment. Casual users opening a new document and using all the defaults would have a real struggle trying to get items lined up directy underneath each other if they were attempting to offset paragraphs or lines a few spaces to the right of other text. (I honestly can't speak for the Office '98 for Mac version - if it was any better in this regard?)

(There was really something to be said for fixed-width fonts, as were always used by default in products like the old MS-DOS versions of WordPerfect.)

But anyway, I predict we won't ever again have a perfectly "equivalent" Windows and Mac counterpart for MS Office apps. EG. The decision to remove VB macro support for Office '07.


IMHO, Office 97 for Windows and Office 98 for the Mac was the best combo. Menus were identical. Simple to go back and forth between the two.

I hope that Office 2007 for Mac and Windows shares this commonality. It makes it so much easier to use, and makes it more platform independent.

ImAlwaysRight
Sep 18, 2006, 10:22 AM
the new version isn't expected until the third quarter of 2007Anyone else as excited as I am to hear from Roz Ho at the 2007 MacWorld about Microsoft's progress on Office as well as Microsoft's commitment to the Mac platform? I can't wait! It's the highlight of MacWorld for me. :rolleyes:

IJ Reilly
Sep 18, 2006, 10:22 AM
This all sounds good, but Apple has shown that it is not a reliable partner when it comes to software. They ended AppleWorks support. That has happened with many of their programs in the past. If they were serious about Pages, I would think that it would be much better by now. Many people have worked with replacement spreadsheets, but none have been able to come close to replacing Excel. This has been true since the 1984/85 introduction of version 1 until the present. If one has small spreadsheet needs then it is easy to find a replacement. If one uses much of Excel's abilities, then there still is no replacement. I haven't found one yet that I could use to run my income tax prep program. Until then I have to stay with Excel Mac.

Like others I would like to be MS free, but I do not envision that to be anytime soon.

Bill the TaxMan

Why should Apple continue supporting AppleWorks indefinitely? It's an ancient application with many issues, and was never fully OSX compliant. It was serviceable in its day, but only that. I was delighted to see the back of it. I stopped using AppleWorks entirely within weeks of when iWork came out.

As for Excel, I wonder how many people who own Excel, actually use it as spreadsheet? I will take a not very wild guess, based on the Excel spreadsheets I receive, and say 10%. The other 90%, if they use Excel at all, use it to make simple tables, and that's it -- tables they could and should make in Word, if only Word made this function comprehensible.

The point being, Excel is essentially a waste of time and money for vast majority of people who own it. The bar for creating a competing spreadsheet is really quite low. Probably the calculating tables in Pages would do for nearly everyone who currently believes that they must own Office because of Excel.

janstett
Sep 18, 2006, 10:38 AM
I have the Beta for Windows that Microsoft put out on their site. I think it's awful.

I'm not a fan of Vista, but there was a big leap in quality and performance from Beta 2 to RC1. Based on Beta 2 I would skip Vista entirely; based on RC1, I'd consider it if there was a compelling reason to run it (i.e. HD-DVD). If we've learned anything about MS, it's that they start out with a lousy product and keep refining it until it's good enough.

janstett
Sep 18, 2006, 10:43 AM
I guess Vista is more important than Mac Office. Can't believe it will take another year to make it UB. Only monkeys at work there? :rolleyes:

My information may be a few years out of date, but the scoop I hear is that the Office people are somewhat disorganized. For example, the PowerPoint team was in the Valley while the rest of the Office team was in Redmond. Also the Mac Business Unit seems to be given a fairly long leash (or held at arm's length, depending how you look at it). That explains the differences, and why the Mac doesn't see the full Office suite (Exchange, Access, MapPoint, etc.). They dont' start off with one product and say they will support it on both PC and Mac.

When you consider the death of IE and WMP on Mac, and the white flag they ran up on Virtual PC on Mac, the Mac Office team must feel the walls closing in on them.

Echo toxin
Sep 18, 2006, 11:08 AM
Now, now. Stability isn't really a problem these days. In the 4.5 years I've used XP I don't think I've ever had a blue screen of death.

This supposedly new UI in Leopard better be good. I can envisage Apple and MS swapping looks! Vista has the eye candy and Apple goes to a drab gray. Bleh.

whatever
Sep 18, 2006, 11:13 AM
I think the latter part of 2007 will be too late - I for one, will probably give up and find another word app in the meantime if my productivity is suffering via Rosetta. I will switch from the MS Office suite of apps indefinitely if Apple come out with something comparable before then. (currently I've no alternative, I need to use Word with Endnote - nothing else does this yet).
I've played around with Office via Rosetta for sometime now and I currently use it on my new MacPro with no problem. All of the Intel machines which rely on Rosetta are faster and more powerful than the PowerPC machines that they are replacing. And I'm not just talking about Office, but I also talking about Adobe/Macromedia products too.

But what make me laugh is the you talk specifically about Word. What type of productivity hit to think you might encounter with Word under Rosetta? Do you like type 300 words a minute or something? I just think it's funny that your concern is that the speed of a Word Processor will cut into your productivity.

cgc
Sep 18, 2006, 11:16 AM
To be fair, Office is a huge app (with some assembly apparently) and they had to switch development platforms (to Xcode).

arn

Adobe PhotoShop is just as big but it should be ported Q1 2007

Shadow
Sep 18, 2006, 11:22 AM
Now, now. Stability isn't really a problem these days. In the 4.5 years I've used XP I don't think I've ever had a blue screen of death.

This supposedly new UI in Leopard better be good. I can envisage Apple and MS swapping looks! Vista has the eye candy and Apple goes to a drab gray. Bleh.
You know, a BSod isnt the _only_ crash symptom in Windows (belive it or not!).

whatever
Sep 18, 2006, 11:25 AM
Omg this is the disaster. I thought Steve Jobs made everyone translate their software by the end of this year? Microsoft really hates us (Apple fans)..:mad:
This is not the right step to get Windows people on board but this would mean people would be forced to live with Rosetta for another year.
I think it's really funny that people take this as a personal attack.

Microsoft makes a lot of money from Apple customers. They are not stupid.

Dropping support for IE and VPC was a decision they made after they realized that they could not compete with the competition. Intel emulation is not their business and that's all VPC was. Not that all Macs have been transitioned over to the Intel platform, why should they bother to continue down this path. Others who wish to pursue this niche market can and most likely do it better.

As far as IE goes, MS is having a ton of problems with IE on the Windows platform. Need I go further.

Office runs fine in Rosetta and MS knows this. So they have no problems with new Mac/Intel users to buy the old version of Office and run it on their new machines. And when they are ready they will release a new version of Office which people will be willing to upgrade to, just because it's an universal application.

Fotek2001
Sep 18, 2006, 11:31 AM
Did anyone else notice the earlier press release that said MS was dropping support for VB and scripting in Word and Excel? Is this a clever move by MS to keep the Macintosh firmly out of the corporate market or what?

Tony

You need to do your homework. MS are dropping VB in the Windows version of Office as well just over a longer period of time. They're going to replace it with VB.NET.

hayesk
Sep 18, 2006, 11:43 AM
I think the latter part of 2007 will be too late - I for one, will probably give up and find another word app in the meantime if my productivity is suffering via Rosetta.

No offence, but software being Intel native is a superficial requirement. I remember back during the 68K-PPC transition when lots of Mac geeks demanded software companies make fully PPC native code. But it turned out to be a little bit slower because not all of the OS was PPC native. But that didn't matter because they could proudly claim all of their applications were fully PPC native.

Rosetta or Intel native does not matter for most customers as long as the software works well enough for people to use it effectively. Unless you are cross-referencing 500+ page Word documents while tracking changes (which it can't even do on Windows), are you really going to appreciate the difference?

I realize we all want our software to be as fast as it can be, but I swear, if the Intel binary was somehow slower, some people would still run it just because it satisfies a superficial requirement.

Marx55
Sep 18, 2006, 11:49 AM
I do not want speed. I just want Word, PowerPoint and other Office products not crashing in my Mac. Except they nothing crashes on my Mac. And, please, plese, please, a coherent interface across Office products (eg., Word vs PowerPoint spelling correction window!). Please!

Mitch1984
Sep 18, 2006, 11:58 AM
Almost everyone is moaning about how long it's taking Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit to finish this.
But they are big apps, and they have done well to port all the code to XCODE in just over a year.
Now they've just got to update the code again the make a new version.

They did say they are not going to release a UB of Office 2004 but start on making the next version UB when they've ported all the code.

However if they have ported all the code to Xcode I don't see why they don't just up it as a download/patch or whatever, unless it requires alot of testing which it probably does.

mox358
Sep 18, 2006, 12:00 PM
I do not want speed. I just want Word, PowerPoint and other Office products not crashing in my Mac. Except they nothing crashes on my Mac. And, please, plese, please, a coherent interface across Office products (eg., Word vs PowerPoint spelling correction window!). Please!

Honestly, this is the pinnacle of irony!

syriana
Sep 18, 2006, 12:01 PM
Good to see system wide OpenDocument support in Leopard though. Sooner we loosen ourselves from the .doc grip the better.
Could you elaborate, please? I didn't heard this part before..seems really interesting.

deejemon
Sep 18, 2006, 12:26 PM
*

IJ Reilly
Sep 18, 2006, 12:37 PM
True, but the captive audience remains imprisoned almost entirely by their own choice.

mox358
Sep 18, 2006, 12:41 PM
I got really excited when I saw this headline, thinking there was some progress on Office 2007. I read through the posts, read the article even :D , and went back to writing a research paper due this week. Then I realized I was writing it in Pages though, not Word. I have Word installed, I could use it, but I realized that I don't NEED it, I don't even like it really. iWork has taken over what I used Office for. (*I feel I must point out that I have made a grand total of 3 spreadsheets in my life, so Excel is not important to me)

But the more I think about it I'm more excited about what iWork will bring in January than I am about Office 07. iWork (for some people with requirements different from people who have situations that depend on Office) can fully replace Office, its already Universal, and personally it has a much better interface. I'm not writing a 300 page book, or extensively using anything super special that *only* Word offers. I couldn't even tell you what those features are - I've never used them.

So I guess the moral of the story is "How important is this news?" To me, its only important on a psychological level. Just to say, yes, Office is native and I can use it if I need to. I got my self all excited for nothing, before I realized I don't use the program anymore.

Project
Sep 18, 2006, 12:51 PM
Could you elaborate, please? I didn't heard this part before..seems really interesting.


Ok, I jumped the gun a little, but this screenshot gives me hope. Particularly as many system wide text facilities in TextEdit (table support etc) are available to all apps.

About Screen Tiger
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5933/3208/1600/1.4%20About%20Window.jpg

About Screen Leopard Developer Release
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5933/3208/1600/1.5%20About%20Window.jpg
http://impulsivehighlighters.blogspot.com/2006/08/leopard-preview-textedit.html

MacCoaster
Sep 18, 2006, 01:52 PM
Did anyone else notice the earlier press release that said MS was dropping support for VB and scripting in Word and Excel? Is this a clever move by MS to keep the Macintosh firmly out of the corporate market or what?

Tony
They dropped it in order to gain AppleScript functionality. That's what I heard... don't know if they'll actually do that.

SiliconAddict
Sep 18, 2006, 01:59 PM
At this point if XOver can get Office 2003 working I'll be golden. I'm not spending more money on TWO copies of office. One is more then enough. That being said if they ported the latest version of Outlook over to the Mac......lets talk. Otherwise: meh.

anthonylambert
Sep 18, 2006, 02:09 PM
You need to do your homework. MS are dropping VB in the Windows version of Office as well just over a longer period of time. They're going to replace it with VB.NET.

It's not me that needs the homework. If you look at the 2007 versions of office you will find they still support VBA internally. They support .NET via an external toolkit. MS have just said they are dropping support for VB. They have never said they will support .NET for Office on Mac.

anthonylambert
Sep 18, 2006, 02:15 PM
They dropped it in order to gain AppleScript functionality. That's what I heard... don't know if they'll actually do that.

hmmm..... looks to me like they have come to the conclusion that the Mac is going to grow market share in the home market and there is very little they can do about it. Apple is the stronger product, iPod, ILife, iTV, iPhones, all easy to use and integrated... game over for now.

But they don't want that happening to the business market do they. How do they stop that? We'll take out VB support in Office that's how. Now no corporate can use Mac as their standard desktop as can't exist without theri 100's of VBA Office apps!

Tony

JurgenWigg
Sep 18, 2006, 02:26 PM
"Being able to sidestep the Rosetta translation layer which enables Power PC applications to run under the Intel architecture should in itself deliver a significant speed boost to Office [2007]"

I wasn't aware that Office was in dire need of a significant speed boost...

mkrishnan
Sep 18, 2006, 02:30 PM
I wasn't aware that Office was in dire need of a significant speed boost...

Well, it depends on how you look at it. From most reports, Office runs adequately on most Intel-based Macs. But it is certainly true that it uses more processor time and memory than it would were it running natively. And so depending on how large your files are and how heavily you are multitasking, it may make a difference. Especially if the computer is doing compute-intensive things in the background, having that memory freed up will always help....

GregA2
Sep 18, 2006, 02:31 PM
Most of their stuff was named for the next year so that it did not seem "outdated" by the time it gets pushed out the door. That is why Microsoft changed their naming structure to XP and Vista because the marketing team and bankers took the lead to make sure that the next Windows 2000 would not seem so last century.

Good thing they changed the Windows naming structure, or they'd be releasing Windows 2003 in the first quarter of 2007... :eek: :D

typ993
Sep 18, 2006, 05:56 PM
hmmm..... looks to me like they have come to the conclusion that the Mac is going to grow market share in the home market and there is very little they can do about it. Apple is the stronger product, iPod, ILife, iTV, iPhones, all easy to use and integrated... game over for now.

But they don't want that happening to the business market do they. How do they stop that? We'll take out VB support in Office that's how. Now no corporate can use Mac as their standard desktop as can't exist without theri 100's of VBA Office apps!

Rather than peddling your conspiracy theories, why don't you go read some of the Mac BU developer blogs (e.g., http://www.schwieb.com/blog/), then come back and give us a more informed opinion?

Here's a tidbit to get you started: "VB has lots of code and assembly that specifically assumes it is running on a PPC with the Code Fragment Manager, and to re-do it for Intel would involve writing a rudimentary compiler and relying on private compiler implementations that are subject to change at any time."

That Intel redo was deemed not worth it given the amount of time it would take to write it (which would delay Mac Office 2007 even more) and that VBA is being deprecated on Windows Office anyway starting with the version after Office 2007.

Electro Funk
Sep 18, 2006, 07:58 PM
IMHO, Office 97 for Windows and Office 98 for the Mac was the best combo. Menus were identical. Simple to go back and forth between the two.

I hope that Office 2007 for Mac and Windows shares this commonality. It makes it so much easier to use, and makes it more platform independent.

i thought the next release was supposed to be identical on both platforms...

no more entourage...etc...

I have the Beta for Windows that Microsoft put out on their site. I think it's awful.

i like it... much better than office 03 IMHO...

Chupa Chupa
Sep 18, 2006, 09:27 PM
To wait another year for Office 2007 is just plain ridiculous. Apple was able to engineer not one, but 5 platforms for Intel in a year and a half's time. M$ should be able to get a freaking work processing and spreadsheet app out the door at least at the same time Adobe gets CS3 out the door. Anyone who says there is more coding for Office than CS3 needs to let up on the crack. It's pretty clear M$ is short staffing Office 2007 (Mac) because, unlike Adobe, they can get away with it.

Project
Sep 19, 2006, 02:09 AM
you clearly know nothing about software development. Getting to XCode wasnt a case of flipping a switch. We are talking about an app with millions of lines of code. Each Office app has maybe 10 people working on it. Its no small task.

pjo
Sep 19, 2006, 11:04 AM
To wait another year for Office 2007 is just plain ridiculous. Apple was able to engineer not one, but 5 platforms for Intel in a year and a half's time. M$ should be able to get a freaking work processing and spreadsheet app out the door at least at the same time Adobe gets CS3 out the door. Anyone who says there is more coding for Office than CS3 needs to let up on the crack. It's pretty clear M$ is short staffing Office 2007 (Mac) because, unlike Adobe, they can get away with it.

First: Apple already had OS X running on Intel for 5 years (IIRC that's what Steve said) before they even announced they'd switch.

Second: The current dev process for Office is they port over what the windows coders have done (esp as regards the XML file formats) as well as testing for cross platform compliance.lest they have to deal with the more complaints that mac powerpoint creates files windows powerpoint can't deal with again.

CS3 does NOT do that - they are not trying to write an entirely new PSD or AI format.

My take is it doesn't make (business) sense for Microsoft to employ as many or more "Office on OS X" developers as "Office on Windows" developers. With that in mind, I'm not surprised that their timeline is about 6 months behind the windows version is out. They probably didn't do a UB of the current Office 2004 for similar reasons to why we won't see a UB of CS2.

Adobe on the other hand has lots of Mac sales.. IMHO a higher percentage of Mac users buy photoshop as opposed to say Office 2004. I could be wrong of course.

mkrishnan
Sep 19, 2006, 11:42 AM
Each Office app has maybe 10 people working on it.

Microsoft's development team for Office is bigger than this, isn't it? Or do you mean 10 people in the MacBU for each app?

Project
Sep 19, 2006, 01:44 PM
Microsoft's development team for Office is bigger than this, isn't it? Or do you mean 10 people in the MacBU for each app?

The Mac Business Unit as a whole is about 170 people. This includes coders, marketing, finance guys, sales guys, product guys etc. I think 50 or so actually code for Office. I would say that 10-15 people per app is a fairly good estimate to the number.

anthonylambert
Sep 20, 2006, 02:13 PM
Rather than peddling your conspiracy theories, why don't you go read some of the Mac BU developer blogs (e.g., http://www.schwieb.com/blog/), then come back and give us a more informed opinion?

Here's a tidbit to get you started: "VB has lots of code and assembly that specifically assumes it is running on a PPC with the Code Fragment Manager, and to re-do it for Intel would involve writing a rudimentary compiler and relying on private compiler implementations that are subject to change at any time."

That Intel redo was deemed not worth it given the amount of time it would take to write it (which would delay Mac Office 2007 even more) and that VBA is being deprecated on Windows Office anyway starting with the version after Office 2007.

I notice you have never posted before and seem to know alot about what microsoft are doing?!?

Look it doesn't really matter whether it is a small or large piece of work for M$. What matters is that they are not supporting Visual Basic on Mac. The effect of this is that it will mean that the Mac is of no use to any large corporate that uses VBA in Office to write it's infrastructure applications.

I know reading the article makes it sound like it's a huge peice of work but then that's easy to do with any reasonably complicated bit of programming. I believe that the Mac market is getting bigger not smaller and if it was justified to support VB when the originally did it. It should be more do now.

Tony

typ993
Sep 20, 2006, 11:33 PM
I notice you have never posted before and seem to know alot about what microsoft are doing?!?

So if I logically read that sentence, if I had many posts, I wouldn't know what Microsoft was doing? :rolleyes: The content of the post, my friend, should be measured by the content, not by the author's number of posts.

In any case, I rely on Excel and VBA for my consulting practice. Hence I was rather disturbed when I found out the changes afoot in VBA and took the time to research what the future development path is.

Look it doesn't really matter whether it is a small or large piece of work for M$. What matters is that they are not supporting Visual Basic on Mac. The effect of this is that it will mean that the Mac is of no use to any large corporate that uses VBA in Office to write it's infrastructure applications.

Totally agree. From my perspective, I write sufficiently complicated applications in VBA that I have now exceeded the bugginess limit of VBA on the Mac. I've found certain simple blocks of VBA code will reliably crash Excel 2004, yet work perfectly fine on the PC. I had hoped that future upgrades of Mac Excel would get around this. So much for cross-platform compatibility. :mad: And I've documented that Mac Excel got about 30% slower in running my applications between Excel X and Excel 2004. Sent samples off to the MacBU Excel QA person at her request and never heard back from her.


I know reading the article makes it sound like it's a huge peice of work but then that's easy to do with any reasonably complicated bit of programming. I believe that the Mac market is getting bigger not smaller and if it was justified to support VB when the originally did it. It should be more do now.


You need to ask where the Mac market is getting bigger. Consumer, yes, corporate, no. I'm sure the Mac BU took all that into account, plus the fact that the corporate Office team had made the decision to deprecate VBA in favor of VB.NET.

If you were at all familiar with Mac vs. Windoze VBA, you would realize that Mac VBA has been shedding features and getting more incompatible with the Windows version with each succeeding release. Forms, anyone?

My clients are nearly all Windoze, so end effect is that I will run Windows Office in Parallels.

cgc
Sep 21, 2006, 08:42 AM
RealBasic has some form of Microsoft Automation capabilities but I don't know how they compare to VBA. Check it out for yourself at http://realsoftware.com/

IJ Reilly
Sep 21, 2006, 10:54 AM
The message being, Office for the Mac will always be the poor second cousin to Office for Windows, and it's in Microsoft's interest to keep it that way. Which I interpret to mean: Office for Mac users beware, you are just barely tolerated.