PDA

View Full Version : Apple and Star Office (Sun)


arn
Jul 27, 2002, 12:53 AM
CNet reports (http://news.com.com/2100-1001-946714.html?legacy=cnet&tag=lthd) that Apple and Sun are cooperating on a version of Sun's Star Office for Mac OS X.


The partnership is expected to produce a Java-based version of OpenOffice by the end of the year, followed by a commercial StarOffice release sometime in 2003.

"I think you can see OpenOffice running solid on OS X by the end of this calendar year," said Tony Siress, Sun's senior director of desktop marketing solutions.

The article suggests that this may further fracture the Apple-Microsoft relationship which has seen recent tensions, with some rumors (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/07/20020723142321.shtml) suggesting Apple may be bolstering their own offerings with an updated AppleWorks.

job
Jul 27, 2002, 01:01 AM
Finally! :)

My dad uses it on his Linux box and it's great. Stable and robust, it's a great apps suite.

It's the only thing that has kept MS Word etc, off of my Hard Drive. :D

Glad that they are bringing it to Mac OS X.

j763
Jul 27, 2002, 01:15 AM
MS aren't going to be happy about this...

MS Office is Microsoft's flagship product and OpenOffice is its only real challanger. The thing about OpenOffice is that it needs some work... Sun kicked off OpenOffice. Hopefully Apple can make itself viewed as a good citizen of the Open Source Development Community and continue OOorg's development -- not just to get an OS X version out the door, but rather to improve the suite itself.

August shouldn't just be the ending of the Apple-MS marrige, it should be a divorce.

job
Jul 27, 2002, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by j763
MS aren't going to be happy about this...


No one expects them to be.

Personally I would rather use Open Office than Word et al.

By bringing Open Office to Mac OS X, Apple is finally getting away from the propietary apps and file formats that have been associated with MS Office.

Heck, I really don't think that it's going to be that bad anyways. Open Office can open and save files that Word can read.

Heh, Microsoft does not like the competition? What else is new? :)

dricci
Jul 27, 2002, 01:37 AM
I've used OpenOffice on Windows and Linux, and I think it's a great system, a true (FREE) competitor to Office. It even came bundled on my Dad's eMachine!

Apple: Go Get 'Em. Time to start taking apart the Microsoft Monopoly .NETwork piece by piece (or should I say Framework by Framework?)

A@ron
Jul 27, 2002, 01:38 AM
I'm personally tired of MS throwing fits like a 4 year old when something doesn't go their way. Look at the new 'switchers' adds. Does anyone else remember something that came out of the MS trials? When Apple started shipping Netscape standard with their OS MS execs were thinking of a way to break the news to people of no more Office dev. for mac. I also think MS needs Apple more then the reverse (especially with OS X being Unix based). The fact that there is competition keeps them from being immediatly branded a monopoly. So my take is good bye MS the only thing I needed you for was Office and that will soon end :)

A@ron

j763
Jul 27, 2002, 01:40 AM
Sun executives, however, say Apple knows what it's doing, "Microsoft is mad, and Apple's coming at them hardcore."


You've got to love that quote :)

mmmdreg
Jul 27, 2002, 02:23 AM
This will be good...especially the idea that it's free...

MhzDoesMatter
Jul 27, 2002, 04:03 AM
My question for everyone is, now that we know Apple is doing MORE than its part to create both a free and opensourced competitor to Microsoft's grossly overpriced and underpowered proprietary office suite, does everyone still wish them death for overcharging us for OS X.2 ?


Truth Hertz

job
Jul 27, 2002, 04:05 AM
If they offer Open Office as a free download, I won't complain at all at coughing up $129 for Jaguar. :)

MhzDoesMatter
Jul 27, 2002, 04:24 AM
Thats what Sun wants to do apparently. Atleast 300 hundred dollars worth of "Macintosh Office" dripping with Quartzy goodness delivered to us at some point, for FREE. Hopefully it only runs on 10.2 to make all the whiners feel like they got something, and all the holdouts sick with envy.


Truth Hertz....

Wes
Jul 27, 2002, 05:07 AM
I'm not familiar with Openoffice, what microsoft apps does it have a competitors with? Word, Excel, I'd think not powerpoint, anyway I can't wait.

SilvorX
Jul 27, 2002, 05:24 AM
i've used staroffice on linux b4, everythings integrated (word processing/webpage app/email/presentation/etc) and its pretty good, but on windows its just slow :-\ but that was v5.2 so it'dd probably change since then (concidering its at 6.0)

bout time sun got into the office market for macs ;)

Wes
Jul 27, 2002, 05:44 AM
Whoah, loads of functions, I'll get it as soon as it is released. I could replace eudora and ms office all in one swipe ;)

rugby
Jul 27, 2002, 05:49 AM
Staroffice 6.0 isn't free anymore, I think it costs $100.

Wes
Jul 27, 2002, 06:11 AM
Still way cheaper than M$ Office, will it be cocoa or carbon? If they are writing it from scratch with should be cocoa right?

MhzDoesMatter
Jul 27, 2002, 06:33 AM
The programs are neither cocoa or carbon I believe. This whole deal is suposed to be written in Java. That that means for the cocoa or cocoa/carbon exclusive features for applications, I have no idea. But I'm thinking that there would have to be some draw backs. Like not being able to access services and other little stuff.

Also, StarOffice isn't free at this time. But they're so eager to try to screw MS that "the guy" said he wanted Apple to bundle it for no cost. OpenOffice however will be free...I think....


Truth Hertz....

Exchange server support, database prog....those would be the best features.

j763
Jul 27, 2002, 06:36 AM
Originally posted by W-_-W
Still way cheaper than M$ Office, will it be cocoa or carbon? If they are writing it from scratch with should be cocoa right?

They're certainly not going to write it from scratch.

StarOffice already exists... It will definentally be a carbon app, not cocoa. i'm sure apple's going to put a good effort into it but to rewrite an office suite from scratch in Cocoa would be a massive undertaking and for the majority of users, would provide little benifit.

In reponse to a question asked before, StarOffice *does* have a PowerPoint equiv.

It would be really cool if after an OS X version came out, Apple helped out Sun and the Open Source Dev Community with continuing to develop StarOffice/OOorg.

Wes
Jul 27, 2002, 07:03 AM
Thanks for clearing that up, does anybody have screen shots of the linux version, I know it won't look the same as the mac version but I'm just interested.

Cappy
Jul 27, 2002, 07:34 AM
The one problem with bundling Star Office is that it could affect Filemaker sales because of the database application...unless they of course unbundle it. OpenOffice does not include the database application but it also does not include the fonts and such that Sun was pointing out needs to be licensed and is in Star Office which is one reason for it not being free.

I think it would be great if Apple bundled one of them with some decent fonts on their systems. It would certainly send a message through the industry. Of course what I would rather see is Apple buying Star Office from Sun. I don't think Sun should have ever gotten involved in the desktop business. It's not their thing. They're just desperate to battle MS's cash cow to stem the momentum a bit of MS using that money to operate on other fronts that can hurt Sun.

Pants
Jul 27, 2002, 08:33 AM
Originally posted by j763


They're certainly not going to write it from scratch.

StarOffice already exists... It will definentally be a carbon app, not cocoa. i'm sure apple's going to put a good effort into it but to rewrite an office suite from scratch in Cocoa would be a massive undertaking and for the majority of users, would provide little benifit.

In reponse to a question asked before, StarOffice *does* have a PowerPoint equiv.

It would be really cool if after an OS X version came out, Apple helped out Sun and the Open Source Dev Community with continuing to develop StarOffice/OOorg.

Star office is the commercial, proprietory version of open office (which is free - http://www.openoffice.org/ ). Staroffice costs - mainly because businesses wouldnt trust a 'free' application. I dunno about anyone here, but I've not been THAT impressed so far - yes its good (better than appleworks) but its not an m$ killer yet. Certainly the spreadsheet is not as comprehensive as Excel. The java bit makes me shudder though... :(

If anyone sees losing office as a good thing, I think their heads are up their bums! :) of course sun will make a big deal about this - they have nothing to benefit from anything m$ does, and their relationship is frosty at best. I just hope apple doesnt get caught in the acrimonious cross fire of these two firms.....

willmore
Jul 27, 2002, 09:02 AM
While I applaud Apple's efforts to bring wonderful applications like StarOffice to OS X, I cannot help but wonder what this will do to the Apple-Microsoft relationship. I know that many people have commented on the fact that, "Finally, I can drop Microsoft Office for this!", but the fact that OS X runs Office v.X has been a major selling point for many users, and is featured on virtually every sales document they produce.

What would happen to the users who were convinced to buy a Mac because you could get Office for Mac? I know that StarOffice is compatible with .doc files, but Joe Sixpack doesn't want StarOffice for his .doc files; he wants Microsoft Office, like the rest of the world (as he sees it.) It seems like Apple is potentially tarnishing their relationship with Microsoft buy sleeping with the neighbor down the street that never really got along with Microsoft (in sales/competition terms.)

MhzDoesMatter
Jul 27, 2002, 09:30 AM
I doubt MS will pull the plug under almost any circumstances. They know people will still buy MS Office before StarOffice. Plus, they can't justify the withdrawal because they're position won't be challenge for a long time.

But even if they do, all Apple has to do is not screw up the perfomance of Office vX in new OS releases. Look at the big picture. Most people haven't upgraded to vX because they're still satisfied with 2001. So whats to say that vX won't still be a selling point a few months after they officially drop support. As long as their are retail copies out there...heh..thats kinda stretching it. But we know we have atleast one more version of the software in the pipeline. Any repercussions this might have on Office vX is in the pretty distant future at best.



Truth Hertz....so I'm not hearing it.

synergy
Jul 27, 2002, 11:02 AM
Lets not forget also that Microsoft was found to be a monopoly who abused their monopoly power by the courts. While not a whole lot was done to them the ruling itself is key. The ruling sets a precedent whereby competitors can sue Microsoft for harm done on the basis of that ruling.

So what does that mean for Apple? It means unless microsoft can show they were actually losing money on sales of Microsoft Office they have no excuse for pulling the product. Apple would win big time. So you might see another settlement thing again where Microsoft would agree to make the product for another period of time in exchange for settling the lawsuit.

As for StarOffice/ OpenOffice for Mac its a start. Appleworks is only on the Mac platform. Staroffice and Openoffice are multiplatform like MS Office. Star Office and Open Office are one better because they are usable with other flavors of Linux whereas MS Office is not. There is room to build that mindshare and market share there. Linux users forced to use MS Windows will use StarOffice or Open Office where they can. It will spread.

fluppy2
Jul 27, 2002, 11:37 AM
If anyone knows how Star or Open Office does, sales wise, on the PC, that would tell us volumes about its potential adoption rate on the Mac. (I suspect it's small)

Anti-Microsoft people are a small market, and the people at Apple, Sun and Microsoft know this.

The real reason for people to switch to Sun's product, en-mass, on mac or pc, is that it a) saves money (which it would), b) is compelling in it's feature set (which it sounds like it is not (just roughly equivilant), c) is a safe decision (lots of other people have already switched. I'd give this product very low probability of deep penetration given the above.

What I really think Apple is doing, is buying insurance from the threats Microsoft is known to do. Without an Office app, Apple is in deep do-do, unless they "cave" to Microsofts's threats/demands. With a variety of offerings, Apple has options to manuver, and we all know the recent quote about them liking options.

Frankly I think that Microsoft only responds to companies that hold a strong hand, and Apple is strenghtening their hand. Apple wants more features in Microsoft Office for the price (or a lower price) as well as more Microsoft software titles published on the Mac. Microsoft has no incentive to do this unless they feel threatened, and that's the hand Apple is building.

Thoughts?

jadam
Jul 27, 2002, 11:45 AM
ummmmmmm.... Cocoa supports Objective C and Java as its two main programming language, so i think were safe there. Remember, Apple has Dumped OS9, and porting to OS9 would be a REAL bitch.

jadam
Jul 27, 2002, 11:50 AM
ohh yeah, and not to mention, Objective C is just an extension that apple made to C, so basically C is considered a Cocoa language also

shadowfax0
Jul 27, 2002, 11:58 AM
I think this is all going ot lead to the new ad improved AppleWorks. I think instead of AppleWorks just being something Apple came up with, it will now be based on the OpenOffice Platform, and for about the same price it is now, just advertised alot more (when was the last time you saw an ad/anything in an Apple Store related to AppleWorks...?) So that's wht I think is going ot happen. And as for the MS relationship, MS can go suck and choke for all I care, like god forbid there's competition and you might have ::gasp:: improve some of your products to compete. Jesus, they're in America, every other company has to deal with capitalism, so why shouldn't they?

fluppy2
Jul 27, 2002, 12:03 PM
And another thing!

Have you seen the print advertising for Office in Mac magazines. Showing glowing, supposedly radioactive, W's hardly seems to give anyone a compelling reason to upgrade or buy.

The reason...

There isn't any, other than for us early adopter types (again, a small market) who want an aqua look, compelling reason to upgrade or buy.

arogge
Jul 27, 2002, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by rugby
Staroffice 6.0 isn't free anymore, I think it costs $100.

StarOffice 6.0 costs $75.95 through Sun. I found that Micro Center sells this product for $69.99. It's interesting to see this store slowly giving more and more shelf space to StarOffice and Linux distributions in aisles that were once dominated by Microsoft.

http://wwws.sun.com/software/star/staroffice/6.0/index.html
http://www.microcenter.com/single_product_results.phtml?product_id=0128187

askien
Jul 27, 2002, 12:21 PM
Two major products come from Microsoft. IE and Office. Apple already hired Dave Hyatt to (I guess) come up with something to replace IE. No problem there.

If Apple is doing this, then the days of MS Office are counted. I've been thinking about this, and I can't stop being worried.

Corporate doesn't care if the Mac comes with IE or Chimera, but they do care if it comes with Office. Dumping MS and Office is going to make it hard to penetrate corporate america.

On the other hand, it's cool that Apple is picking the fight instead of waiting for MS to never update Office.

Personally, I have no need for an Office suite. This afects me in no way.

My other point is that Apple should make this a Cocoa app. How many major Cocoa apps are there? How do they intend to make people use Cocoa if they don't themselves.
They already made a point with the Finder. There's no need or excuse for apple to produce anything other than Cocoa apps.

Remember, Cocoa is a GOOD thing. If they say that using Cocoa would be a pain for them, it would also be a pain for everybody else, nobody will use it and a great technology will die.

Star Office is actually a case where using Carbon is more appropriate, but they need to send a message to ISV's that Cocoa is the way to go.

drastik
Jul 27, 2002, 12:23 PM
this is good. Very Good. More and more governments across the globe and us goverments agencies ae either thinking about, or switching to opensource. Apple is soon up for security review for government work. I would love for apple to get into the gov maket. This would change entire perception of people all over the world.

Oh. well, just my wishfull thinking:D

ShaolinMiddleFinger
Jul 27, 2002, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by MhzDoesMatter
My question for everyone is, now that we know Apple is doing MORE than its part to create both a free and opensourced competitor to Microsoft's grossly overpriced and underpowered proprietary office suite, does everyone still wish them death for overcharging us for OS X.2 ?


Truth Hertz

We won't know until the end results but if Apple/Sun comes out with an office suite that truly rivals MSOffice, the $129 is milk money.

I for one am glad that Apple's looking for other companies to "hold hands" with.

Rocketman
Jul 27, 2002, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by hitman


Heh, Microsoft does not like the competition? What else is new? :)

That is an understatement. They often leave markets or engage in illegal practices in markets they think they might lose market share in.

It will be interesting to watch if they simply compete on the basis of price and feature issues or resort to "other tactics".

Yet another Business School study subject is about to form!

I for one an glad Microsoft supports mac and would like to see it continue. But it would sure be nice of they could read and write even all of their own file formats. Might give them pause from developing new ones all the time with no backward compatibility whatsoever.

Rocketman

daRAT
Jul 27, 2002, 01:11 PM
I think this on going feud mirrors the Apple + Microsoft relation:

http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/02/07/24/020724hnhpdellupdate.xml

But ya'll are "way out there" if you think MS just won't stop making Office for Mac, Which cost damn near the same as the PC version, check the prices.

Not having used the Mac version, but have used the pc versions I can tell you the Ofiice X for Mac is way ahead of the pc version from what I have read of it. Just like MSIE for Mac is better than the pc version.

So don't wine to much, Sun is not in it to get any money, they will harp on thier office software, snuggle and smooch with Steve, then in 2 years drop it.

BTW all companies act like MS, Sun, Dell, Oracle and espeically Apple. All good companies, but it is a war for consumers and free software doesn't pay the bills.

Scab Cake
Jul 27, 2002, 01:12 PM
j763 said something about the fact that StarOffice is written is java, so it could not be a cocoa application. Cocoa is a set of tools and libraries built into OS X that sits above the BSD Unix layer and allows a developer to write in either objective-C or java. So, if StarOffice were to come out native for OS X, it would definitely be a Cocoa app. However, I haven't heard of Apple writing anything in Java, other than WebObjects, since Java apps have been proven to run slower in OS X. Apple wrote all of the frameworks in Objective-C, so writing in Objective-C would make StarOffice faster as there would have to be no sort of compilation translation so it could run under the Objective-C frameworks. Sun, however, would probably push for the Java version, and, since it's already written in Java, it's probably going to be java.

You can be sure of something, though. Apple will NOT release StarOffice any time soon as there is a lot of work to be done. It needs to be ported to run natively in Jaguar, Apple needs to find the right time to release a serious competitor to Office, and they need to make sure that it will open/save/manipulate Office documents without a hitch. This will involve a lot of testing. Office is a very complicated piece of programming. I mean, the apps are HUGE. I imagine that we will not hear anything about a final version for at least a year. Eh...sorry for talking so much.

jadam
Jul 27, 2002, 01:16 PM
java apps SLOWER??\

www.getamped.org/en

check that out, and tell me if that is SLOWER under OSX?

its made in java.

Edge100
Jul 27, 2002, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by askien
Two major products come from Microsoft. IE and Office. Apple already hired Dave Hyatt to (I guess) come up with something to replace IE. No problem there.

If Apple is doing this, then the days of MS Office are counted. I've been thinking about this, and I can't stop being worried.

Corporate doesn't care if the Mac comes with IE or Chimera, but they do care if it comes with Office. Dumping MS and Office is going to make it hard to penetrate corporate america.

On the other hand, it's cool that Apple is picking the fight instead of waiting for MS to never update Office.

Personally, I have no need for an Office suite. This afects me in no way.

My other point is that Apple should make this a Cocoa app. How many major Cocoa apps are there? How do they intend to make people use Cocoa if they don't themselves.
They already made a point with the Finder. There's no need or excuse for apple to produce anything other than Cocoa apps.

Remember, Cocoa is a GOOD thing. If they say that using Cocoa would be a pain for them, it would also be a pain for everybody else, nobody will use it and a great technology will die.

Star Office is actually a case where using Carbon is more appropriate, but they need to send a message to ISV's that Cocoa is the way to go.

Cocoa requires a complete rewrite and is not portable. It is not (despite some claims to the contrary) faster than carbon. The only reasons I can see to code something in cocoa rather than carbon are:

a) you are just starting out and therefore have no existing code that needs to be replaced

b) you want your app to be portable to other OSs, in which case Objective C wont do

Cocoa does offer some added benefits over carbon, but that will slowly change, as we saw with the anti-aliasing issue that is now available for all carbon apps. It simply isnt reasonable for a company to rewrite an app in objective C just to gain a few features.

Martin Dove
Jul 27, 2002, 01:26 PM
Apple moving away from MS towards an alternative office may sound like good news to those who don't like Bill and his crowd, BUT, the real world situation will demand the following:

1. An alternative to MS office must be as good as MS office in all respects.

2. An alternative to MS office must remain as good as MS office in all respects at all times, including the period of time after an MS office upgrade.

3. An alternative to MS office must be able to read all types of MS office transparently, and always be able to generate files that can be read by MS office transparently.

If this cannot be guaranteed, then any alternative is a complete no-no in the world where files are transfered between macs and PCs. And if MS take away office from the mac, then I am afraid that macs themselves become no-no's also. Complete compatability is essential in many worlds that mac users live in. Without this compatability, if MS give up on apple it will be a Pyrrhic victory, and will lead to many mac users (myself including) having to go over to a PC. Compatability is a strong driving force, and not necessarily a bad one either.

Scab Cake
Jul 27, 2002, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by jadam
java apps SLOWER??\

www.getamped.org/en

check that out, and tell me if that is SLOWER under OSX?

its made in java.

Slower than what? There is nothing to compare it to. Show me a cocoa version and we'll see which is faster. Until then, no one can answer your question. Thanks for the link, though. :)

Malic
Jul 27, 2002, 02:36 PM
Microsoft to Netscape during the Browser Wars:
"You see, nothing beats the price of free !"

Team Mozilla, Team OpenOffice, Team Linux to Microsoft:
"Hey! Yeah! You're right!"

ktlx
Jul 27, 2002, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by jadam
ohh yeah, and not to mention, Objective C is just an extension that apple made to C, so basically C is considered a Cocoa language also

Objective C is not just an extension to C that Apple made. In fact, neither part of the statement is correct. It is neither just an extension nor was it made by Apple. Objective C adds significant syntax changes to C and is not simply an extension. Cocoa requires the use of these additional language constructs and so you cannot just leave them out. Please look at some of the information on Apple's developer website instead of making uninformed claims.

kenohki
Jul 27, 2002, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by fluppy2
What I really think Apple is doing, is buying insurance from the threats Microsoft is known to do. Without an Office app, Apple is in deep do-do, unless they "cave" to Microsofts's threats/demands. With a variety of offerings, Apple has options to manuver, and we all know the recent quote about them liking options.

Frankly I think that Microsoft only responds to companies that hold a strong hand, and Apple is strenghtening their hand. Apple wants more features in Microsoft Office for the price (or a lower price) as well as more Microsoft software titles published on the Mac. Microsoft has no incentive to do this unless they feel threatened, and that's the hand Apple is building.

Thoughts?

I agree. Apple should make sure they keep cuddely wuddely developer relations with Microsoft but they should also make sure they aren't too dependent on one product as the only serious productivity suite for their OS. It's just good business to have diversity and a good contingency plan.

Choice is good. Windows users have the choice to use MS Office, Star/OpenOffice, or WordPerfect Office. Why Microsoft should be mad that Mac users have similar choices is beyond me. (Notice I said should, we all know in reality they're just mad because they won't have another monopoly - that monopoly being Mac productivity suites.)

Personally, I think it would be interesting to have a situation like in the late eighties and early nineties where you had almost as many Word users as WordPerfect users, or just as many Lotus 123 users as Excel users. Sure, sometimes it's a pain to trade files but competition sure does drive innovation.

gregorypierce
Jul 27, 2002, 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Malic
Microsoft to Netscape during the Browser Wars:
"You see, nothing beats the price of free !"

Team Mozilla, Team OpenOffice, Team Linux to Microsoft:
"Hey! Yeah! You're right!"

Microsoft:

D'oh... I'm finally getting my comeupance!

tychay
Jul 27, 2002, 05:42 PM
As mentioned by others, but this bears repeating, you do not compare Cocoa to Java as one is a library/framework and the other a programming language. Actually, you can do Cocoa in either Objective C or Java. This means speed comparisons should not be between Cocoa and Java, but between Objective C, Java using Cocoa, and Java using some other interface like Swing. I think nowadays the last one has widgets that look (are?) Aqua-ish on Aqua so you can't tell the difference at a glance.

Almost certainly anything Apple plans here with OpenOffice/StarOffice will involve Cocoa not Carbon. Take a look at iTunes 3 which is now a Cocoa application and only runs on OS X (or hasn't anyone else noticed it). Perhaps this is the reason there is little delay when the equalizer starts up? Clearly they see Cocoa-only apps as incentive to get more people switching to MacOS X (and perhaps upgrading their hardware).

As for Cocoa vs. Carbon, while it is true that you can pretty much do anything in both, Cocoa offers two major benefits (at least from where I stand). As an example, I will compare an excellent Carbon browser (IE) to an excellent Cocoa browser (OmniWeb):

First is that you "get everything for free" instead of having to support it. Things like services support (spellchecking, etc.), a unified way in which the Toolbar works, drawers, etc. come easily in Cocoa, if they can be done in Carbon, they certainly aren't easy. For instance, If I do a post in OmniWeb, it will highlight all the spelling errors (much like Apple Mail) as a type, not so with IE. Second, IE uses slide-in panes instead of slide-out drawers for Favorites, History, Search, Scrapbook and PageHolder, while the Bookmarks and History in OmniWeb I use much more than all those panes put together? Why? Because opening a drawer doesn't reduce browser area. Finally, hold down command-option and click on the grey gumdrop on the top right of your window. In IE it does the same as clicking on it normally ("hides" the toolbar), but what it is supposed to do is bring out the Customize Toolbar sheet. Don't believe me? Try it in OmniWeb or in the Mail (surprisingly Finder doesn't do this). And while we are at it, notice that Customize Toolbars is a sheet not a web page?... subtle, but Human Interface Guidelines are important and MacOS X has them too, even if they are different. Here is another subtle difference. Use command-drag on the toolbar and notice in a Cocoa app like OmniWeb or Finder how the icons slide around as I drag, but not so in IE (since the Toolbar is hacked). Now IE for the Mac is an excellent Carbon application on the Mac made by some certified Mac-heads at Microsoft BU, but it isn't Cocoa and a few minutes (which is how long I spent) shows the difference immediately. If gold rusts, what then will iron do...?

The second difference is the NeXT Interface Builder (NIB). Anyone who hasn't had a chance to play with Developer Tools should do so now and try to build a tutorial in AppleScript Studio or Objective C (or Java I guess). This is PowerPlant on steroids and really highlights the power of a messaging based objective language like Objective C over a method based one like Java at least conceptually. One seems a bit kludgy but gets the job done. (The purists will argue about speed of the compiled application here.)

There are probably other differences, but I don't program for the Macintosh platform.

OpenOffice, as mentioned, is a completely free version of Office that you can download and install right now on Mac OS X. But to do it you need to download and install X Windows (which is also free, try looking up "fink" on version tracker). It's not as fully featured as the Linux version yet, but I noticed sites like OGrady's pushing it. The restriction of installing X Windows alone will keep almost any mac user from using OpenOffice right now, as the article implies.

In the Linux world, it seems more popular to install and use specific tools like AbiWord (a Word replacement) and Gnumeric (an Excel replacement) instead of OpenOffice,though both the specifics and OpenOffice may be included in a distribution. Perhaps that will change if Apple puts its weight behind StarOffice, some of the benefits are bound to filter back, and certainly are if Apple is right now "working with the source" as the article implies.

It seems to me that most people who need Office will continue to buy it from Microsoft. I'm told Mac Office is a great program, and personally I've mentioned it to people who have asked me about switching, and I know just enough about it to show it off. It may not be important to me, but "Does it run Office" is probably the second most asked question about the Macintosh, so it is important to others.

I see the reason of Office's slow adoption due to two reasons, religion and price. While nobody has ill to say about Microsoft more than a Windows user (trust me here), you have people who buy Macintoshes simply to avoid Microsoft, and that means the poor MacBU folks too, no matter how good Office is. I know people who refuse to use IE on MacOS X because of issues. Second, while the price of MacOffice and Office for Windows may be similar, you have great bundling deals, just go to Dell and configure your own system to see just how good they are. MacOffice never came close, rebates or otherwise, even if I could dig up the serial numbers of my Office98, I never saw an incentive near that close when I purchased my two Macs this year.

The cost of Office on the Mac is so prohibitive, that I imagine that this is hurting the "Switch" campaign, as most people consider some version of Office as a nearly free component of Windows (either bundled with the computer, provided by the employer, or pirated), while that must go into to budget of every switcher (who does not own Office98 and can't buy the upgrade I might add). Hmm, $400 for Office to run on a $1700 iBook...

OBTW, I'm willing to bet that Microsoft makes more profit off of Office than Windows. They maybe even generate more total revenue off Office than Windows. Office, Windows, and Explorer should be all but implied when one talks about a Windows monopoly, illegal or not.

Take care,

terry

creed
Jul 27, 2002, 06:10 PM
Take a look at iTunes 3 which is now a Cocoa application and only runs on OS X (or hasn't anyone else noticed it).

I may be wrong, but I don't think iTunes 3 is a Cocoa app. I was told a really quick way to tell if an app is Cocoa is to open a dialog with one of the 'pulsing' buttons in, and then - anywhere else on that dialog window - hold the mouse button down. If the button stops pulsing it's a Carbon app: if it keeps pulsing, it's a Cocoa app. (I may be wrong - as I'm not a Mac programmer - but it certainly seems to work for all the apps I've tried.)

Andy W

BongHits
Jul 27, 2002, 06:28 PM
I think Apple knows exactly what they are doing. We all know that Apple is a tiny company, but we also know that Apple is really trying to do what's good for people in general. They're really our only hope against Microsoft (any other competitors?) dominating every computer in the world. Sure Jaguar may be expensive, but at least they're taking all of that money and putting it back into the end-user experience and not a phat ass waterpark in Steve Jobs backyard (Bill Gates has a digital waterpark in Puget Sound from what I've heard). So even tho I'm a college student and have little money, I'll be buying Jaguar and a .Mac membership to support Apple. **** they've given us so much for free (iApps, open source development, standards instead of propietary, etc), it's time to show them we appreciate it and help them grow.

OpenOffice and StarOffice is Apple's way of securing an office suite that cannot be held over their heads when the Microsoft vs Apple battle really heats up and Microsoft starts pullin out the trump cards (cancel Office, bring out Longhorn and Blackthorn etc.) and we all know Apple will win once it finally comes down to who has the better product instead of everyone needing to fit in with M$.

Scab Cake
Jul 27, 2002, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by creed


I may be wrong, but I don't think iTunes 3 is a Cocoa app. I was told a really quick way to tell if an app is Cocoa is to open a dialog with one of the 'pulsing' buttons in, and then - anywhere else on that dialog window - hold the mouse button down. If the button stops pulsing it's a Carbon app: if it keeps pulsing, it's a Cocoa app. (I may be wrong - as I'm not a Mac programmer - but it certainly seems to work for all the apps I've tried.)

Andy W

Not that this would answer anything, but the command "file" in the terminal can sometimes give you a little information about an app. For instance, if you are in your Microsoft Office directory, you can type "file Microsoft\ Excel" and the shell will return "Microsoft Excel: CFM Binary" which shows that the application uses Carbon libraries...i.e. it was not written using Cocoa, and therefore compiled as a CFM binary, not a Mach-O binary. For a little more information, go read this:

http://source.bungie.org/_enginedevelopment/_dead/CarbonPortingGuide.pdf

I don't have iTunes 3, nor do I plan on getting it or needing it, but it wouldn't surprise me if Apple just decided to run iTunes 3 as a CFM binary in OS X only.

Johnny7896
Jul 27, 2002, 07:15 PM
This was again a calculated move by apple. When classic was the only operating system, apple used M$$$$ to support a productivity suite. In the mean time, Apple developed Mac OS X. OS X appeals to Sun because it's Unix.
M$$$$ doesn't like Unix. Sun develops for Mac. Sun is happy. Apple is happy. M$$$$ out of the mac sector. Sun has openly expressed it's hatred towards M$$$$ for years. Apple has been more silent to keep peace with M$$$$. I don't think Apple cares about that relationship anymore. I really don't think Jobs would be concerned if Micro***** went out of business tomorrow or Gates jumped off a bridge. No love lost there. I believe that Jobs is trying to bring the Trojan Horse to M$$$$. It would make Steve very happy to see Gates asking him for help someday.

fitzg2md05
Jul 27, 2002, 07:39 PM
"I don't want to sell StarOffice for OS X," Siress said. "I want Apple to bundle it. I'll give them the code. I'd love it if I could get the team at Apple to do joint development and they distribute it at no cost--that it's their product. Nobody makes a product more beautiful on Apple than Apple."
What a smart guy!

ktlx
Jul 27, 2002, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by tychay
OBTW, I'm willing to bet that Microsoft makes more profit off of Office than Windows. They maybe even generate more total revenue off Office than Windows. Office, Windows, and Explorer should be all but implied when one talks about a Windows monopoly, illegal or not.

Take care,

terry

I read several times during Microsoft's trial that Microsoft Office is the company's cash cow. I heard claims that somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of Microsoft's profit comes from Office. That is why Microsoft wants to move businesses to an Office subscription because they need it to keep being the cash cow. Companies have been hesitant to upgrade from Office 98 and Office 2000 which hurts Microsoft's bottom line.

pbailey
Jul 27, 2002, 08:36 PM
It's not only the Mac market that Microsoft is going to effect. Many companies and consumers are not ware of the changes in store for the PC market that will take place after July 31, 2002.

Microsoft will no longer offer PC users an option too purchase upgrades from earlier copies of Office after July 31, 2002. Anyone that has not upgraded by this date will need to Purchase a License alone or License & Software Assurance (L&SA).

Where I work, we just can't afford to upgrade all users to Office XP even at the current upgrade pricing. Now that we would effectively need to purchase new licenses the pricing goes out the roof. We will start moving everyone over to either StarOffice or OpenOffice as our default office suite.

You can read more from the URL below.

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/office.asp

Rocketman
Jul 27, 2002, 09:22 PM
One thing that would make Star Office valuable would be the ability to import and deal with "old file formats" we al have on discs which have not been opened under new apps or cannot be opened under new apps.

Things like MacPaint, MacDraw, Word 1,2,3,4,5, WP 2,3,4, And probably a fairly long list.

Some of these are addressed by other translation packages (well not older word or MacDraw files) and some not.

Also it would be nice to open and view autocad files which seem to be an increasingly popular way to transfer images of engineering nature.

All of these things are relatively small additions to a program like Star Office and even a $10/20 per feature might be worth paying for if necessary. But as we move into a local server world we want full access to all legacy files.

Of course some day somebody will come up with a useful way to actually use these older files and integrate them into current activity better, and make it available at consumer prices and systems.

Rocketman

NHMac
Jul 27, 2002, 11:02 PM
Lack of M$ project and an Exchange Server compatible eMail/calendar app on the Mac does as much to keep the Mac out of corporate environs as anything.

Looking forward to the day when there is some options in office bundles.

fluppy2 seems right on... Apple can only be stronger by having many options.

NHMac

tychay
Jul 27, 2002, 11:06 PM
Originally posted by creed


I may be wrong, but I don't think iTunes 3 is a Cocoa app. I was told a really quick way to tell if an app is Cocoa is to open a dialog with one of the 'pulsing' buttons in, and then - anywhere else on that dialog window - hold the mouse button down. If the button stops pulsing it's a Carbon app: if it keeps pulsing, it's a Cocoa app

I may stand corrected. I assumed that since iTunes appears on my process table as "iTunes" instead of "LaunchCFMApp" and since iTunes is no an .app bundle instead of a single binary, that it was a Cocoa application. I guess that was not correct. There definitely seem to be a lot of under-the-hood changes in iTunes 3 vs. iTunes 1/2 beyond the smart playlists and such that was added.

In any case the fact that iTunes 3 does not run on OS 9, carbon or not, shows Apple is attempted to use their iApps to get people to upgrade. (Remember, iTunes 1 wouldn't install in pre-OS 9 systems without a hack of the installer and binary.) OpenOffice would be both easier and faster to port into Cocoa (Java-based or otherwise) and porting it to only run on OS X seems to follow Apple's modus operandi.

We'll find out by December

dongmin
Jul 28, 2002, 12:17 AM
Apple is definitely making a concerted effort to become independent of Msoft. First, an expanded Mail, Address, and iCal which makes Entourage obsolete (even though it's a decent program). Next, they hired Dave Hyatt to do development on a Mozilla/Chimera-derivative browser. Now, Office.

To me, having Office for the Mac is good for Apple. As good as AppleWorks or StarOffice may be, MS Office is one of the more popular apps on the PC side. So Apple needs it to give the Mac OS platform more credibility to the potential switchers.

As for IE, I think it's a second-rate product. It's definitely inferior to the PC version which is considerably faster and more stable. It used to be my browser of choice, but I got so tired of it bogging down after use and crashing so I decided to give Mozilla a shot. Now, I wonder I didn't switch earlier. Mozilla is more stable, faster, and more feature-rich, especially with tabbed browsing and the ability to shut off certain annoying Java things. And the development on it is great. I can't wait for Chimera to become a non-beta app.

Cappy
Jul 28, 2002, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by askien
Two major products come from Microsoft. IE and Office. Apple already hired Dave Hyatt to (I guess) come up with something to replace IE. No problem there.

I hope people keep these statements in perspective that this is being said on a "rumors" board. Unless someone can show me something different no one knows that this is the reason he was hired by Apple.

foniks2020
Jul 28, 2002, 12:27 AM
iTunes 3 Cocoa App?

I was under the impression that Cocoa apps are the only apps in pre 10.2 that have access to services. If this is true, then iTunes 3 is Cocoa as it does have services available.

Concerning OpenOffice as a Java app... whether or not it is Cocoa, it should run faster than current Java in 10.2 which is supposed to have several Java performance enhancements and hopefully full support for Java 1.4 as well.

ryan
Jul 28, 2002, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Scab Cake
j763 said something about the fact that StarOffice is written is java, so it could not be a cocoa application. Cocoa is a set of tools and libraries built into OS X that sits above the BSD Unix layer and allows a developer to write in either objective-C or java. So, if StarOffice were to come out native for OS X, it would definitely be a Cocoa app. However, I haven't heard of Apple writing anything in Java, other than WebObjects, since Java apps have been proven to run slower in OS X. Apple wrote all of the frameworks in Objective-C, so writing in Objective-C would make StarOffice faster as there would have to be no sort of compilation translation so it could run under the Objective-C frameworks. Sun, however, would probably push for the Java version, and, since it's already written in Java, it's probably going to be java.

You can be sure of something, though. Apple will NOT release StarOffice any time soon as there is a lot of work to be done. It needs to be ported to run natively in Jaguar, Apple needs to find the right time to release a serious competitor to Office, and they need to make sure that it will open/save/manipulate Office documents without a hitch. This will involve a lot of testing. Office is a very complicated piece of programming. I mean, the apps are HUGE. I imagine that we will not hear anything about a final version for at least a year. Eh...sorry for talking so much.

Did you read the artilce????

Star/Open Office is not currently written in Java, else it would already be able to run on OS X, but the Java-based Open Office is due before the end of the year and the commerical StarOffice version sometime next year.

PS - Java runs well on OS X and is only going to get better; in fact Sun is incorporating some of Apple's code of their JVM into their other JVMs.

ibjoshua
Jul 28, 2002, 01:52 AM
Originally posted by Cappy
I hope people keep these statements in perspective that this is being said on a "rumors" board. Unless someone can show me something different no one knows that this is the reason he was hired by Apple.

i'd just like to say thanks to everyone on this thread for an inteligent and informed discussion. being a long time mac fan i read the hardware and processor threads on these forums quite a lot and the standard of your posts is way higher.

although i would say your views/arguments are that much more effective if you have read the whole thread and related articles. (state the obvious josh :))

a reminder: MS Word originally found it's legs on the mac and it would be a great shame if it left our platform of choice.

josh
out

Scab Cake
Jul 28, 2002, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by ryan


Did you read the artilce????

Star/Open Office is not currently written in Java, else it would already be able to run on OS X, but the Java-based Open Office is due before the end of the year and the commerical StarOffice version sometime next year.

PS - Java runs well on OS X and is only going to get better; in fact Sun is incorporating some of Apple's code of their JVM into their other JVMs.

Yeah, I read the article. It doesn't say anywhere that StarOffice ISN'T written in Java. Secondly, OpenOffice is currently written in Java, however, it uses the X11 interface. So, it does run on OS X, you just have to have XDarwin.

And though Java may be fast in OS X, it's still running on a Virtual Machine. It's going to take quite a bit to convince me that a machine that my computer is emulating is going to be faster than my computer running the code natively.

slaboda
Jul 28, 2002, 12:11 PM
Though I'm glad that Apple is giving us more options, I think they need to be more careful about managing their relationship with Microsoft. This announcement does not come at the most opportune time.

MacBU has given us some great things, like the recent release of Remote Desktop for FREE! (The release notes also hint that an Exchange server compatible email app is not far off). Remote Desktop makes my life about 100x easier; I can work remotely from my Mac and I don't need the powers that be to set up "special" (i.e. non-proprietary) services for my Mac. This makes it much more acceptable for me to use it in a Windows environment. Actually, it's kind of a Trojan horse. People gather around my desk to ogle my TiBook.

If Microsoft stopped developing for the Mac, it would be far less acceptable to use one in a corporate setting and I think it would give more ammunition to corporate IT Windows bigots. I'd love for my computer to be M$ free, but that's not in the cards yet for a lot of corporate users. Perhaps in a few years once Microsoft's new licensing scheme has alienated about 50% of their customers, which it seems to be doing . . .

jettredmont
Jul 29, 2002, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by ktlx


Objective C is not just an extension to C that Apple made. In fact, neither part of the statement is correct. It is neither just an extension nor was it made by Apple. Objective C adds significant syntax changes to C and is not simply an extension. Cocoa requires the use of these additional language constructs and so you cannot just leave them out. Please look at some of the information on Apple's developer website instead of making uninformed claims.

First, correct, Objective C is an open standard, not just used by Apple. On the other hand, the only major usage of Objective C I've ever seen is the Cocoa/Aqua frameworks. But, yes, Objective C will compile with gcc on most platforms I'm aware of.

However, Objective C IS just an addition to C, and talks quite adeptly with unmodified standard ANSI C, even in the same source module (.m file). In fact, the first implementations of Objective C were as nothing more than a pre-processor for C files.

As an example, the project I am working on uses a solid C++ cross-platform basis plus a C API (it's easier to link Objective C to plain C than to C++) and a Cocoa front end. It works incredibly smoothly, and uses the best of both worlds (Objective C is nice for the Cocoa frameworks and UI widgets, but I wouldn't want its "type-looseness" anywhere in the chunk of our application that actually does work!).

As for StarOffice, I believe it is in C currently, not Java. The Java "port" will give Sun a common UI face to the underlying C code (which reduces development time significantly in a cross-platform project). The Java port could use Cocoa frameworks to do its thing, but doing so directly would completely defeat the purpose of a Java port in the first place (the Cocoa frameworks are non-portable). Note that the use of Java in Cocoa apps is supported, but not advised, by the Apple team.

Also, of course, note that in order to plug a Java UI onto the C code base Sun/OpenOffice will have to consolidate their apps' C API's and create a JNI Java-to-C translation layer. Once you have such a consolidated C API, slapping a Cocoa UI onto it is literally child's play (no harder than a Java UI, although again you have to do the Objective C/Cocoa API only for the Mac whereas the Java API work could be repurposed for the various other platforms).

Cost/benefit: Cocoa in my experience is much faster than Java/Swing for most UI elements, especially in startup time. The Objective-C to C translation is compile-time intensive and nearly completely transparent at runtime (assuming the compiler generates efficient code, which gcc tends to do). The Java-to-C translation is runtime-intensive and reflective (because Java is a late-binding language), and as a result is nowhere near transparent. Possibly outweighing this, though, Java/Swing runs pretty much the same on most platforms (there may be per-platform modifications, but they are minimal compared to the bulk of the UI code), AND, of course, Sun owns Java and would love to see it used in OpenOffice.

My guess: Sun will transition its version of the suite to Java UI. Apple and/or OpenOffice.org will tackle a pure Objective C/Cocoa UI implementation using the API developed for the Java UI.

eddit
Jul 29, 2002, 08:06 PM
Here's a comment from the OpenOffice FAQ (http://www.openoffice.org/about_us/pressfaq_ooo-osx.html)

Question: Will there ever be a StarOffice for Mac OS X?
Answer: Sun Microsystems has no current plans to bring the StarOffice suite to Mac OS X. However, Sun contributed much of the base and core technologies for the current Mac OS X/Darwin port, and the Mac OS X/Darwin porting team is working hard to finish it. Sun continues to provide support to the OpenOffice.org community, and therefore the Mac OS X/Darwin porting project.

There appears to be a confusion between the MacOS X OpenOffice 1.0 Alpha port which was just released and StarOffice. There has been no press release from Apple or Sun saying that they have come to some agreement RE StarOffice, and certainly no agreement on shiping with MacOS 10.2. Looks like CNET got it muddled (as per usual). As for the talk about using the java API for Aqua support? Sound bizzar to me!

Anyway here's the OpenOffice Roadmap (http://porting.openoffice.org/mac/roadmap.html)

ThreadGuru
Jul 30, 2002, 09:59 AM
First, the fact that Sun's StarOffice web page doesn't mention plans to port StarOffice to Mac OS X doesn't mean there ARE no plans. It doesn't actually even mean the plans aren't announced, since web pages often aren't updated as regularly as one might like.

On OpenOffice.org implementation language, it's mostly C++, at least for some definition of "mostly".

Since StarOffice is just OpenOffice with a few additional licensed bits that Sun couldn't make open source (like a spell checker, language fonts, and some input/output filters), "porting" StarOffice is just OpenOffice.org plus porting those separately licensed bits. Actually, the biggest part of StarOffice that's not in OpenOffice.org is SUPPORT... and the Sun quotes show they're hoping Apple will pick that up. (Which, in a way, means Apple almost might as well forget StarOffice and stick with supporting OpenOffice.org on their own.)

In any case, OpenOffice already runs on Mac OS X, though not spectacularly well. There's now a version 1.0 "developer release" that I nearly picked up except that it claims not to be MP-safe and I decided to wait before subjecting my dual processor to it. It's also X11 -- but there's an earlier OpenOffice.org build that's been ported (at least somewhat) to Aqua. I don't know whether that means Carbon or Cocoa; either would be plausible, but Cocoa would make more sense since this is unique Mac OS X interface code anyway (no portability concerns) and it's definitely Mac OS X only since the underlying "engine" is really Darwin/UNIX.

So, OpenOffice, and any threat to Microsoft, will come to Mac OS X no matter what Apple says or does. While some business users may not be able to swallow the lack of formal support, most people will accept that the dedicated volunteers who put it together in the first place will provide sufficient support. (And of course the source is always there if you need it.)

Certainly bundling some form of it (whether "OpenOffice.org" or "StarOffice") will put Apple squarely in the middle, they can't get completely out of the way. That's just one of the "problems" (or, for most of us, BENEFITS) of the Mac OS X open source UNIX core. Microsoft hates it... but it's not going away.

sparkleytone
Jul 30, 2002, 01:37 PM
www.osopinion.com has a clarifying story on this whole issue/debacle. apparently Sun is not making plans to port staroffice to OS X. the only current plans are for OpenOffice to be made for OS X. they have rescinded their earlier statements and have stated for the record that again, there are no plans for staroffice.

"Sun Microsystems spokesperson Marie Domingo confirmed on Monday that the Sun-Apple collaboration actually took place before Sun decided to release the source code for StarOffice, and that Sun's current plans for a Mac version are focused on OpenOffice rather than StarOffice."

ktlx
Jul 30, 2002, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by jettredmont

First, correct, Objective C is an open standard, not just used by Apple. On the other hand, the only major usage of Objective C I've ever seen is the Cocoa/Aqua frameworks. But, yes, Objective C will compile with gcc on most platforms I'm aware of.



Just because that is the one you are familiar with does not mean it is the only one. Objective C is over 15 years old but never took off like C++ did. That is why the other frameworks died off/never took off. Apple is very courageous to base Cocoa primarily off a language that was rejected by the market over a decade ago.



However, Objective C IS just an addition to C, and talks quite adeptly with unmodified standard ANSI C, even in the same source module (.m file).



True, it is backwards compatible in that Objective C can call ANSI C no problem at all.



In fact, the first implementations of Objective C were as nothing more than a pre-processor for C files.


Are you sure you are not thinking of C++? The original implementations of C++ from AT&T used cfront which was basically a C pre-processor on steriods. The two original Objective C implementations I used in the mid-80's were both traditional compilers. While you could probably get away with calling them pre-processers, the amount of mangling necessary is more akin to pre-compilers. They were not pre-processors in the cpp or m4 sense of the word.