AppleWorks X?

[MacRumors]

A listing for a book entitled 'AppleWorks X for Mac OS X: A Visual Quickstart Guide' (http://www.bookfinder4u.com/IsbnSearch.aspx?isbn=0321246640&mode=direct) from Peachpit Press was discovered by one of our members on BookFinder4U. Given an a March 2004 copyright date, ISBN number, and listing the author as Nolan Hester, the book is listed as "not yet printed."

Hester is also the author of a large number (http://www.bookfinder4u.com/search_author/Nolan_Hester.html) of Peachpit's other visual quickstart titles.

The last public update to AppleWorks is version 6.2.9 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2004/01/20040115074552.shtml) made available by Apple on January 15, 2004. No details are available yet as to functionality of AppleWorks X.

[Zaty]

So Apple is working on an update to AW? The name "Apple Works X" could suggest its entirely written in Cocoa. It would be nice if there was some serious competiton to MS Office. Bring it on!

[BeoVir]

let this be true!! I tried using appleworks 6 but was so dissappointed in its features that I soon ended up converting to MS Office. Appleworks needs to comply with apples HIG and needs to have improvements in its spell checking feature.

I love Keynote, and I couldn't belive that apple would carry Appleworks without bringing it up to keynotes level.

[azdude]

Hooray!

If the compatibility with Office PC is as good as Office Mac's, perhaps I'll switch back and go 100% M$ free! :D

[CmdrLaForge]

It would be really really great if Apple updates AppleWorks. Its about time !

Maybe they have just waited until Office 2004 was out. I hope so. Appleworks 6 is just not cutting the mustard.

It would be great if every new Mac would be bundled with a usable Office !

[moosecat]

Hmm... If you Google "Appleworks X", you find that some people erroneously refer to the current version as Appleworks X. In fact, this page (http://www.everythinglinux.com.au/item/0764506366) includes an erroneous description of an already-existing book about the current version.

I'm not sure I would read much into this.

[Zaty]

It would be great if every new Mac would be bundled with a usable Office !

Yeah, that would be great, every mac (not only consumer macs) coming with iLife and AW X. Most user wouldn't need to buy any other apps.

[FoxyKaye]

Ditto to a lot of stuff people have said. I managed a "Preview" version of Office 2004 earlier this year through a friend in a high-tech firm, and I was so mortified by what happened to it I switched back to my school licensed version of Office X. Yuck.

I'd love a fully Office-compatible version of AppleWorks that is rebuilt from the ground up for Jaguar/Panther/Tiger. I remember using AppleWorks 1.3 on my old, old, old Apple //c in 1983 and even in gradeschool thought it was a pretty cool program. I even bought a copy of SpellWorks ($40!) to do automatic spelling checks before that feature was added in AppleWorks 2.0 - AppleWorks isn't a bad program, it's just a little dated right now.

[azdude]

Baseless speculation:

My money's on Appleworks X at Expo Paris alongside the iMac G5. :D

[michaelrjohnson]

Hmm... If you Google "Appleworks X", you find that some people erroneously refer to the current version as Appleworks X. In fact, this page (http://www.everythinglinux.com.au/item/0764506366) includes an erroneous description of an already-existing book about the current version.

I'm not sure I would read much into this.

Good point, that's quite possibly what's happened here. Though, we can still hope for an update to the long-outdated Appleworks!

[moosecat]

Good point, that's quite possibly what's happened here. Though, we can still hope for an update to the long-outdated Appleworks!

However, my own point is undercut by this: There already is a Visual Quickstart book on Appleworks 6.something. So they are either revamping it and coming out with a whole new edition, or this new listing does indeed relate to a new version of Appleworks.

(I just made an interesting typo: Maybe an Apple word processor could be called Applewords. :) )

[clcnyc]

It might just desuade me from paying all that money just so I can have Word for Mac on my machine :eek:

[appleface]

perhaps the biggest advantage (for apple) would be that it could use AWX to encourage educational institutions that they wouldn't need to buy any word processing, database, spreadsheet apps if they choose apple.

appleworks would fit well into iLife.

[Freg3000]

Well it could be an error, but would the authors of a book that goes in depth into a product get it's name wrong?

[SeaFox]

I thought previous rumors had stated they were changing the name to iWorks, or were changing to a suite of programs like MS Office rather than one program that did it all. Anybody remember that? The word processor named "Document"? Keynote being a component? Anyone?

[Zaty]

I thought previous rumors had stated they were changing the name to iWorks, or were changing to a suite of programs like MS Office rather than one program that did it all. Anybody remember that? The word processor named "Document"? Keynote being a component? Anyone?

As for the name change, didn't someone at Apple say the original name for GarageBand was iBand (or something), but they then decided to leave the "i" track? Apple Works X would make sense if it was in fact a newly written Cocoa app.

[stingerman]

As for the name change, didn't someone at Apple say the original name for GarageBand was iBand (or something), but they then decided to leave the "i" track? Apple Works X would make sense if it was in fact a newly written Cocoa app.

It's time to change the name altogether. Apple will probably come up with something new.

[Demon Hunter]

perhaps the biggest advantage (for apple) would be that it could use AWX to encourage educational institutions that they wouldn't need to buy any word processing, database, spreadsheet apps if they choose apple.

appleworks would fit well into iLife.

I agree, AppleWorks would seem to be the last piece to iLife.

Maybe Keynote was just to test the waters and see if there was a market for Mac productivity software that didn't include Microsoft.

I don't see AppleWorks lasting much longer, if it isn't updated... even at it's current price tag it lags seriously behind on many fronts. Apple has invested a lot of time into it though... I'm very excited about this...

[FoxyKaye]

It's time to change the name altogether. Apple will probably come up with something new.

You know, last year there was a thread about Apple trademarking the name iWrite http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/12/20031215211535.shtml - I wonder if this has any relation to this new AppleWorks rumor?

[Mord]

it better be a good update, really good

[Mudbug]

Hmm... If you Google "Appleworks X", you find that some people erroneously refer to the current version as Appleworks X. In fact, this page (http://www.everythinglinux.com.au/item/0764506366) includes an erroneous description of an already-existing book about the current version.

I'm not sure I would read much into this.

this is why it's page 2 - there's no corroboration from anywhere else that I can find - BUT - they have a listing on the same site for the AppleWorks 6 visual quickstart guide which leads me to believe they are two separate entities.

That, and the fact that it's got an ISBN number... which gives this link (http://www.fetchbook.co.uk/Appleworks_X_for_MAC_OS_X.html) if googled (corroborating evidence)

[macridah]

I hope apple comes out with their on office suite ... i do want to be a M$ free as possible. I bet apple could make a better office suite if they tried.

But do you think M$ will stop making office for Mac's. That's what they did with IE when Safari came out. I still think Office for mac's must still exist for coporate users.

[mwpeters8182]

I don't think AW is the missing piece of iLife, as iLife is branded as the suite of programs for the other parts of your life besides work. That said, i'd love to have it as part of iLife, and have it be perfectly office compatible.

[latergator116]

I didn't even know they had an AW 6.2.9. Don't these type of things usually show up in software update?

[rotorblade]

If AW-X comes to fruition, I hope it includes compatibility with the OpenOffice and StarOffice file formats.

[The Muffin Man]

Someone mentioned that the X could be a typo because it's happened before, but all those books were published in like 2000. Nobody writes a book about a program more than a year after its release, and even that would be extremely late. Because this book was copywrited only three months ago and it has not yet been released, I'd say there is significant reason to believe that something is afoot.

[titaniumducky]

Baseless speculation:

My money's on Appleworks X at Expo Paris alongside the iMac G5. :D

Actually, during the quarterly financial report, is was confirmed that the new iMac is based on a G5.

[mkaake]

I hope apple comes out with their on office suite ... i do want to be a M$ free as possible. I bet apple could make a better office suite if they tried.

But do you think M$ will stop making office for Mac's. That's what they did with IE when Safari came out. I still think Office for mac's must still exist for coporate users.

microsoft didn't drop ie because of safari.

anyhew, this would be awesome, as i've been toying around quite a bit with AW for the past few weeks... it's not a bad program, but it just really needs a kick in the pants to bring it up to speed. it hasn't changed too much from the version i used on a performa 450... at the time, clarisworks.

[nuckinfutz]

Sheesh people. I can't believe the "Appleworks X" is going over your head. Let me explain how it works.

Apple has a new product coming. They want to have 3rd party book for this product out so they contract out to a few writers. They are %100 sure about the name but if it's a previous version and not a totally new product they simply append an "X" onto the product. "X" has always signified "unkown" in some areas just as Malcom X kept the "X" until he "found" his true name.

What this "Appleworks X" means is that there IS a new version coming. Apple hasn't chosen a final version number. It could be Appleworks 6.5 or Appleworks 7 or Appleworks CS or whatever they want. The publishers will get the final name before mass production. Trust me Appleworks X is not going to be the final name.

How do I know this? Because I've been following book like this for a while and 6 months before Filemaker 7 shipped there were a couple "Filemaker X" books pending print. This is great news because we're getting something new in AW. It just depends on how large the update is.

So in short yes a new Appleworks is coming.

[PensDevil]

That, and the fact that it's got an ISBN number... which gives this link (http://www.fetchbook.co.uk/Appleworks_X_for_MAC_OS_X.html) if googled (corroborating evidence)

Following your link brings up a page with a link to compare prices. Amazon UK estimates shipping in 4-6 weeks. Good timing if AWX is to be introduced in Paris. All the other retailers are out of stock, though the Pearson site estimates the book's release on 3/15/2005.

[scottwat]

This would would really bring the apple line up to the fore front of technology. Since alot of people spend alot of time infront of a word processor it seems logical that apple could make that experience so much better and in the process increase market share. I wonder what sort of innovations Apple could come up with in an office suite. They already have a great presentation tool in keynote. All of the development apps both programming and content development (FC/iMovie/Garageband) all outstanding. Hmmm maybe they could include rendezvous into the office app, similiar to the app formerly called hydra, the new name excapes me. But that could be nice. I don't know what else would make AW more superior.

[rueyeet]

Baseless speculation:

My money's on Appleworks X at Expo Paris alongside the iMac G5. :DMe too, whatever AW X ends up with as an actual version number. AW 6 is getting a bit long in the tooth for inclusion with the brand-new G5 iMac, which is sure to be a major hardware announcement. Heck, AW 6 is long in the tooth to be shipping with the current iBook G4's.

Further baseless speculation: The new Appleworks will require Panther or better, further angering those still running earlier versions of OS X and really pissing off the people still on OS 9. :D

[Shaun.P]

Do you think the update will be FREE? Or do you think I'll be a complete overhaul, and like have to pay approx. £80-£100?

I got AppleWorks free with my computer. Having used Office X, it does look very much outdated and pretty basic. If they do bring a new version out, I hope it has something similar to Microsoft's project centre, it sounds really cool!

Hope this rumor is true!

[Esquare]

Sheesh people. I can't believe the "Appleworks X" is going over your head. Let me explain how it works.

Apple has a new product coming. They want to have 3rd party book for this product out so they contract out to a few writers. They are %100 sure about the name but if it's a previous version and not a totally new product they simply append an "X" onto the product. "X" has always signified "unkown" in some areas just as Malcom X kept the "X" until he "found" his true name.

I don't wanna be a spoilsport, but I think the new book will simply show AppleWorks in the OSX environment (hence AppleWorks X, just as they use to do at places like Versiontracker). Just a publisher trying to revamp an outdated book, that's lost its appeal because everybody is seeing another GUI now.

:o

[Lanbrown]

Well it could be an error, but would the authors of a book that goes in depth into a product get it's name wrong?

Like this:
http://www.theregister.com/2004/08/04/penguin_katie_hijack/

[Lanbrown]

I hope apple comes out with their on office suite ... i do want to be a M$ free as possible. I bet apple could make a better office suite if they tried.

But do you think M$ will stop making office for Mac's. That's what they did with IE when Safari came out. I still think Office for mac's must still exist for coporate users.

Better doesn't mean sucessful.

That was planned long before that, that is one reason why Safari was created. MS has killed IE for all platforms. As it satnds now, IE is separate from the OS, from here on out, it will be part of the OS and thus, no more freestanding IE. They even offered versions for Solaris and HP-UX in the past.

[Chobit]

While I desparately hope apple comes out with a new (from the ground-up) office-type suite, I hope they can the moniker "AppleWorks." A lot of people i know would stay away from it simply due to the name AppleWorks carrying a negative connotation with it. Apple should give it a new name to separate it (and hopefully make it a true office-killer).

[ralphh]

I didn't even know they had an AW 6.2.9. Don't these type of things usually show up in software update?

Nope, AppleWorks doesn't get updated, even though Internet Explorer does. I don't quite understand Apple's policy about non-OS software updates, unless it's that Explorer, like iTunes et al, is included with ALL Macs out of the box. Plus it's a chronic security hazard. :rolleyes:

The update is worthwhile, by the way, because it finally provides support for a scrollwheel mouse (though not in the database :().

[Mord]

microsoft didn't drop ie because of safari.

anyhew, this would be awesome, as i've been toying around quite a bit with AW for the past few weeks... it's not a bad program, but it just really needs a kick in the pants to bring it up to speed. it hasn't changed too much from the version i used on a performa 450... at the time, clarisworks.


hey dude are you quoteing me in your sig? i can't remember if i said that, i think i did if it was can you add my name to it i want full acknolagement.

ethics smethincs theres something called commen sense not to abide by some code blindly but to do what you think is best to benefit you and not at the cost of others.


edit: yes it was me that said that and i want credit god damn it

[JesseJames]

Let's face it, Steve Jobs bent over and took it like a Mac when he conceded the Office software category to Microsoft and Bill Gates.
It's one of the reasons Apple is still around. The white-flag has gone up. Give it up.

[Mord]

Let's face it, Steve Jobs bent over and took it like a Mac when he conceded the Office software category to Microsoft and Bill Gates.
It's one of the reasons Apple is still around. The white-flag has gone up. Give it up.

your a strange strange little man.

appleworks is not that bad, ive never understood office fans

[Abstract]

Well it could be an error, but would the authors of a book that goes in depth into a product get it's name wrong?

Exactly what I was thinking. This isn't a rumour. A publishing company is actually publishing this book. I doubt that someone who would go through the trouble of writing a book about Mac software would get the simple title wrong.

And no, AppleWorks X wouldn't be great alongside iLife. I'd like it to be, but it's not an iLife style app, mostly because it's not a lifestyle product. Its a useful product, but iLife is concerned with the digital lifestyle, and AppleWorks X wouldn't fit into it. iLife takes care of listening and making music, photos, DV, and burning all or some of these things on CD or DVD. They're also well integrated. This is probably why Keynote isn't a part of iLife. This is why APX won't be a part of iLife. I can't image listening and making music, movies, photos, DV, DVD burning, and spreadsheets to be a good blend. ;)

[JesseJames]

I never said I liked Office. In fact, it's one clunker of a piece of software.
I wish to God Apple could make something to usurp it.
But that would infuriate Microshaft. Like it or not, sometimes you have to deal with the devil.

[GeeYouEye]

Apple doesn't need to make a better Office, they need to make a cheaper Office, one that they can sell to education markets again. I think we'll soon see the quiet introduction of AppleWorks 7, Cocoa on Mac OS X, C++/Carbon for Windows and OS 9. The reason for the length between major updates being due to the necessity of rewriting the entire app, then porting it not only to two different platforms, but also to a different language and two APIs (assuming they make it a standard Win32 app like its predecessors).

[nuckinfutz]

I never said I liked Office. In fact, it's one clunker of a piece of software.
I wish to God Apple could make something to usurp it.
But that would infuriate Microshaft. Like it or not, sometimes you have to deal with the devil.

Your thesis is fallacious. Word has been available for Mac since damn near its inception. Appleworks nee Clarisworks the same. It's obvious the two are aimed at two different markets. I don't think Apple has conceded anything to MS. Appleworks in its current form is not meant to be an Office competitor, perhaps AW7 changes this but that remains to be seen.

[Doctor Q]

Talking about AppleWorks vs. MS Office is like talking about iPhoto vs. Photoshop. Different niches, different audience, different expectations and prices.

If AppleWorks X is on the horizon, I think Apple should include Keynote as part of the suite. And maybe the database component should become FileMaker Lite. I've never used the communications component. Is it still worth having?

[mwpeters8182]

I'd love to get the new AW if it is indeed full office suite. I hate Word, as formatting in it made be one of the worst things you could ask someone to do. But Excel is a good application, and apple needs to be careful with compatability. One of the huge reasons I don't use OpenOffice is that excel spreadsheets don't have great compatability.

MP

[mrxak]

As long as it's not useless obstructing feature overkill like Office, I'll be happy to buy and use it.

[wrldwzrd89]

I'm a bit late to this thread, but...anyway, back on topic:

I'm looking forward to an AppleWorks update. I like AppleWorks, but I agree with the other posters that say AppleWorks is dated. I currently don't use it, but I'd be willing to use an updated AppleWorks.

[BenRoethig]

Do you think the update will be FREE? Or do you think I'll be a complete overhaul, and like have to pay approx. £80-£100?

I got AppleWorks free with my computer. Having used Office X, it does look very much outdated and pretty basic. If they do bring a new version out, I hope it has something similar to Microsoft's project centre, it sounds really cool!

Hope this rumor is true!

It's supposed to be basic. It's supposed to be competing against MS works, not MS office. AppleWorks X should be around $50 and Apple Office (I hope there is one) should around $150.

[må¥å]

The application might be 64-bit compliant, however not much of a difference will be seen.

[The Muffin Man]

64-Bit compliant? If that means that it can actually take advantage of a G5, I would have to say that it would be ridiculous to go through any extra effort since word processors are already naturally fast. Except for Microsoft Word. Damn freezes. Well, that's mostly on Windows anyway. Windows sucks. As yall know.

[dontmatter]

I hope Appleworks X (if it exists) is as much of a break from previous versions of appleworks as Mac OS X was a break from previous versions of Mac OS. Or rather, as much of a radical improvment. And, it has to be completely, utterly, almost so you may as well use office compatible with office if it's going to take off at ALL. Different OSes is fine, but different document standards? Nope.

Would be awesome, though, having a completley ground up, mac built, redesigned office suite, to see how great it could be.

[Nermal]

Like this:
http://www.theregister.com/2004/08/04/penguin_katie_hijack/

That's terrible! :mad:
I feel sorry for her. :(

[ssamani]

My god, Amazon.co.uk is offering a 30% discount on a book that hasn't even been published yet :rolleyes: Seriously though, read the post from the guy explaining that the X may be a stand in for the actual version number when it gets decided.

Sanj




Amazon.co.uk:AppleWorks X (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0321246640/findthelowesb-21/202-4234515-1082237)
Appleworks X for MAC OS X: Visual QuickStart Guide
Nolan Hester

List Price: £14.99
Our Price: £10.49
You Save: £4.50 (30%)

Free UK delivery on orders over £25 with Super Saver Delivery. See details & conditions

Availability: usually dispatched within 4 to 6 weeks. Please note that titles occasionally go out of print or publishers run out of stock.

Edition: Paperback

Browse our great selection of Books Special Offers and save ££s today.

More Product Details

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Product Details:

Paperback (May 2004)
Publisher: Peachpit Press
ISBN: 0321246640
Category(ies): Computers & Internet

Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 187,193
(Publishers and authors: improve your sales)

[AmigoMac]

Change the GUI, compatibility improvement and go... Do not forget that any update should be less than 40€ ;) I'll be happy

[Makosuke]

A new version of AppleWorks would be really nice, even if it's not some awesome Office-killer. Just a decent "Works" suite that gets the job done better than the current version, which really hasn't aged very well.

That's all 90% of home users need, and just as most people who got a copy of Microsoft Works (which, of course, is the suite that AppleWorks X would REALLY be competing with) with their Wintel box think it's good enough and don't pay $400 for Office, most people who get a copy of Appleworks with their Mac should be happy enough with it that they don't feel they need Word or Office. That's what I want--an Office replacement would be nice, but really a program with a few more features than TextEdit and a few less than Word that runs more smoothly than AW6 would suit me just fine. Mellel almost does it, but it's a bit light and doesn't have the other components.

And it's really worth noting that, assuming AppleWorks remains just that--a "Works" suite, rather than a full-scale "Office" suite--it's not really competing with MS Office. MS hasn't had a version of Works that ran on the Mac since the early 90s, leaving AppleWorks as the only thing in that space at all.

By the way, I REALLY hope they keep a database component in there--that's always been conspicuouslly absent from Office, and being loosely FileMaker based, is a real strong point of AppleWorks--I still know businesses run off of AW databases.

(I do hope they keep the AppleWorks moniker, too--there's something cool about the fact that 20 years ago I was running AppleWorks on an Apple //c, and I can still run it on OSX.)

[dmg_software]

This appears to be just a 2nd Edition (http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/bobuk/scripts/home.jsp?action=search&type=isbn&term=0321246640&source=3230965435&source=3230965435) of Peachpit's AppleWorks 6 for Macintosh: Visual QuickStart Guide (http://www.peachpit.com/title/0201702827?redir=1) book, also written by the same author.

In my experience it's not uncommon for web sites like Amazon to use an 'X' in a book's title. It replaces the program's version number until the book's published. I'd guess this is just in case the version number is incremented. I don't believe it suggests a Cocoa version of AppleWorks is waiting in the wings. (Though it'd be nice ;-)

It's good that there's still enough interest for Peachpit Press to release a 2nd Edition of this book. And if you want a version of AppleWorks that supports Mac OS X features then please let Apple know (http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/). They've had 4 years since AppleWorks 6.0 has been released to do this!

A new AppleWorks doesn't have to compete with Office either. The Mac world is big enough for a consumer level productivity package akin to Microsoft Works for Windows, without it being seen as Apple trying to depose Microsoft Office for Mac!

If you do have a strong opinion either way about a new version of AppleWorks I'd appreciate you visiting my blog and completing the AppleWorks 7 Poll (http://dmgsoftware.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=221918) I set up few weeks ago.

Cheers.

[Phillip]

the reason for it to be published in may MAYBE because the new iMacs were to be released at wwdc and apple works X would go with the imacs...

[Zaty]

This appears to be just a 2nd Edition (http://bookshop.blackwell.co.uk/bobuk/scripts/home.jsp?action=search&type=isbn&term=0321246640&source=3230965435&source=3230965435) of Peachpit's AppleWorks 6 for Macintosh: Visual QuickStart Guide (http://www.peachpit.com/title/0201702827?redir=1) book, also written by the same author.

In my experience it's not uncommon for web sites like Amazon to use an 'X' in a book's title. It replaces the program's version number until the book's published. I'd guess this is just in case the version number is incremented. I don't believe it suggests a Cocoa version of AppleWorks is waiting in the wings. (Though it'd be nice ;-)

It's good that there's still enough interest for Peachpit Press to release a 2nd Edition of this book. And if you want a version of AppleWorks that supports Mac OS X features then please let Apple know (http://www.apple.com/macosx/feedback/). They've had 4 years since AppleWorks 6.0 has been released to do this!

A new AppleWorks doesn't have to compete with Office either. The Mac world is big enough for a consumer level productivity package akin to Microsoft Works for Windows, without it being seen as Apple trying to depose Microsoft Office for Mac!

If you do have a strong opinion either way about a new version of AppleWorks I'd appreciate you visiting my blog and completing the AppleWorks 7 Poll (http://dmgsoftware.modblog.com/?show=blogview&blog_id=221918) I set up few weeks ago.

Cheers.

Even if it's a second edition, it can still cover a new version. It's not uncommon to call a newer version of a book covering a later version of the software 2nd or 3rd edition.

[SiliconAddict]

Not gonna happen folks. And if it does it's going to still suck.

Apple can't afford to lose office. IE they could because well as long as its compatible with net standards it doesn't matter. You lose office (Word, Excel, PPT.) Apple will lose any hope of touching the enterprise market and even some of the home consumer market.
I can honestly say if MS dropped Office for the Mac tomorrow I wouldn't even consider the Mac anymore. I need office compatibility with whatever my next computer is going to be. (Which appears to be more and more likely an IBM Thinkpad. :( ) Whatever. The point being is I doubt Apple is going to bite the hand that is feeding it customers.

[SiliconAddict]

it better be a good update, really good

Or what? You'll switch to Windows? Apple knows that this isn't that big of a product. They know if you want a WP you buy Office or use one of the other third party apps that are out there.
AW doesn't or wouldn't be a major selling point for switchers. It might be more of a selling point if Apple bundled the AW in with the OS but again it's the whole bites the hand that feeds you thing. They cannot afford to lose MS office.
What I would like to see is a slimmed down Wordpad type app for the Mac. Something that would be the rough equivalent of missile testing during the cold war. (That's what I consider the current state between MS and Apple right now.) something that may agitate MS and get them a bit pissed but not enough to drop office altogether.

[SiliconAddict]

Damn freezes. Well, that's mostly on Windows anyway. Windows sucks. As yall know.


Reallly? I haven't had office freeze on me since Office XP back in 2002. :confused:

Just goes to show where MS's priorities are. :mad:

[CmdrLaForge]

But do you think M$ will stop making office for Mac's. That's what they did with IE when Safari came out. I still think Office for mac's must still exist for coporate users.

If M$ makes Office for the Mac or not just depends on how much money they make with it. They are not doing it because they love the Mac. I guess companys would still buy it and then they make it. If no one buys it - they stop making it - but why bother then ?

Cheers

[SiliconAddict]

microsoft didn't drop ie because of safari.


Sure they did. It was a convenient excuse to stop supporting an application. Otherwise you would have had the Mac community up in arms stating "They are leveraging their monopoly" This way MS can point to Apple and say that they have their own browser we don't need to make one for them. And beyond that yes development costs prob did play a roll in it as well.

[iMeowbot]

Your thesis is fallacious. Word has been available for Mac since damn near its inception.
Yep, it was written concurrently with the Mac system software (and that early exposure had a lot to do with the timing of Windows' introduction).
Appleworks nee Clarisworks the same. It's obvious the two are aimed at two different markets.
Right. ClarisWorks was specifically written to compete with Microsoft Works, not Office.[/QUOTE]

[SiliconAddict]

If M$ makes Office for the Mac or not just depends on how much money they make with it. They are not doing it because they love the Mac. I guess companys would still buy it and then they make it. If no one buys it - they stop making it - but why bother then ?

Cheers

It's more complicated then that. Microsoft will drop Office for Mac when it's in their best interest to do so. e.g. They stop making money on it or if Apple starts invading their enterprise territory. I'm willing to bet a months salary that Apple has an anticompetitive lawsuit strategy on the table for the day MS drops office. For now its not a big deal since Apple owns a paltry +/-3% of the market which is hardly a threat to Microsoft.

Hmm I should consolidate my posts. :p

[Guntis]

Well, this may be off the main topic, but I think that Mellel may be good answer for some of you who don't need spreadsheet or data base software. I just bought Mellel and I am very satisfied with it. $30 and 3 years of free upgrades -- it's very good deal! :) And new version every 2 or 3 months.

[Stella]

If AW-X comes to fruition, I hope it includes compatibility with the OpenOffice and StarOffice file formats.
I'd love AW-X to be a aqua version of Star Office

I used to use SO under Linux and thought it was excellent ( I hated the previous versions before version < 6)... but the Mac version of OO is hideous..

[Tux Kapono]

Think different

If rumors hold true, this new office suite won't be copying Office X, it's more in Apple's reputation to offer something infinitely better. Office X is a tool that is long outdated for the multimedia demands that we need in business communications - complex word documents with embedded instructional videos, animated email newsletters, video 'powerpoints'/business imovies, all with music! etc. etc. It'd be fun to see a list of more future apps we'd love to see.

I mean, who enjoys reading text anymore when a picture/diagram/video explains the same thing in so much less time with so much more emotion - the limitation is in ease of production, and that's Apple's core competency.

Another major reason why I believe Apple will come out with their own version is because, for the company that pioneered desktop publishing and where the "i" in iMac stands for internet - I can't desktop publish to the internet! (ie design/send an email newsletter either through Office X or Mail, or even cut and paste one from Safari.)

I heard they're working on that one.

[Demon Hunter]

something that may agitate MS and get them a bit pissed but not enough to drop office altogether.

Sounds like Keynote! :cool:

[nuckinfutz]

Apple can't afford to lose office. IE they could because well as long as its compatible with net standards it doesn't matter. You lose office (Word, Excel, PPT.) Apple will lose any hope of touching the enterprise market and even some of the home consumer market.

SA that may be true today but things are rapidly changing. Linux is still growing despite not having any MS products. In fact Microsoft is whoring Office for $40 (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1618813,00.asp) to compete against Linux/Star Office combinations. Microsoft is slowly losing it's focus on the Enterprise.

I can honestly say if MS dropped Office for the Mac tomorrow I wouldn't even consider the Mac anymore. I need office compatibility with whatever my next computer is going to be. (Which appears to be more and more likely an IBM Thinkpad. ) Whatever. The point being is I doubt Apple is going to bite the hand that is feeding it customers.

People don't buy Macs to run office. The support on PC for MS apps is always going to be better. Apple is not afraid losing office because of switchers because I can assure you that migration would be slight by comparison. They are afraid of the "Doomsday" articles that would come from idiot analysts that could hurt their stock. MS Office as a requirement for business is highly overrated. Many Gov are looking at ways of getting out from under the MS tax. It's only a matter of time.


Sure they did.

Um no they didn't. My PC still runs IE6. MS stopped external updates for all platforms including Wintel. I really wish Mac users would stop revising history to try to prove their points. There's no proof either way but the fact that there is no IE7 weakens the whole Safari debate.

I'm willing to bet a months salary that Apple has an anticompetitive lawsuit strategy on the table for the day MS drops office.

A lawsuit wouldn't be needed. Apple could do far more damage to MS by simply creating a kickass Suite and delivering it on Linux. If I was Apple my response would be a three pronged attack. I'd deliver my suite on Mac, Windows and Linux. My linux license would be around $50 a seat. The only way to hit MS is in their pocketbook. If MS stops making Office for Apple then they have absolutely no leverage at all. Apple and Linux unifying would be formidable competition for MS. Plus you have Sun that really wants to stick it to MS as well.

People need to realize that MS likes to puff their chest up and threaten people. But rashly dropping Office simply makes MS' financial goals that much harder. Their spreading themselves thin with the Xbox vs PS and in other areas. Apple needs to go for the gusto and focus on appeasing the users of its platform and not some company in Redmond.

Appleworks may not be coming but Apple needs their own presence in the Office Suite catagory. They have all the tools necessary. It's time to strike out on their own.

[FoxyKaye]

You know, just reading the past page or so of posts, I think that an Apple competitor to Office or Works could consist of the following applications:

* iWrite (the mysterious trademark from December 2003) to compete with Word.
* Keynote to go head-to-head with PPT.
* Some spreadsheet and database application (updated versions of those that currently exist with AW).

It might be an interesting bundle - I remember when M$ used to bundle Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Access together (pre-Outlook), and then replaced Access with Outlook so they could make more money selling Access seperately or in "Professional" versions of Office.

Since Apple already has an excellent Mail program and iCal, they wouldn't need an Outlook competitor in the bundle. Essentialy, they could give folks more functionality than M$ as similar cost to the end user.

Just a thought...

[Trekkie]

I would like to see a new version of Appleworks. I don't need Office cost/function. I just need things to write pissed of letters to credit card companys, people who cut my sprinkler line, things like that. A little spreadsheet program for doing 'what if' type things for budgets, etc.

Every once in a while a simple spreadsheet/word processor/etc program would be nice. Appleworks 6 came with the iMac but it seems clunky compared to the iLife stuff.

[Trekkie]

Plus you have Sun that really wants to stick it to MS as well.

To be honest, I don't agree with that comment anymore. Sun has been propped up by MS and have you noticed how they've targeted IBM with their rumblings about buying SUSE to lock IBM into being their bitch for the SUSE OS that they run on their zSeries, iSeries, and pSeries products.

[gopher]

Nope, AppleWorks doesn't get updated, even though Internet Explorer does. I don't quite understand Apple's policy about non-OS software updates, unless it's that Explorer, like iTunes et al, is included with ALL Macs out of the box. Plus it's a chronic security hazard. :rolleyes:

The update is worthwhile, by the way, because it finally provides support for a scrollwheel mouse (though not in the database :().

Explorer hasn't been updated for a couple years. And Microsoft recently announced this past year they won't be updating it further except with MSN. So if you are going to complain about Appleworks not getting updated, look at something that actually has gotten updated.

[nuckinfutz]

To be honest, I don't agree with that comment anymore. Sun has been propped up by MS and have you noticed how they've targeted IBM with their rumblings about buying SUSE to lock IBM into being their bitch for the SUSE OS that they run on their zSeries, iSeries, and pSeries products.


I sure did notice that. Sun is going through the same thing Apple went through after the infamout $150 million MS Stock purchase. Despite MS' numerous attempts to thwart Java Sun has to play nice. Very interesting these computer Politics.

I just thought of something. iCal. It hasn't been updated significantly in a while. It's currently at verison 1.5.2 and it's announcement date was July 2002(MacWorld NY). This means one of two things. iCal is dead for all intents and purposes or iCal 2 might be a significant update that is forthcoming.

Let us conjecture for a minute here that Apple is looking at providing tools for the low end "Works" arena as well as business level.

might we see an eventual Appleworks 7 integrated app by next summer along with an Apple Office?

I could see an Apple office with

Document- The Word Processor to rule them all.
Keynote2- Keynote becomes turbocharged
iCal/Mail Pro- The Biz oriented version of Calendering
Applebase- Nice RDBMS application based on tweaked Filemaker code
Cellblock- Spreadsheet application with a twist.

The cool thing about the suite would be it's modularity and integration. Core Data would fuel the backend of all the apps so that accessing a spreadsheet from Cellblock in Document would be as simple as choosing "recent spreadsheets" from a Document menu. Robust support for .doc and .xls as well as pdf. Multimedia support strengthened by Quicktime and the Core API. HTML display/editing by Webcore. Spotlight and Automator support throughout.

There's no doubt it could be a tour de force. So what if MS gets pissed. People that truly need Office will buy it.

[wrldwzrd89]

I sure did notice that. Sun is going through the same thing Apple went through after the infamout $150 million MS Stock purchase. Despite MS' numerous attempts to thwart Java Sun has to play nice. Very interesting these computer Politics.

I just thought of something. iCal. It hasn't been updated significantly in a while. It's currently at verison 1.5.2 and it's announcement date was July 2002(MacWorld NY). This means one of two things. iCal is dead for all intents and purposes or iCal 2 might be a significant update that is forthcoming.

Let us conjecture for a minute here that Apple is looking at providing tools for the low end "Works" arena as well as business level.

might we see an eventual Appleworks 7 integrated app by next summer along with an Apple Office?

I could see an Apple office with

Document- The Word Processor to rule them all.
Keynote2- Keynote becomes turbocharged
iCal/Mail Pro- The Biz oriented version of Calendering
Applebase- Nice RDBMS application based on tweaked Filemaker code
Cellblock- Spreadsheet application with a twist.

The cool thing about the suite would be it's modularity and integration. Core Data would fuel the backend of all the apps so that accessing a spreadsheet from Cellblock in Document would be as simple as choosing "recent spreadsheets" from a Document menu. Robust support for .doc and .xls as well as pdf. Multimedia support strengthened by Quicktime and the Core API. HTML display/editing by Webcore. Spotlight and Automator support throughout.

There's no doubt it could be a tour de force. So what if MS gets pissed. People that truly need Office will buy it.
I'd be willing to bet that Cellblock would share some functionality with Gnumeric, arguably the best FOSS spreadsheet program out there.

[Doctor Q]

Applebase- Nice RDBMS application based on tweaked Filemaker codeI like your name better than the one I suggested above: FileMaker Lite. Then again, maybe Apple should name it aBase. It follows that "lowercase leading vowel" pattern and it's also a wink toward the ancient product dBase! :)

[Jeffsters]

you will often see a computer book pop-up on Amazon etc., with the Roman Numeral "X" as a placeholder. It has NOTHING to do with OS X. When they assign an author for a book and they are unsure of the release schedule or what version the vendor is going to call it, they will just use the "X" when they get the ISBN number etc. There is no guarantee the book even exists or if work has started or that it will ever be released.

[Windowlicker]

Sheesh people. I can't believe the "Appleworks X" is going over your head. Let me explain how it works.

Apple has a new product coming. They want to have 3rd party book for this product out so they contract out to a few writers. They are %100 sure about the name but if it's a previous version and not a totally new product they simply append an "X" onto the product. "X" has always signified "unkown" in some areas just as Malcom X kept the "X" until he "found" his true name.

What this "Appleworks X" means is that there IS a new version coming. Apple hasn't chosen a final version number. It could be Appleworks 6.5 or Appleworks 7 or Appleworks CS or whatever they want. The publishers will get the final name before mass production. Trust me Appleworks X is not going to be the final name.

How do I know this? Because I've been following book like this for a while and 6 months before Filemaker 7 shipped there were a couple "Filemaker X" books pending print. This is great news because we're getting something new in AW. It just depends on how large the update is.

So in short yes a new Appleworks is coming.

I really hope you're right.. What MS has to offer is ok (just like much of the stuff on PC), but it's so bloated and confusing I wanna get rid of it asap (for instance, changing the dictionary was a pain in the ass because MS doesn't keep all the preferences in one place). What I've liked most so far is ClarisWorks 4.x. It's just not very much up to date anymore and Office has some stuff the CW4 doesn't.

But pleasepleasepleaseplease let it be true! An office suite that's just as easy to use as itunes or safari....... that would be NEAT'OMATIC!

[Jmitch]

Okay, first of all, the "X" like everyone else said, means nothing. It could just be a way to wait until a new version comes out, or it could just be Peachpits name for Appleworks for OS X. Google it and Appleworks 6.02 X comes up everywhere. Yes, it would be beautius to have a new office suite from Apple. Personally, if Apple does release a new office suite, Keynote will remain seperate, (it's good enough of an app to stand-alone by itself), and they will not just do a simple update and keep the same name. If they do anything they are going to completely redo the whole thing, new name and everything.

But, to be quite honest, I don't think it will happen. I'm not saying I don't think it could happen at all, but I don't think it will. One, because why would Apple promote Microsoft's Office X so much, if they new they were to release they're own in the near future?

[GregA]

Apple doesn't need to make a better Office, they need to make a cheaper Office, one that they can sell to education markets again. I think we'll soon see the quiet introduction of AppleWorks 7, Cocoa on Mac OS X, C++/Carbon for Windows and OS 9. The reason for the length between major updates being due to the necessity of rewriting the entire app, then porting it not only to two different platforms, but also to a different language and two APIs (assuming they make it a standard Win32 app like its predecessors).Nah - much nicer to do 1 API - But release Appleworks in Cocoa - and use cocoa to run it on both Mac OS X and Windows 2000/XP. The former version of cocoa ran on Windows 95, NT, 2000, Solaris, HP/UX, and OpenStep... time to take advantage of it?

Think different when using an Office app?:
On another note - remember Apple and IBM (I think) were working on a document based system - so you open a document and you then may do word processing in it, or spreadsheets, or presentation... etc. That could still be interesting as a way of thinking different.

File formats:
To the person who said use OpenOffice formats - I agree - don't invent any new file formats, use something open. OpenOffice files are based on XML too aren't they?

My wish - something for making great web sites. Integrate THAT with iPhoto and other apple iApps maybe.

[sockeatingdryer]

AppleWorks has been getting long in the tooth. When my Bondi Blue was the primary machine, I first used AppleWorks 5 and loved it, then bought my Pismo with 6 and Office X and loved both. However, now that I just gotten my eMac last month, AppleWorks has been pushed to the dust bunnies in favour of Office. It is bloated, and slow, and overall buggy, with a need for an update BAD. If it is great enough to unseat Office, then I will most certainly push Office aside... I'd love to go straight "non-Microsoft."

That aside, I use RapidWeaver Pro now, but what if they incorporate a webpage builder with AppleWorks? How cool would that be?! :D

[djjon]

Why doesn't somone just email Nolan? (The author)

[SiliconAddict]

Um no they didn't. My PC still runs IE6. MS stopped external updates for all platforms including Wintel. I really wish Mac users would stop revising history to try to prove their points. There's no proof either way but the fact that there is no IE7 weakens the whole Safari debate.

What does your PC have to do with them dropping IE support for the Mac? MS may have stopped external updates for Wintel at IE 6 but they stopped at IE 5 for the Mac and from what I hear it was a crappy version at that. MS didn’t even bother to release a final version of IE for the Mac to get it up to 6 before they dropped it. If memory serves it was literally months after Safari came out when MS dropped it. I’d call that a little too convenient. And please keep in mind that as of this writing I’m not a Mac user. The only Mac I own right now is a Newton. So please don’t lump me in with people that alter facts to suit their biased. I’m just calling it as I see it.


A lawsuit wouldn't be needed. Apple could do far more damage to MS by simply creating a kickass Suite and delivering it on Linux.

That would require Linux to have a substantial chunk of the desktop market share. As it stands they are still just a drop in the bucket. Releasing a superior office suite for Linux or even Windows would do exactly squat. Along with the Windows monopoly they have their office suite monopoly which is just as big. Simple fact: if it doesn’t open up Office docs correctly most companies won’t touch it. Why do you think most companies haven’t gone Open Office yet? As for Linux. Right now you can run MS office 2000 and I think XP on Linux. So this isn’t that major of a deal. This isn’t about Apple doing damage to MS. Sorry but a +/-3% market share isn’t going to do much to a 90% market share. This is about the outcome of what would happen if MS dropped Office for the Mac. And as I said before the availability of Office, even a crappy version, is a major factor for a business to consider a platform. I still stand by my notion that Apple would be in trouble, not immediate mind you, if Microsoft discontinued Office for the Mac.

[SiliconAddict]

Why doesn't somone just email Nolan? (The author)

But that would take all the fun out of the speculation. ;)

[Jeffsters]

Like I said, what you are seeing is a typical publisher ISBN number application title when a software book is signed and the vendors version number is not yet known. When that's the case they use "X" as a placeholder.

For example: How to Do Everything With Filemaker X (How to Do Everything)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0072231416/qid=1091773718/sr=1-39/ref=sr_1_39/104-8528349-8849548?v=glance&s=books

We all know there is no FileMaker Pro X, and 7.0 just came out, but you'll see this book was supposed to come out back in March.

[Squire]

My wish - something for making great web sites. Integrate THAT with iPhoto and other apple iApps maybe.

So, so, so true. that is the one area where the iApps are lacking. "Web design for the rest of us" is what we need. And Homepage does not cut it for anything more than online photo albums, as far as I'm concerned.

Squire

[CmdrLaForge]

It's more complicated then that. Microsoft will drop Office for Mac when it's in their best interest to do so. e.g. They stop making money on it or if Apple starts invading their enterprise territory. I'm willing to bet a months salary that Apple has an anticompetitive lawsuit strategy on the table for the day MS drops office. For now its not a big deal since Apple owns a paltry +/-3% of the market which is hardly a threat to Microsoft.

Hmm I should consolidate my posts. :p

I agree with you that M$ is looking on their overall ROI (=return on invest) If that number gets under a certain value (I have no idea what it could be!) But yes, it is the overall return for M$ as a company and not only the Mac BU.

[flappo]

i've had ms office for 2 full years and only used it once , and then it crashed

i've had appleworks since it was clarisworks in 1992 and i've used it almost every day since

nuff said

[age234]

So, so, so true. that is the one area where the iApps are lacking. "Web design for the rest of us" is what we need. And Homepage does not cut it for anything more than online photo albums, as far as I'm concerned.

Squire

Oh, but hand-coding is so much more fun. I think so, anyway. CSS all the way!

[ClimbingTheLog]

That the original publication date is May 2004 bolsters the argument that this will ship with the new iMacs. We all know they were supposed to ship in June.

Peachpit has to sit on a book that's done which is unfortunate, but they got early access to the software, so they have to play by Apple's rules.

[IJ Reilly]

Why isn't this a Page One rumor? The independently verifiable existence of the book is about as much confirmation of a pending new version of AppleWorks as we'll ever see.

Whether it's a minor or major upgrade, we don't know yet, but I'd place my bets on "major," for many of the reasons already mentioned. Another reason to expect this is that a couple of years ago Apple bought out a small developer of NextStep office applications. At the time, I think everybody assumed it would come to something, eventually.

It's about time, I say.

[BenRoethig]

your a strange strange little man.

appleworks is not that bad, ive never understood office fans

No, it's worse.

[ravijo]

I hate to burst this bubble, namely because I wish it were true!

But the current version of AW is refered to by many as AW X 6.x.x. Examples include versiontracker.com (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/11281) and macupdate.com (http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/6355)

I also would say to additional things. First, there have been many rumors before which never resulted in a product for us. Even though apple might have indeed developed something behind closed doors, it never came out.

Second, I highly doubt that Apple would have pumped up Office: mac 2004 so heavily if they were coming out with this like 3-4 months later.

But I DO really, really wish it would come true!

[IJ Reilly]

The name isn't relevant. Whatever it's called, it's clear that a new version is coming out. It doesn't make sense to many of us for Apple to come out with yet another stop-gap version of AW, and that is all we've seen since 2000. This is the right moment for a significant upgrade.

[sockeatingdryer]

The name isn't relevant. Whatever it's called, it's clear that a new version is coming out. It doesn't make sense to many of us for Apple to come out with yet another stop-gap version of AW, and that is all we've seen since 2000. This is the right moment for a significant upgrade.

That does sound right. Since the new iMacs are coming out, and there's no new OS, they need something to fill in that gap. It will probably be something like "Work. And Play." Well, not that uncatchy, but something along that line. :)

[nuckinfutz]

What does your PC have to do with them dropping IE support for the Mac?

It has everything to do with it. I detest when people say Safari was the motivation for no more IE on the Mac. That simply isn't true fact.

That would require Linux to have a substantial chunk of the desktop market share. As it stands they are still just a drop in the bucket. Releasing a superior office suite for Linux or even Windows would do exactly squat

Yeah it may appear that way but I've seen big companies go extinct(Syquest) and former players get usurped(Novell) because they failed to evolve. The fact is Linux is working its way from the Server room to the Desktop. If Office is so unbeatable then why is MS dropping Office licenses to $40 to match Linux/Star Office? (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1618813,00.asp) . That's rather telling that some governments aren't drinking the MS koolaid like they used to. Fact is the only reason why people say MS Office is essential is because they're the dumbasses sending their documents out in a proprietary format and don't realize there are other ways to disseminate information that doesn't require the recipient to buy a $400 application suite.

Right now you can run MS office 2000 and I think XP on Linux.

No you can't. MS is afraid of Linux


This isn’t about Apple doing damage to MS. Sorry but a +/-3% market share isn’t going to do much to a 90% market share. This is about the outcome of what would happen if MS dropped Office for the Mac

You're using rather pedestrian logic here. That %90 that MS owns runs Linux. So even Apple's %3 marketshare doesn't apply because linux simply needs to convert existing hardware to their platform. Much easier than say wishing that those Wintel boxes got replaced with Powermacs. You seem very comfortable with MS' place but I assure you Bill isn't comfy with the encroachment of Linux. I'm not sure that Macs losing MS Office would be all that damaging. Again I think the mythical "legions" of Office using Maccies is hyperbole. Appeasing Office has held this platform back more than it has helped IMO. With IE gone(ahh I remember the day when people thought no IE on Mac would be damaging...hellooooo Safari) Office is the only tool that most need to rid themselves of to be "MS Free"


It's about that time. All the tools are in place for a kickass Apple suite. Apple needs to ship a new AW and then create a nice full featured suite for businesses leveraging their own tech. If MS grabs their ball and goes home I'll personally open the door and let the damn carpetbaggers of our platform hit the road.

[alanbuilds]

perhaps the biggest advantage (for apple) would be that it could use AWX to encourage educational institutions that they wouldn't need to buy any word processing, database, spreadsheet apps if they choose apple.

appleworks would fit well into iLife.
Appleworks/Clarisworks has ALWAYS come free and preloaded "ready-to-run-out-of-he-box" on all macs aimed at consumers and schools (iMac, eMac, & iBook; and their predecessors). ILife comes on ALL Macs, pro or consumer (excluding servers, of course), as do internet browsers. There is no need to buy additional software --- Macs do everything & more right out of the box!

[That said, however, the fact that Appleworks is left off the "pro" models is, IMHO, ridiculous beyond belief. Typing is typing, whether you're a soccer mom or a professional musician, graphic artist, filmmaker, photographer, etc. Everyone with a computer, including pros, needs to be able to "word process". Pros get computers that can't perform the most basic necessary function, with the justification that "they might want to buy a more expensive (read: Microsoft Office) software choice." Yet these professionals, who WOULD use Appleworks which is NOT provided for them, bought pro units specifically to NOT use iLife (which IS provided, but probably deleted or ignored) but rather its professional replacements like Final Cut Pro, etc. instead!

Must be an "understanding" with Microsoft, but still so illogical from a use standpoint. Until recently, you couldn't even burn a DVD, a basic amateur iLife application, without buying the professional Powerbook - no word processor included - instead of the i Book iLife was made for. (You still can't, except by special, unreturnable, build-to-order direct from the manufacturer -- not from retail resllers!)

This is nuts --or, at least, as un-Apple as you can get, in terms of stated "plug-in-and-play" philosophy.

I happily use the Appleworks I had to buy just to be able to use my Powerbook, and I am as far as you can get from a "professional" user.

Apple --- Let everyone type on Apple computers for free!!! (How much is this to ask?)]

[Doctor Q]

the fact that Appleworks is left off the "pro" models is, IMHO, ridiculous beyond belief.I understand your point exactly. I'm one of those who has to shell out a few more bucks for AppleWorks on my pro machines. Not a big expense, but inconvenient and annoying.

I can theorize why Apple does this, however. It would cost them nothing to include AppleWorks with all Macs, but if they bundled it in, pro purchasers might complain that they are paying for AppleWorks when they need pro applications like Office and will be buying them anyway. Then they will demand that Apple offer the same box without AppleWorks for a few dollars less. Since Apple can't win, they keep the distinction they've had, and they get the least griping because people are used to the arrangement.

So you and I can continue to gripe but I don't expect this policy to change.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, but if AppleWorks X is given that name I'd expect it to continue to be free with new consumer Macs and not with pro Macs, while if the same package is released as iWord or PencilPusher or MacWorks I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple change the policy they've had for AppleWorks.

[morkintosh]

So Apple is working on an update to AW? The name "Apple Works X" could suggest its entirely written in Cocoa. It would be nice if there was some serious competiton to MS Office. Bring it on!

so I should remind all you people who I am about to read saying that this could compete with office: Apple Works isn't supposed to compete with a full office solution, it is a totally different animal, it is designed to compete with MS Works, which it does. Put any 'works' suite up against an office suite and it will lose.

[Nermal]

No you can't. MS is afraid of Linux

Yes you can. (http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffice/)

[Zaty]

so I should remind all you people who I am about to read saying that this could compete with office: Apple Works isn't supposed to compete with a full office solution, it is a totally different animal, it is designed to compete with MS Works, which it does. Put any 'works' suite up against an office suite and it will lose.

I'm fully aware that AW is not in the same league as MS Office. My point was that as of today, (IMHO), there is no alternative to MS Office. AW 6 is outdated, OOO is not there yet.

[kingtj]

No, for some reason, Appleworks updates never seem to show up in software update. I guess, once again, it's because it's a "holdover" app from MacOS 9.x and earlier days - so they don't consider it part of their group of native OS X apps that software update knows about.

Personally, I avoid Appleworks completely, except when I'm forced to use it to open someone else's document made with it. If they did a *lot* of work on a new, native OS X version, it could have potential. But I really don't listen much to the folks who preach how "easy to use" and "superior" a product it is. I used to work for a guy who absolutely loved Appleworks, and published pretty much all of his business advertising/marketing paperwork, plus spreadsheets in it. It was a nightmare to update/edit those files!

I ran into all sorts of odd page formatting issues, for starters. You'd insert a little text, or change some entries in a spreadsheet cell or two, and all of a sudden, printers were cutting off the left or right margins of every page - despite print previews looking just fine. There were often very non-intuitive key combos to hold down while clicking to work with graphics, too. I can forgive a lack of "power user" type features - because it's more of Apple's answer to Microsoft Works than to Microsoft Office, but the basics should work flawlessly and with intuitive ease. I think it loses out on both counts.


I didn't even know they had an AW 6.2.9. Don't these type of things usually show up in software update?

[macsrus]

Apple works

Bah who cares

[MacsRgr8]

Apple works

Bah who cares

Well... counting the replies: many of us do. ;)

I have wondered why Apple has not participated in something like NeoOffce (i.e. OpenOffice for Aqua), or any other Office-compatible app or suite.
Mariner Software (http://www.marinersoftware.com/) is doing a gr8 job building Word/Excel apps for Mac OS X. Someone also mentioned Mellel (http://www.redlers.com/) which is IMHO the prettiest word-proc app ever made! I'm buying that one.

So others are trying to make some very decent M$ Office alternatives.

Why not Apple?

Are they afraid that if M$ would drop Office, that they would loose the few office-Macintosh customers they have?
Does it take too much time (read: too expensive) to develop an absolute Office-cracker which is 100% compatible with its M$ counterpart?
Or are they really trying to do so, but only have Keynote ready for now.... I mean, are they creating the perfect MacOffice Suite X, without rushing it. Like Doom 3: "ready when it's done".

Here's to hoping.

[wrldwzrd89]

Well... counting the replies: many of us do. ;)

I have wondered why Apple has not participated in something like NeoOffce (i.e. OpenOffice for Aqua), or any other Office-compatible app or suite.
Mariner Software (http://www.marinersoftware.com/) is doing a gr8 job building Word/Excel apps for Mac OS X. Someone also mentioned Mellel (http://www.redlers.com/) which is IMHO the prettiest word-proc app ever made! I'm buying that one.

So others are trying to make some very decent M$ Office alternatives.

Why not Apple?

Are they afraid that if M$ would drop Office, that they would loose the few office-Macintosh customers they have?
Does it take too much time (read: too expensive) to develop an absolute Office-cracker which is 100% compatible with its M$ counterpart?
Or are they really trying to do so, but only have Keynote ready for now.... I mean, are they creating the perfect MacOffice Suite X, without rushing it. Like Doom 3: "ready when it's done".

Here's to hoping.
My guess is option 3 - Apple's working on an office suite that will blow us away, but they want to make sure it's done right before releasing it. We already have bits and pieces of it - we have Keynote for presentations, and surely the word processor will benefit from the fantastic text functions Cocoa (TextEdit) has. All that's missing are a spreadsheet app and a database app. We already have the basis of an email and contacts system (Mac OS X Mail and Address Book) plus calendaring (iCal) - Apple can build on this in their office suite.

[toughboy]

I hate MS and I hate to use their products when there is no other better option around.. come on apple, rescue us from B.Gates, at least on office stuff..

[toughboy]

Apple works

Bah who cares

I DO!.. like all other software or hardware that Apple does..

man.. u're no troll, are u?

[jsalzer]

At the moment, I float pretty freely between MS Office and AW (on both the Mac and PC sitting right next to each other at work), so I'd like to think of myself as being fairly objective (if you ignore the Apple sticker on my bumper).

AW is generally the first tool that I grab. It's been an "app"endage to my body since CW2. It's simple to use. It's super reliable (well, except for some strange Windows issues in v4 and v5.) It just works. And it allows me to focus on the task at hand - not the application.

That said, I grab Word or Excel when the document I'm creating needs a feature not yet available in AW. For example - the ability to fill shapes with pictures by tiling or stretching (can someone tell me how on earth this feature has eluded Apple for so long?).

To not repeat things already said, I hope any new versions of AW keep in mind the following:

a) The "DRAW" component is the most natural environment for taking advantage of AW's "frames" genetic makeup (which needs to be kept, btw). MSWord will never replace AW to me. Despite its more advanced graphics, it's still a word processor that lets you clumsily dump things on top of it. Give AW's "Draw" opacity control, picture fills, and the ability to recognize non-rectangular pictures, and formatting rulers for text boxes, and noone will ever try to make a sign or a brochure in Word again.

b) Bring back Macros. When I bought AW 5 (since CW4 and Win98 weren't getting along), macros were gone. I called Apple to find out where they were (they were listed as a feature on Apple's web site), and I was told AW for Windows didn't have macros because macros were now Applescript based (and Windows didn't have Applescript). That's not a way to make a multi-platform application. I don't care if it's Applescript behind the scenes, but a Macro should be the same up front for everyone.

So, I guess what I want is:
1. Word processor that maintains AW's stability and reliability. If I delete the last letter of a word, I don't want that word's font and style changing on me (I can't believe MS can't fix that).

2. Draw - Start with what's there, as far as ease of frames and merging data, but add:
a) All the good stuff from Keynote - opacity, recognition of non-rectangular pics, snappy alignment, etc.
b) For multi-page draw documents, have an option for each page to have its own origin (rather than starting at ten and a fraction inches).

3. FileMaker Lite - a two-dim database as easy to use as the current that can merge data into all the other components.

4. Spreadsheet - just copy Excel. ;)

5. Keynote - just add timer controls.

Make it fully cross-platform. And, for crying out loud, bring back the old tool bar. I don't need a huge colorful tool bar that prevents me from moving my window around. Put it back where it belongs and keep it simple and out of the way.

All this - and I will be one happy camper.

[Zaty]

My guess is option 3 - Apple's working on an office suite that will blow us away, but they want to make sure it's done right before releasing it. We already have bits and pieces of it - we have Keynote for presentations, and surely the word processor will benefit from the fantastic text functions Cocoa (TextEdit) has. All that's missing are a spreadsheet app and a database app. We already have the basis of an email and contacts system (Mac OS X Mail and Address Book) plus calendaring (iCal) - Apple can build on this in their office suite.

I doubt Apple is working on a office suite a la MS. Don't forget, even if Apple came out with a suite that was better than MS Office (which, in all fairness to MS, is not an easy task), they wouldn't want to upset Bill Gates too much, so that MS might stop developing Office for Mac. Apple still needs MS Office for compatibilty. Furthermore, wasn't MS Office for Mac one of the things they used to convince potential switchter to do the switch? After all, we're living in a Microsoft-centric world, like it or not. Some people might come up with the argument that as longs as MS makes good money from Office for Mac, they won't leave the Mac platform. True, but MS could afford to do without the money from Mac software. In a nutshell, if MS got really angry with Apple, they would have the financial pontential to badly hurt Apple if not destroy them. That's definitely not what neither Apple Computer nor us Mac users want, right?

That being said, a little bit of competiton for MS wouldn't hurt either. That's why Keynote was a smart move by Apple. I doubt Powerpoint 2004 would be as good if it wasn't for keynote. So, a better AW which has everything the average home user needs, would be a good thing, but not an entire office suite.

[wrldwzrd89]

I doubt Apple is working on a office suite a la MS. Don't forget, even if Apple came out with a suite that was better than MS Office (which, in all fairness to MS, is not an easy task), they wouldn't want to upset Bill Gates too much, so that MS might stop developing Office for Mac. Apple still needs MS Office for compatibilty. Furthermore, wasn't MS Office for Mac one of the things they used to convince potential switchter to do the switch? After all, we're living in a Microsoft-centric world, like it or not. Some people might come up with the argument that as longs as MS makes good money from Office for Mac, they won't leave the Mac platform. True, but MS could afford to do without the money from Mac software. In a nutshell, if MS got really angry with Apple, they would have the financial pontential to badly hurt Apple if not destroy them. That's definitely not what neither Apple Computer nor us Mac users want, right?

That being said, a little bit of competiton for MS wouldn't hurt either. That's why Keynote was a smart move by Apple. I doubt Powerpoint 2004 would be as good if it wasn't for keynote. So, a better AW which has everything the average home user needs, would be a good thing, but not an entire office suite.
In that case, if Apple does nothing but release a spreadsheet app (hopefully based on Gnumeric), I'll be happy. I'd like to have a spreadsheet application that doesn't use X11, isn't part of Microsoft Office, and isn't part of AppleWorks.

[reyesmac]

When Apple came out with keynote, I thought they were on their way to making an MS Office killer. I was wrong. They have not updated Keynote or given it any new features since its release (i am talking about major updates). That is a program they sell, you would expect them to try to keep that thing up to date and fresh. So if they do come out with an Appleworks X it will be a nice app when it comes out and wow a lot of people. But I just don't think Apple wants to make a dent in Office sales. So it won't have all the features that people would want in an Office clone and it wont get them any time soon because Apple doesn't update those apps regularly.

[Doctor Q]

Steve Jobs explained that Keynote was created to suit his personal needs for giving presentations such as his talks at Macworld (hence the name Keynote), and that they released it because it was so cool and wonderful that everyone should get to use it.

That's probably true, although making an in-house tool and releasing a full-fledged product are quite different levels of effort, so they clearly had a releasable product in mind.

But the lack of updates may be a further result of its origin. If Jobs has the features he needs, he may not be pushing for an update to the product.

[IJ Reilly]

Just a reminder of Apple's iWrite trademark filing last winter, the hiring of developers from Gobe a few months prior.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=51466

[stumo]

Everybody's free... to use \LaTeX ;)

[ChrisFromCanada]

Why on earth would someone write a book about a 2 year old outdated word processor when they can write a book about a 6 month old word processor?

[ChrisFromCanada]

When Apple came out with keynote, I thought they were on their way to making an MS Office killer. I was wrong. They have not updated Keynote or given it any new features since its release (i am talking about major updates). That is a program they sell, you would expect them to try to keep that thing up to date and fresh. So if they do come out with an Appleworks X it will be a nice app when it comes out and wow a lot of people. But I just don't think Apple wants to make a dent in Office sales. So it won't have all the features that people would want in an Office clone and it wont get them any time soon because Apple doesn't update those apps regularly.

Why bother making a product that you are purposely making crappy.

[iMeowbot]

Just a reminder of Apple's iWrite trademark filing last winter, the hiring of developers from Gobe a few months prior.
That mark application (currently not approved) was filed by a company called "Appple Computer." I guess that the new word processor, if any, doesn't include a spelling checker.

[sambo.]

an OS-X version of AppleWorks *must* be in the pipeline somewhere.
i am keen (when I do my upgrade/SwitchBack) to make my new system as M$ free as possible. unfortunatly, many, many, many PR/Media firms use M$Word almost exclusivley and insist on e-mailing me their drivel in that format. what I want from an "office" suite is the ability to OPEN M$Word docs & re-save them as text only format so I can import them into InDesign CS and slap on the page.
i can think of a great many better things to do with AUD$700 than simply give it to M$ to buy a suite i will never use, except as a "browser". :mad:
i'm keen to use NeoOffice when ver 1.0 is released, but otherwise will get AW if available when i upgrade.
a lot of mac users would love a M$Orifice alternative & would use same simply 'cause getting it won't make M$ richer.

just my opinion........ :p

[iMeowbot]

what I want from an "office" suite is the ability to OPEN M$Word docs & re-save them as text only format so I can import them into InDesign CS and slap on the page.
You can already do that with the TextEdit that comes with OS X.

[IJ Reilly]

You can already do that with the TextEdit that comes with OS X.

You bet. And I use WordService* in TextEdit to quickly reformat those gobbledegook Word documents into something that won't choke a desktop publication. Couldn't stay sane without it. But I still need a moderately powerful word processing application, and increasingly AW isn't cutting it. The way it handles style sheets is ghastly.

*A freebee download, check VersionTracker

[macsrus]

Steve Jobs explained that Keynote was created to suit his personal needs for giving presentations such as his talks at Macworld (hence the name Keynote), and that they released it because it was so cool and wonderful that everyone should get to use it.

That's probably true, although making an in-house tool and releasing a full-fledged product are quite different levels of effort, so they clearly had a releasable product in mind.

But the lack of updates may be a further result of its origin. If Jobs has the features he needs, he may not be pushing for an update to the product.

Actually its a very common practice for companies to do what Apple did with keynote...
For example
The entire Oracle finacials product line came about as a result of oracle using it internally...

[iMeowbot]

But I still need a moderately powerful word processing application, and increasingly AW isn't cutting it. The way it handles style sheets is ghastly.
Funny thing about that. The chocolatey goodness in TextEdit is pretty much all stuff available in the OS X frameworks, and a more capable word processor is low-hanging fruit* for someone to grab. I'd even give it a stab if I wasn't so darned apathetic about it :D

*I hate that phrase, "low hanging fruit", that's why I used it.

[ChrisH3677]

My guess is option 3 - Apple's working on an office suite that will blow us away, but they want to make sure it's done right before releasing it. We already have bits and pieces of it - we have Keynote for presentations, and surely the word processor will benefit from the fantastic text functions Cocoa (TextEdit) has. All that's missing are a spreadsheet app and a database app. We already have the basis of an email and contacts system (Mac OS X Mail and Address Book) plus calendaring (iCal) - Apple can build on this in their office suite.


Actually... only a spreadsheet. Filemaker is the database.

So....

- iWrite (souped up Text Edit)
- Keynote
- Filemaker
- Mail
- iCal

only needs a spreadsheet

[wdlove]

If Apple developed an office suite, wouldn't they want it all to be Apple based? :confused:

[nuckinfutz]

If Apple developed an office suite, wouldn't they want it all to be Apple based? :confused:


Filemaker is a wholly owned Apple subsidiary. So everything would be Apple.

[wdlove]

Filemaker is a wholly owned Apple subsidiary. So everything would be Apple.

This is the first time that I have been made of aware of this. I just looked at my FileMaker Pro 7 box, there definitely is no indication of ownership. Why isn't it just listed like other Apple Software?

[nuckinfutz]

This is the first time that I have been made of aware of this. I just looked at my FileMaker Pro 7 box, there definitely is no indication of ownership. Why isn't it just listed like other Apple Software?


Filemaker being a wholly owned Subsidiary is responsible for their own profit/loss . So they do have a bit of autonomy but Apple owns every bit of them. Apple does list them under the Applications section here (http://www.apple.com/software/). I think it helps get Filemaker in the door in companies that would be more resistent to an Apple branded product.

[Squire]

Filemaker being a wholly owned Subsidiary is responsible for their own profit/loss . So they do have a bit of autonomy but Apple owns every bit of them. Apple does list them under the Applications section here (http://www.apple.com/software/). I think it helps get Filemaker in the door in companies that would be more resistent to an Apple branded product.

Sort of like Emagic?

Squire

[applefan]

download the data summary from this Apple page (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2004/jul/14results.html) , and you'll see in the foot notes that Apple includes Filemaker revenue with their "other segments" results.

[skunk]

Intended publication date for "AppleWorks X" is given as May 2004: what does that tell you?

[wrldwzrd89]

Actually... only a spreadsheet. Filemaker is the database.

So....

- iWrite (souped up Text Edit)
- Keynote
- Filemaker
- Mail
- iCal

only needs a spreadsheet
In fact, a spreadsheet app outside of AppleWorks is all I want to see from Apple, since all the other components are in place, as you said.

[CmdrLaForge]

Intended publication date for "AppleWorks X" is given as May 2004: what does that tell you?

Ahem - nothing ?

Or that it is delayed ? Or that they are behind schedule ? Or that the app it is about is not released yet ? Or whatever !

I don't think that it really tells something.

[macnews]

Talking about AppleWorks vs. MS Office is like talking about iPhoto vs. Photoshop. Different niches, different audience, different expectations and prices.

If AppleWorks X is on the horizon, I think Apple should include Keynote as part of the suite. And maybe the database component should become FileMaker Lite. I've never used the communications component. Is it still worth having?

Doc, you may be right but my experience has proved otherwise. Most people I know who have gotten a Mac also bought Office for the mac. Not that they needed it for home stuff but just in case they MIGHT need it for work. They wanted the "security" of knowing they could still open their windows Office files on their macs.

I really don't know anyone who uses a word processor for personal use not intending it for any business purpose what so ever. I do agree the difference between Appleworks and Office is like iPhoto and Photoshop - I just don't think there is that much differenciation between the two markets where it can make a dent or make it worth while to develop.

I do hope if a new Appleworks comes about, it is more like Office, Office compatible and more open source perhaps.

[wrldwzrd89]

Doc, you may be right but my experience has proved otherwise. Most people I know who have gotten a Mac also bought Office for the mac. Not that they needed it for home stuff but just in case they MIGHT need it for work. They wanted the "security" of knowing they could still open their windows Office files on their macs.

I really don't know anyone who uses a word processor for personal use not intending it for any business purpose what so ever. I do agree the difference between Appleworks and Office is like iPhoto and Photoshop - I just don't think there is that much differenciation between the two markets where it can make a dent or make it worth while to develop.

I do hope if a new Appleworks comes about, it is more like Office, Office compatible and more open source perhaps.
I find TextEdit perfectly capable for my needs in a word processor, and I don't use it for business.

[changes]

Last year I recall reading on some rumor site that Apple had beta-testers working on an WP app called "Document". The article went on to say that Apple had an "Office" suite in the works (sorry) that they were withholding in order to please Microsoft. Now that Office 2004 is out - and some have been sold - maybe it's time for AppleWorks X? (wouldn't iWorks or iOffice be better?)

Years ago Claris had a Mac spreadsheet called "Resolve".

One other thing, it would be great if AW X had some kind of simple graphical web page creation app.

[Clive At Five]

Having AW X as a part of iLife would be a horrible idea. As others said before, iLife was marketed at Office for the rest of your life.

This is interesting about "completing the suite," though. Mail, Keynote, iCal... If Apple were to package this, I would say cut Filemaker since it's not branded Apple, or maybe morph some its technology like emagic -> GarageBand. I'm wondering, though, if Apple would actually produce a stand-alone spreadsheet application. It would be much more easily 'integratable' if it was all tied up together. Then if they did that, then they would also have to update the 'Paint' app, otherwise I'd be very upset! I've become quite adept at Appleworks Paint!

Then once we have both iLife and the iWorks suites there needs to be some sort of bridge between the two... Could Apple stun us with some sort of all-encompassing infomedia integrating application?

Now that's what I'm talkin' about. When it comes to organizing data, there seems to be no middle ground. Either it's media or a report. I need a 'repedia' application!

-Clive at Five

[FaasNat]

If AW-X comes to fruition, I hope it includes compatibility with the OpenOffice and StarOffice file formats.I hope so too!

[GRAHAMUK]

So Apple is working on an update to AW? The name "Apple Works X" could suggest its entirely written in Cocoa. It would be nice if there was some serious competiton to MS Office. Bring it on!

I'm not clear on your logic - why would an 'X' imply Cocoa? The existing codebase for AppleWorks is certain to be Carbon, and I doubt they'd redo it from scratch. X would probably mean it's OS X only, and that makes perfect sense - Mac OS 9 is dead. Carbon apps are still perfectly able to be first class citizens - I hope this isn't a case of Carbon prejudice. iTunes is Carbon!

I agree though that a nice Apple made office competitor would be great - ApplWorks has been a bit too long left by the wayside - it's sorely in need of an update! I guess though that Apple need to wait for the right moment so as not to piss off Microsoft too much.

[WM.]

Give AW's "Draw"[...]formatting rulers for text boxes[...]
Unless I'm misunderstanding you, I think you can already have fancy rulers (with tabs etc.) for text boxes. Using AW 6.2.9, I was just now able to:

1) Create a Drawing document.
2) Create a text box.
3) Type some gibberish into it.
4) Go to Format --> Rulers --> Show Rulers.
5) Drag the upside-down-T thingy to the right. This made my gibberish move over.

I can also create tab stops, and my gibberish will behave just like it would in a Word Processing document.

Accessing this functionality may require changing the Ruler Type (under Format --> Rulers --> Ruler Settings...) to Text.

I'll also PM you to make sure you read this, jsalzer. :)

HTH
WM

edit: Drat, you don't accept PMs. Well, I hope you read this, if it is the solution to your problem. :)

[bobbioca]

The X is simply a placeholder for a new version - it happens all the time. Publishers put out details of a new book probably before they even know what the release is called. So there probably is a new version soon, but who knows when.
Apologies if this has been said somewhere else oin this thread - I may have missed it.

[jsalzer]

Holy Cow! Just when I thought I knew everything there was to know about CW/AW. Thanks, WM. The reason I've never seen that is because I always have the main rulers (along the top and the sides) showing on the draw documents. When those are showing, you can't get the paragraph guides, etc. for the text boxes.

If, however, you HIDE the main rulers first. Then select "Show Rulers" when your cursor is INSIDE the text box, you get the text ruler.

WOW!

WM - you da man!

John
It's not that I don't allow PM's - I just haven't gone deep enough into my personal settings to set it. ;)

Edit: Hey - My PM's now active. If you have any other brilliant tricks, I'm now available. :D

[WM.]

Holy Cow! Just when I thought I knew everything there was to know about CW/AW. Thanks, WM. The reason I've never seen that is because I always have the main rulers (along the top and the sides) showing on the draw documents. When those are showing, you can't get the paragraph guides, etc. for the text boxes.
Yeah. Maybe that's what they should fix...

If, however, you HIDE the main rulers first. Then select "Show Rulers" when your cursor is INSIDE the text box, you get the text ruler.
Or, like I said, you can go to Format --> Rulers --> Ruler Settings... and change the Type to Text. But that might actually be more work, especially if you use the keyboard shortcut for Hide/Show Rulers.

WOW!

WM - you da man!
:) Thanks. I don't use AW very much anymore, nor do I use drawing documents hardly at all, but I did a project in 8th grade where I had to use a lot of text layout and I probably ended up using tab stops in text boxes (this was back in ClarisWorks 4, BTW). I just got an itch when I read your post, and I had to double-check...

Hey - My PM's now active. If you have any other brilliant tricks, I'm now available. :D
I'm also available for programming VCRs. :D

Glad to help!

WM

[jsalzer]

You know - I've never even noticed the "type" before now. My main concern with the Ruler Settings has always been eighths, sixteenths, or thirty-seconds. I can't believe the hundreds of times I've been in that window and never thought to explore the other "type".

Now I really have to hang my head in shame.

Though it does bring to mind another needed fix for CW/AW. The sixteenths have always been uneven (1/16 is not exactly half of 1/8). Part of me thinks that has to be on purpose for some odd only-Apple-knows reason, but I've never understood why.

Before working at a place that has Filemaker, I used the Draw documents extensively for merging student data (at the college level) into form letters, newsletters, etc. Any time I need a quick flyer or poster - it's just the easiest thing in the world to use (and, had I ever noticed the ruler types, it would have been even easier - I've been doing "format:paragraph" this whole time.)

I also use it to generate web graphics that I create in Keynote. It's convoluted - but a cheap way for those who don't have a true graphics program. I create the stuff in Keynote (which has the opacity, shadows, etc.), copy the whole slide, paste it into CW's Paint, crop out the part I want, paste it into CW's Draw, and SaveAs a JPEG. It's not graceful, but it does the job.

Anywho - WM - thanks again for shining the light. I'm still really feeling stupid. ;)

John.

[mrsebastian]

this could be a brilliant move by apple, well as long as a few things happen. one, it has to be part of ilife and pre-installed on every new mac. two, it has to be perfectly compatible with ms office files and vice-versa, and third, apple has to do some brilliant marketing. why pay a several hundred dollars for ms office, when we'll give you all that software free with a new mac! actually, it would also be very helpful, if apple did a promotion with the new imac and offered some insane limited time discount with the trade in of any current ms office software cd/box.

[weldon]

this could be a brilliant move by apple, well as long as a few things happen. one, it has to be part of ilife and pre-installed on every new mac. two, it has to be perfectly compatible with ms office files and vice-versa, and third, apple has to do some brilliant marketing. why pay a several hundred dollars for ms office, when we'll give you all that software free with a new mac!

1) Yes, they should pre-install it to build the user community. It would be nice if the app had a nice plug-ing model and thorough scripting support that would integrate with Automator in Tiger so that the community could contribute free tools and improvements.

2) No one will use it if it won't work with MS Office files.

3) Marketing needs to be good for sure, but I wanted to respond to the price comparison. In realistic terms, Appleworks X would have to compete on price with the student/teacher version of Office. It would have to be $99 or so, maybe $79 to students.

4) I also wouldn't mind if they used openoffice and enhanced it ala StarOffice. Of course, with OpenOffice 2 not due until next year, the best we might hope for is a release soon after Tiger.

[nuckinfutz]

1) Yes, they should pre-install it to build the user community. It would be nice if the app had a nice plug-ing model and thorough scripting support that would integrate with Automator in Tiger so that the community could contribute free tools and improvements.

2) No one will use it if it won't work with MS Office files.

3) Marketing needs to be good for sure, but I wanted to respond to the price comparison. In realistic terms, Appleworks X would have to compete on price with the student/teacher version of Office. It would have to be $99 or so, maybe $79 to students.

4) I also wouldn't mind if they used openoffice and enhanced it ala StarOffice. Of course, with OpenOffice 2 not due until next year, the best we might hope for is a release soon after Tiger.


1. Agreed. Appleworks should be installed on every Mac shipping. There's no reason not to ship a basic productivity suite nowadays.

2. Blatantly false. If that was true Microsoft Office would be on every Mac. To date it is not. There are thousands of people who simply need a decent word processor and other features that have absolutely no need for MS Office support.

3. No problem Appleworks is already $79 and for edu it's $39.

4. Open Office is an asstastic Microsoft clone. I'd expect a lot better from Apple.


Not only does Apple need a new Appleworks but they need a business level suite as well. I have enough copies of MS Office lying around to know that I want something a bit different, something a bit more expandable. Apple has all the tools to make a sweet suite. Maybe next year we'll be lucky enough to see new Appleworks and a new Apple Office. Forget that Open Office crap. We don't need a Clone of MS Office we need a new way of looking at the productivity suite.

[weldon]

2. Blatantly false. If that was true Microsoft Office would be on every Mac. To date it is not. There are thousands of people who simply need a decent word processor and other features that have absolutely no need for MS Office support.
I was using hyperbole on purpose. My point is that the user base for Appleworks won't expand without compatability. It's ironic that it needs to work with Office in order to be a viable alternative to Office.

4. Open Office is an asstastic Microsoft clone. I'd expect a lot better from Apple.
The current x11 implementation is poor, I agree. I'd like to see them use the opensource codebase for file compatability and then put a kick-ass native OS X interface on it.

[nuckinfutz]

Weldon

Actually while I believe it's false I could be wrong. I don't think anyone knows what the effect of not having MS Office support would entail. I don't think there's harm in adding support but we'll see how MS takes that.

Open Office. I don't think it's bad it just doesn't stand out to me. Its like its clame to fame is that its free and MS Office like.

Apple is going to need an Office Suite that is based around Cocoa/Carbon frameworks and Quicktime. While Open Office is Open Source its still a tough task to get that code into Apple's API.

Apple's made great strides with the underlying technology of OSX. We have

Rendezvous- for easy network discovery of resources. I think this can play a huge part in evolving the Office Suite.

Cocoa/Carbon text - Apple has sweetened the APIs for text handling. Cocoa text is particularly good right now.

PDF support - PDF is huge. Its really the most popular open format for delivering content. Tiger has a new set of cocoa classes for PDF called pdf kit. The ability to annotate pdfs and copy/paste text from within a supporting cocoa app will be great.

Quicktime - Why build a Office Suite around Quicktime. Because Quicktime is multimedia. Microsoft has nothing that compares to the Quicktime frameworks. Apple should be leveraging this everywhere.

Apple is small and nimble compared to Microsoft. Why they continue to hitch their boat to boutique hardware and iPods is beyond me. It's time to start attacking the biz sector and edu with a decent Appleworks and biz Apple Office and start showing people a new paradigm.

[biederman]

Weldon

Apple is going to need an Office Suite that is based around Cocoa/Carbon frameworks and Quicktime.

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon. Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.
But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions. Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market. Hence, I think Apple should put their resources behind developing a great tool for education and small business/SOHO markets... forget the large corporate buyers (they get huge discounts on Office anyway). Finally, I hope AppleWorks gets replaced soon because it's miserable to use.

[nuckinfutz]

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon. Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.
But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions. Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market. Hence, I think Apple should put their resources behind developing a great tool for education and small business/SOHO markets... forget the large corporate buyers (they get huge discounts on Office anyway). Finally, I hope AppleWorks gets replaced soon because it's miserable to use.

Biederman,
The reason why I had to put reference both Cocoa and Carbon is because the two API for handling text are likely to vary in certain ways that could affect how we interact. I couldn't give you any examples because I haven't begun my programming classes or read the documentation. pdf kit in Tiger though is Cocoa only as of now. Yes saying "based on Quicktime" is somewhat confusing to some people who think of Quicktime as the player application only. I just think that QT should be a vital piece in an Apple Suite. If can differentiate Apple from the MS Office clones.

Yes I think Apple has very little chance of doing any damage to MS Office. In fact I wouldn't be suprised if Apple developed a suite and did not have MS Office compatibility. Yes I know that sounds crazy but here's my reasononing. Apple needs a suite that they can tie in with other applications. We take MS Office for granted but anyone who's used Endnote or other applications knows that 3rd parties need to extend the suite in various ways. Apple shouldn't be depending on MS here. They need their own biz class suite that is open for 3rd parties to extend. I doubt they would deliver a suite that isn't compatible with MS Office but I guess I'm just trying to say that not everyone needs MS Office. I like to write just for myself...I don't need office for that or even a suite. Apple does a great job with software ...its sad that they are like MS' puppet sometimes.

Apple get those tools you've worked hard at and build something befitting a Macintosh. Geez I didn't buy a Mac so I can run MS products I got it to run software by artisans.

[iMeowbot]

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon.

It's simply that the text services from Cocoa are especially good, particularly their support for multiple languages. They can be used from "Carbon" programs as well. The distinction between Coca and Carbon isn't all that sharp; they can be mixed and matched in a single application.

Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.

No. QuickTime Player is an application wrapped around QuickTime, but QuickTime itself is a library. For example, most of what iTunes and iPhoto do is really built into QuickTime.

QT support is important in broad-use applications to allow seamless integration with other data on the system. It's the chocolatey goodness that lets one drag an image or movie into even a TextEdit window and have it work as intended.

The same is true of PDF (though in that case, little is required to take advantage of it; you get the basics for "free."

But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions.

I would argue that this is an artificial distinction brought on by experience with existing software. It becomes painfully obvious when one sees Excel, Word and PowerPoint all "misused" to create things like signs and brochures. Of course, business and educational users alike bend these tools into strange contortions because they need to get something done. Neither audience really wants or needs to jump through hoops to get work done.

This is one area where ClarisWorks got it right (and OpenDoc would have got it right, if it hadn't been abandoned). That's where Cocoa (and in particular AppKit) gets interesting, it makes all the basic tool types available and makes it very straightforward to mix and match them.

Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market.

The same was once said of Wang and even IBM. Wang didn't have so much of a document interchange lock but a training lock on its market, but IBM card and tape formats were once seen as universal must-have items like Word files are viewed by many today.

Now, Wang wasn't killed by Microsoft. It was killed by WordPerfect (easier to use and ran on general-purpose minicomputers and PCs) and MultiMate (retained the Wang skill set and put it on cheaper hardware).

IBM still have a market for the giant beasts, but those did give way in applications where a more flexible type of interaction served better. In a lot of ways, its original market even rebounded (really, what is a Web browser other than a prettier 3270?)

Anyway, Office only rules its roost until an easier way to do what it does comes along that can do all the same things. Those things don't have to be done in the same way, but all the bases need to be covered. No product is forever.

[Porchland]

I don't understand why an office suite would need to be based on cocoa frameworks... lots of great apps are carbon. Also, I think it's a bit redundant to say any app should be "based" on Quicktime... it's a standard (albeit important) Mac app. Likewise for PDF support.
But your point is well taken that Apple needs a tool specifically designed for business and education markets, although I strongly believe that the business and education markets need *different* solutions. Honestly, Office would be difficult to dislodge in the general business market. Hence, I think Apple should put their resources behind developing a great tool for education and small business/SOHO markets... forget the large corporate buyers (they get huge discounts on Office anyway). Finally, I hope AppleWorks gets replaced soon because it's miserable to use.

With Apple recently TM-ing "iWork," I wonder if you're close to the mark here. "iWork" would certainly be easy to market as a parallel to iLife. Where iLife has iTunes, iPhoto, , iMovie, iDVD and GarageBand, iWork would feature a word-processing program (that generates files compatible with Word and WordPerfect), a spreadsheet, a presentation app (an updated Keynote) and a personal finance program (like Quicken or Money). Also, possibly a reworked and consolidated iCal/Address Book/Mail app.

Is this a repurposed AppleWorks? Ehhh, sort of. I always saw AppleWorks as more of a home-project app, but word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, accounting and mail/calendar apps are more or less Microsoft Office plus Quicken.

I'm guessing AppleWorks gets dumped and iWork is a new suite that replaces it.

[sigamy]

The current x11 implementation is poor, I agree. I'd like to see them use the opensource codebase for file compatability and then put a kick-ass native OS X interface on it.

I agree. Maybe this is what the next AppleWorks or iWorks will be. Maybe Apple took over the Aqua port for Open Office and got it done 2 years ahead of schedule!

[biederman]

We take MS Office for granted but anyone who's used Endnote or other applications knows that 3rd parties need to extend the suite in various ways. Apple shouldn't be depending on MS here. They need their own biz class suite that is open for 3rd parties to extend. I doubt they would deliver a suite that isn't compatible with MS Office but I guess I'm just trying to say that not everyone needs MS Office.

This is absolutely right. Think about how amazing a productivity suite could be if it allowed third-party developers to extend it, such as creating "vertical" applications for industries such as health care, education or legal. I don't see this ever happening with Office, and haven't seen it (yet?) with OpenOffice. Although Office won't die any time soon, I do foresee a decline of the bloated general-purpose office suite in favor of more specialized apps.

[skunk]

This is absolutely right. Think about how amazing a productivity suite could be if it allowed third-party developers to extend it, such as creating "vertical" applications for industries such as health care, education or legal. I don't see this ever happening with Office, and haven't seen it (yet?) with OpenOffice. Although Office won't die any time soon, I do foresee a decline of the bloated general-purpose office suite in favor of more specialized apps.
Remember OpenDoc? That was a very similar idea, way back in the Dark Ages. Always sounded good to me, with its "Components" and stuff.

[GregA]

Remember OpenDoc? That was a very similar idea, way back in the Dark Ages. Always sounded good to me, with its "Components" and stuff.I'm not so sure they are similar, but I certainly liked the idea of OpenDoc. If I open a word document, spreadsheet, pdf, or whatever, they're all really "documents" and it'd be nice to have them present themselves similarly to each other (even if in the background they called on other applications).

The idea of having other vertical apps call upon the use of some very high level functions (like spreadsheet, database, pdf viewer) is a good one - isn't Apple already doing that with text editing and viewing functions? Also, they say they're moving pdf viewing into the operating system, and Tiger has a built in database engine... which all sounds pretty good. I wonder what kind of effort it is to make a suite when all that is already there?

[biederman]

The idea of having other vertical apps call upon the use of some very high level functions (like spreadsheet, database, pdf viewer) is a good one - isn't Apple already doing that with text editing and viewing functions? Also, they say they're moving pdf viewing into the operating system, and Tiger has a built in database engine... which all sounds pretty good. I wonder what kind of effort it is to make a suite when all that is already there?

Yes, moving the database engine into the OS sounds interesting, and quite useful for an office suite. I think there may be synergies or commonalities here with Filemaker, since a number of 3rd-parties have "extended" Filemaker in various useful ways. If this is what Apple is thinking, then we may have to wait for Tiger next year to see the new app.

[GregA]

If this is what Apple is thinking, then we may have to wait for Tiger next year to see the new app.Or you get a suite with Filemaker this year, and a new Filemaker next year which integrates with the OS-database somehow.

Likewise, the Write application could build in it's own pdf frameworks (copies from the preview app?) until they're in the OS.

I'd love to see a nice office suite but I'm not holding my breath (cross platform too!).
Apple - for every 1 great thing they do there are 2 others that they don't do and we never know why.

[GSL-SEX2]

I can't wait for an upgraded, Office-compatable "Apple Works".

I don't need *all* the features of Office. It's way too much. Just like I don't need *all* the features of Photoshop. Photoshop Elements cuts it 95% of the time for me.

I do think Apple should make a PC version as well tho. If you have users on both sides of the fence, it may start to phase out the "necessity" of Office.

PC users don't like to pay $500 or whatever for Office either. And most of them don't need all the features either.

Once there is a large user base, they could come out with "AppleWorks Pro" or whatever, to land a KO to Office's chin.

[ZipZilla]

So Apple is working on an update to AW? The name "Apple Works X" could suggest its entirely written in Cocoa. It would be nice if there was some serious competiton to MS Office. Bring it on!

Ain't gonna happen. All indications are that Appleworks is EOL'd, and there is no way Apple is going to piss MS off any further.

In the unlikely event that Apple does update Appleworks, I hope it is not written in Cocoa, because then it would slower.

[GregA]

Ain't gonna happen. All indications are that Appleworks is EOL'd, and there is no way Apple is going to piss MS off any further.

In the unlikely event that Apple does update Appleworks, I hope it is not written in Cocoa, because then it would slower.Wow, interesting assumptions.

Who has indicated Appleworks is EOL'd?
Has Apple pissed MS off already? Is that just by existing?
And if they did it once with Safari is that interpreted as they are willing to do it again, or that there is "no way" they'd go any further?
What evidence do you have the Cocoa is slow? Slower than what? And is that dependent on programming language?

Interested in your answers?

[ZipZilla]

Who has indicated Appleworks is EOL'd?


I would say 4 1/2 years without a new version speaks for itself.

Has Apple pissed MS off already? Is that just by existing?
And if they did it once with Safari is that interpreted as they are willing to do it again, or that there is "no way" they'd go any further?

Sure. Mail, Safari and Keynote...but Apple must have Office and Virtual PC if its Mac business is to thrive. There's just no way Apple is going to release a huge Appleworks upgrade to compete head-on with Office.

What evidence do you have the Cocoa is slow? Slower than what? And is that dependent on programming language?

Cocoa is just slower than Carbon. A good example is iMovie 3 and 4, which are dramatically slower than iMovie 2. It's just the nature of an object-oriented OS..it's also why Java is slow.

[stratacator]

As I understand it, computers these days are sufficiently quick such that the lag that is inherent in OOP is negligible. Also, from what I've heard Java is slow because it is interpreted, not compiled, like Objective-C.

[LaweranceOak]

I would love to see something more like Office, instead of using the Microsoft software. I have always thougth there would be light out there for Graphic Designers in a PC company.

[rendezvouscp]

I don't think that Apple is going to ever be a rival to Microsoft as far as AppleWorks and Office goes. AppleWorks is there to get you off the ground-and it's great for some people. What would a consumer-based computer be without some sort of writing app? It's somewhat of a necessity item. But, think of Office as AppleWorks Pro–it's higher end, compatible with (most) of the world, and actually looks good too. The Mac BU isn't something to be hated–they're a good part of Microsoft (maybe the only good part). I just don't see Apple rivaling Microsoft in this area, although I do believe that AppleWorks needs to be updated.
–Chase

[LaweranceOak]

Good point!!

I would rather just see a product like Office for the mac made by apple. Something that can handle it all and it would be designed by apple. The same people that seem to know what I always want and need in software.

[biederman]

What would a consumer-based computer be without some sort of writing app?
–Chase

Isn't TextEdit a writing app? I think it's a pretty good app, too -- it translates Word-formatted (.doc) files pretty well -- and I use it for all my correspondence now.
I do agree with your point, however, that Microsoft's Mac BU is not the enemy. It's in Apple's best interest to maintain compatibility between the Mac and Office, since it's vital for some buyers... although it's overkill for most consumers.

[t300]

I wake up everyday now hoping that there are some rumors or something about Appleworks X. Simply put, if it's coming out, it will be coming out soon...Maybe after Tiger? Maybe "with" Tiger? Perhaps Apple made a deal with Microsoft that they wouldn't release Appleworks within a certain date of when Office 2004 came out. Only time will tell.

[ZipZilla]

I wake up everyday now hoping that there are some rumors or something about Appleworks X. Simply put, if it's coming out, it will be coming out soon...Maybe after Tiger? Maybe "with" Tiger? Perhaps Apple made a deal with Microsoft that they wouldn't release Appleworks within a certain date of when Office 2004 came out. Only time will tell.

I wouldn't hold my breath!

[t300]

I wouldn't hold my breath!

Oh, I'm holding...

[gooddog]

Sheesh people. I can't believe the "Appleworks X" is going over your head. Let me explain how it works.

Apple has a new product coming. They want to have 3rd party book for this product out so they contract out to a few writers. They are %100 sure about the name but if it's a previous version and not a totally new product they simply append an "X" onto the product. "X" has always signified "unkown" in some areas just as Malcom X kept the "X" until he "found" his true name.

What this "Appleworks X" means is that there IS a new version coming. Apple hasn't chosen a final version number. It could be Appleworks 6.5 or Appleworks 7 or Appleworks CS or whatever they want. The publishers will get the final name before mass production. Trust me Appleworks X is not going to be the final name.

How do I know this? Because I've been following book like this for a while and 6 months before Filemaker 7 shipped there were a couple "Filemaker X" books pending print. This is great news because we're getting something new in AW. It just depends on how large the update is.

So in short yes a new Appleworks is coming.

__________________

Does anyone have a notion of WHEN the next release of goodies will come ?

I want these app's badly -- but also , the
second version of iMac G5 ( built in BT standard ? ) maybe a 23" version ?

Who expects what in November Mac EXPO ?

I don't recall what this expo is usually about.


---gooddog

[Zaty]

The question is what Apple intends to with AW. The programm has remained untouched for a few years. So either they're really working on a new version or they will can it eventually.

[MacSA]

I wake up everyday now hoping that there are some rumors or something about Appleworks X. Simply put, if it's coming out, it will be coming out soon...Maybe after Tiger? Maybe "with" Tiger? Perhaps Apple made a deal with Microsoft that they wouldn't release Appleworks within a certain date of when Office 2004 came out. Only time will tell.

If a new version of AppleWorks is coming out with Tiger, I wouldn't say it was coming out "soon" lol

[CalcioG4]

Long-awaited, much needed!
Any more info re: possible release date, features, etc?
6.2.9 is still very functional, but a native app would be sweet. Would never touch Office or any other Gates offering that was not rammed down my throat, again

[gopher]

Long-awaited, much needed!
Any more info re: possible release date, features, etc?
6.2.9 is still very functional, but a native app would be sweet. Would never touch Office or any other Gates offering that was not rammed down my throat, again

Appleworks 6.2.9 is native. Granted it isn't Cocoa, and doesn't support the scrollwheel mouse, but it does run in Mac OS X without needing to load Classic.

[CalcioG4]

Forgive my imprecision! My intent was indeed as gopher suggests - an app that is FULLY Mac functional, with all the features (updated) and power that an OS 10.3.5 (or likely 10.4) program needs to perform like a Tiger ;)

[iPost]

Yes, it would be nice if Apple came out with a quality Office suite. The current AppleWorks just looks too old. But there are some nice 3rd party apps.

I dumped Word last year and have never looked back. Currently, I'm using Nisus http://www.nisus.com/Express/ which is written in Cocoa and I'm quite happy with it. Best feature: no stupid animated computer!!! :-)

[RealDeal]

As a iMac G5 switcher :D , all I want is to acess a few thousand legacy Word and Powerpoint files (office 2000 and older vintage)- able to email, print and modify.

Don't care about DTP (although used it circa 87), as lots publishers like to format text/images themselves.

Utterly want to avoid paying any more M$ tax :mad:, as much as avoid using their buggy amateur software.

OpenOffice is functionable-ish, clunky, yet not quite there...

I'd buy a "works" level Apple suite (without the bugs and wizards) in an instant. :)

[bubbamac]

RealDeal:

For Word files, have you tried TextEdit? It came on your Mac. It's not perfect, but it lets me view most Word files reasonably well...

And there's Keynote for the PP stuff. I don't work with either one, but I do remember that Keynote was supposed to import PP files...

Good luck!

[mcsmiley]

I completely agree with this post below, that the "Draw" component and frames is the most natural basis for a "work" application. After all, when you use paper, you can write text on it, draw a picture, make a table, use it to make a presentation, stick on a photo etc. I am not a programmer or anything like that so may be there are good reasons but why doesn't software today emulate this ease of use? I can understand that this was not possible in the past but with today's OSX technologies, isn't the distinction between spreadsheet, document, presentation and drawing very artifical and a legacy of unweildy code and dubious Msoft practice? Shouldn't it be possible to just have a blank "canvas" and put anything you like on it but still have access to ALL the tools you are used to from a "full" application? Sorry if this is way off base or already obvious but its the kind of thing I want from my apps.

The ideal application for me would be one where you start with a blank canvas onto which you can place any number of objects. So like now you can make a text box or table but also access iphoto or imovie and place photos and video, or address book to add an address for letters etc. Each object or box could be moved, resized, layered, exported, etc as you wish.

The difference to now would be that each type of box would bring up the full menu controls, NOT a compromised version. So when you are making a table, an excel-like pallete of all tools would pop up. Same for text of course but also for photos, movies etc. I.e. there are no more separate applications because the tools are already part of OSX. So you access text services within OSX, same for photos and movies (quicktime libraries), addresses (from address book), spreadsheet functions (from newly added tabulation services).

In a sense, iWork for me would be like Keynote but for ANY purpose. I.e Apple would apply the freedom and simplicity of Keynote to allow creation of any kind of document. It would provide all the core tools of Word, Excel, Indesign, Freeway Pro, Photoshop Elements, Filemaker, Omnigraffle, the PIM functions of Address Book, Ical and Mail. Sounds like asking alot? Maybe but most of the basic tools of these apps are already in OSX or available to Apple.

The objects could be shifted around on the canvas just like in Keynote - i.e. alignment markers, size shifting automatically (with text also adjusting to scale as the box itself is resized) etc. Like iDVD you would be able to choose backgrounds for the canvas.

Such an approach wouldn't preclude just typing a note of course. A simple right click on the canvas when it first opens would give you the option to create a full size text box for the entire page, and equally a spreadsheet, keynote page etc, depending on what you wanted to do. There would be templates too so you can quickly make up a multi media brochure that includes complex text, a slide show of pictures, a video clip, a database of products and even a table showing the total cost of the products. May be you could even have a cubed brochure where instead of turning the page, you turn the cube as with the multi-user effect in OSX.

Overall, though what this would mean is that the artifical barriers set up by excel and word would disappear. No more "linking" of tables to speadsheets, weird and buggy graphic placement etc. The canvas would be able to call on all and any tools needed in their entirety using palettes etc. Since these tools would all be OSX services, they could of course be used in any way with anything.

The canvas would have layers too and you would be able to layer onto any part of an existing box. So if you want to have some complex text layout within a spreadsheet, you just place it there with options to wrap it too of course (no more struggles with awkward excel text boxes and columns). Same for photos - just place it on top of, within or behind a spreadsheet. Transparency options everywhere too.

Sound crowded? Why not adapt Expose to the canvas? This way you could zoom in on one of the objects/boxes to work on some detail and then click expose to select another box to work on or go back to full view.

The canvas could then be saved into any format you like depending on its content. If it is just text and tables etc you could save it as rtf, pdf or .doc. If its got video then as QT. The whole thing would also be exportable to html including any photos etc in just the same way that Freeway Pro works (all photos, pdfs, etc automatically resized and formatted to be web friendly and placed in a resource folder next to the html doc).

This would be linked to Automater in Tiger too. Since there are no application boundaries, you would be able to use the canvas to automate a whole range of tasks within the one app so doing away with applescript and macros.

In this way, iWorks would not be competing with Office. It would be something entirely different IMHO. It would be more of a digital content organizer than a document creator. It would assume that the content is going to be viewed digitally (but with the option to print) rather than like Office which assumes the content will be viewed on paper (but with buggy options to convert to digital). This is surely why Office feel like such a legacy app - it is just not designed for today's world of digital delivery and 20 inch screens that remove the need to print.

For me, Office has been a bridge between the analog world of writing and drawing with ink and the digital world of pixels. As such, it brings some of the convenience of the digital world but has to compromise to work in the analog world of print. iWorks would be the digital equivalent of paper and ink with all the freedom and ease of use that this implies BUT with all the power of digital tools, tools that already exist in OSX (text, quicktime etc) or readily available (Filemaker and some new spreadsheet tools).

It also occurs to me that such an app would be usable on an Apple equivalent of the OQO box, especially if you have the Expose function to zoom in and out with ease so getting rid of the current criticism of that machine that the text is too small too read. This machine would genuinely extend the digital document too, finally making the digital world fully portable.

Anyway, just my pennies worth.

A bit of a dream I guess but it would make my working day a whole lot more productive, fun and creative.

m

At the moment, I float pretty freely between MS Office and AW (on both the Mac and PC sitting right next to each other at work), so I'd like to think of myself as being fairly objective (if you ignore the Apple sticker on my bumper).

AW is generally the first tool that I grab. It's been an "app"endage to my body since CW2. It's simple to use. It's super reliable (well, except for some strange Windows issues in v4 and v5.) It just works. And it allows me to focus on the task at hand - not the application.

That said, I grab Word or Excel when the document I'm creating needs a feature not yet available in AW. For example - the ability to fill shapes with pictures by tiling or stretching (can someone tell me how on earth this feature has eluded Apple for so long?).

To not repeat things already said, I hope any new versions of AW keep in mind the following:

a) The "DRAW" component is the most natural environment for taking advantage of AW's "frames" genetic makeup (which needs to be kept, btw). MSWord will never replace AW to me. Despite its more advanced graphics, it's still a word processor that lets you clumsily dump things on top of it. Give AW's "Draw" opacity control, picture fills, and the ability to recognize non-rectangular pictures, and formatting rulers for text boxes, and noone will ever try to make a sign or a brochure in Word again.

b) Bring back Macros. When I bought AW 5 (since CW4 and Win98 weren't getting along), macros were gone. I called Apple to find out where they were (they were listed as a feature on Apple's web site), and I was told AW for Windows didn't have macros because macros were now Applescript based (and Windows didn't have Applescript). That's not a way to make a multi-platform application. I don't care if it's Applescript behind the scenes, but a Macro should be the same up front for everyone.

So, I guess what I want is:
1. Word processor that maintains AW's stability and reliability. If I delete the last letter of a word, I don't want that word's font and style changing on me (I can't believe MS can't fix that).

2. Draw - Start with what's there, as far as ease of frames and merging data, but add:
a) All the good stuff from Keynote - opacity, recognition of non-rectangular pics, snappy alignment, etc.
b) For multi-page draw documents, have an option for each page to have its own origin (rather than starting at ten and a fraction inches).

3. FileMaker Lite - a two-dim database as easy to use as the current that can merge data into all the other components.

4. Spreadsheet - just copy Excel. ;)

5. Keynote - just add timer controls.

Make it fully cross-platform. And, for crying out loud, bring back the old tool bar. I don't need a huge colorful tool bar that prevents me from moving my window around. Put it back where it belongs and keep it simple and out of the way.

All this - and I will be one happy camper.

[jsalzer]

McSmiley - I think you'd be really interested in the history of ClarisWorks. I don't have a specific link off hand, but they were headed exactly (well, almost exactly) where you're headed.

CW/AW actually was (is?) 100% frame-based. When they made the Word Processing component, for example, they just programmed it to automatically link together multiple 8.5x11 text boxes (one type of frame).

And, they do and have for quite a while had the ability to have Quicktime movies placed right in the middle of a Draw, Word Processing, or Presentation document!

If the CW/AW base had been kept and updated with newer tech, I think you'd have most of what you're looking for.

That said, I think you go a bit too far. As I tell my math students and the clients I develop databases for, there is no magic. 'Tis a grand vision you have, but all the details along the way have to line up to get you there.

For example, a database document pretty much needs to be a database document, as it structure is so different than the Canvas.app that you want (I think that would be a wonderful name, btw, assuming we want to drop "AppleWorks". The key is to give it CW's extreme ease of data merging.

It sounds like, in some ways, if they took the CW/AW Draw Component, updated it with newer tech that they already have, and added the ability to it the ability to play your pages as a Keynote presentation (even as an afterthought), with a floatable constantly changing control palette similar to Keynote's, we'd have Canvas.app!

(That said, please, please, please don't ever suggest that right clicking in the AW replacement does something - or my one-button mouse and I won't come to play with you.)

Maybe if MS taps into our iPod market, Apple will go for it! ;)

[mcsmiley]

Thanks JSalzer. I will take a look at an old version of CW if I can find it.

Makes sense what you say about the database. I think what I would like is the database to be an OSX service as some in this thread have been suggesting it will be in Tiger, and that you could then access this from canvas.app/iWorks in the same way you access text services in textedit now. I take your point that a database needs to be just a database but if you could choose for your canvas to be mainly a database but STILL be able to use all those other tools to make it look good, then it would be nice I think. So having access to your itunes and garajeband loops/photos/etcetc from within the canvas.

Essentially what i would like to see is getting away from separate apps and have that sense of being able to grab hold of any tool you like at any time when you are trying to do something with the canvas - without having to leave the canvas. Kind of like having the perfect home workshop with all the tools ready to hand.

It also occurred to me that spotlight would come into its own here. If you were looking for a tune/photo/email text/movie/etc to add to your canvas, you could do a quick search from the menu bar and then just drag the icon from spotlight into the canvas. Even easier if spotlight turns out to have a preview box to it so you can see what the object is or even read and copy/paste the email text.

I guess you could also have a separate draft canvas (a bit like the white space surrounding an indesign page) where you could keep a bunch of objects you might use such as photos, text clippings etc - an easier way to try out different layout and design options without getting confused.

Agreed on the right click thing - it should be both a palette option and a right click option!

Oh well, will keep dreaming and hoping it happens. :o

[Doctor Q]

I think Apple should hire mcsmiley and jsalzer as consultants. Maybe you could get them to bring back more of the good ideas from the OpenDoc (http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?OpenDoc) project.

[iMeowbot]

McSmiley - I think you'd be really interested in the history of ClarisWorks. I don't have a specific link off hand, but they were headed exactly (well, almost exactly) where you're headed.

This write-up is a good introduction to how they did it.
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~bob/clarisworks.php

And here (http://www.gobe.com/) is the up-to-date version of the software. There's no Mac version because this product was originally written for the failed BeOS platform, and Apple weren't looking very healthy at the time of the Windows port either.

[jsalzer]

Thanks for the link, Meow! I had lost that link about a year ago.

Anywho - I'm now dying to get to work on Monday to try out Gobe (on my Wintel machine there.) I wonder why I've never heard of it before. You'd think a $55 suite that exports to Excel and Word would be out there more.

Thanks!!!

[mcsmiley]

Thanks Meow. Very interesting links. Gobe looks excellent if very Windows. Something along these lines but with more finesse, OSX technologies (and much less clutter) would be wonderful as iWork. And modern palettes that fold up rather than toolbars would be nice too.

thanks for the info.

[Xtremehkr]

I like Appleworks, now that I have finally gotten used to it. In the final version, the scroll function on my mouse does work with it though, which is really nice. And it solved that problem where the text used to be cut off at the sides of the pages.

Still, it feels like it's a generation too old.

[RealDeal]

thx bubbamac- funny that a few gifs and tables can screw up layout with Textedit and Appleworks (WP)- I'm still experimenting with Apple and the S/W i can get ((un)luckily with a Dull Win XP laptop by my side so 100% ok for work purposes). Dollars aren't the issue but functionality and reliablity are... hell I wrote a better machine code 8086 word processor (with spellcheck) at university in engineering!!!

Guess, if it takes a few years to be M$-free then fine by me ... :D

[Platform]

Apple needs something that can compete with MS Office!

[wdlove]

Apple needs something that can compete with MS Office!

Well if Apple can overcome the legal issues of using iWork or iWorks Suite, then they could roll the old AppleWorks under a new name. Something new and different that might be a viable alternative.

[Platform]

Well if Apple can overcome the legal issues of using iWork or iWorks Suite, then they could roll the old AppleWorks under a new name. Something new and different that might be a viable alternative.

Yeah look's like appleworks is dying and giving birth to iWork :D

[gctwnl]

It will be interesting to see how Microsoft will react. It all depends on what AWX will have. Is it strong enough to be competition for MacOffice? Is it OpenOffice compatible? Microsoft will see especially the latter as a big threat.

What can Microsoft do? They could drop Office for Mac. That strategy can work both ways. It can undercut the position of Mac OS X, but it is uncertain how much. How much of Mac OS X's position depends still on the availability of Microsoft Office? It can also work the other way, if Microsoft Office is dropped, it could strengthen the position of something OpenOffice-like.

Microsoft's monopoly is based in a large part on Microsoft Office (the other part is Exchange, these days). Windows is not the foundation of the monopoly as it used to be (though it is still part of it in terms of the availability of certain tools or the image of availability). If Microsoft strengthens the Microsoft Office availability (e.g. add Microsoft Office for Linux) it would harm the OS monopoly. But if it does not support alternative platforms with Microsoft Office, it could in the longer term speed up the break down of the Microsoft Office monopoly.

I would love to listen in to the discussions at Microsoft HQ on these issues.

[Sir_Giggles]

I use QuarkExpress for my word processing needs. I find being able to do layouts is easier than in programs like Office.

[GregA]

Microsoft's monopoly is based in a large part on Microsoft Office (the other part is Exchange, these days). Windows is not the foundation of the monopoly as it used to be (though it is still part of it in terms of the availability of certain tools or the image of availability). If Microsoft strengthens the Microsoft Office availability (e.g. add Microsoft Office for Linux) it would harm the OS monopoly. But if it does not support alternative platforms with Microsoft Office, it could in the longer term speed up the break down of the Microsoft Office monopoly.I'd love to see an announcement of "iWork - for Mac, Windows, and Linux" :)

[Platform]

I'd love to see an announcement of "iWork - for Mac, Windows, and Linux" :)

Nice but don't think it's going to happen
becasue apple has not gfot any other that is compatible with other pltform and why should they share their amazing apps with the wintel people ;)

[GregA]

Nice but don't think it's going to happen
becasue apple has not gfot any other that is compatible with other pltform and why should they share their amazing apps with the wintel people ;)Apple already sells Appleworks to Wintel.
And Cocoa (Openstep) used to run on many different Unixes.

BUT, I agree it's not going to happen.

[dnnx]

they might do the iPod thing, Mac only at first then pc as well. Show the others what it is liek on this side. But they never released a pc version of keynote so who knows.