Microsoft makes a Basic mistake with Office 2007

Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Dec 10, 2006.

  1. macrumors bot

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2003
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    #2
    well i've never used a macro and i use office every day of my life. so, i really don't think this is a huge deal. if you use macros then get office for windows, sorry you may have to do things manually...
     
  3. macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #3
    It is a big deal and it's not being talked about enough.

    You might not create spreadsheets with macros but there are a lot of companies which have macros built into regularly used spreadsheets to update complex formulae - particularly in forecasting scenarios and sales trending which require input from different groups. It will mean I can't work at home on certain tasks any longer.

    It's one of those things that's likely to be the deal-killer for an SME considering trying OS X but being killed. If you're going to have to run Windows (in Boot Camp or Parallels), then why bother administering the Mac too?

    It's almost worth not upgrading just to keep the facility - so long as these xml translators finally arrive :rolleyes:
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #4
    The Macworld forum thread for this article was pretty lively for a while; the problem disproportionately affects power users (and especially Excel aficionados) in a multi-platform environment.

    You may see a lot of corporate types keeping Office 2004 for the Mac despite not being Universal, using Parallels with Office for Windows, or give up entirely on using a Mac for work.

    It's hard to predict where this is going, since it's not clear what the future of VB and macros is on the Windows platform. Supposedly, they're going to overhaul the macro programming environment with a .Net architecture in the future.
     
  5. macrumors 6502

    Graeme A

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #5
    Wow! I don't know why they are screwing with the Apple user base. Most of us have to use Office as it is the only way of dealing with PC users.

    I don't think that Office 2007 is going to be widespread in the business community until maybe the latter part of 2007; it does stink that they are not thinking about all their user base.

    I will be hanging on to my G5 for a little while longer I think. I was looking to get a new MBP through salary sacrifice but this takes the gloss of it a little.
     
  6. macrumors G4

    Applespider

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2004
    Location:
    looking through rose-tinted spectacles...
    #6
    Then again, I've also heard that the 'ribbon' in Office 2007 (Windows) is great for everyone except Excel power-users... :( So perhaps, no power users will upgrade on either platform :p
     
  7. Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    Gone but not forgotten.
    #7
    I've created a fair number of Visual BASIC for Applications applications and while it's very useful, I've seen more than a few people use it to create viruses.

    The MacBU should be creating a converter so that the macros are still available to Mac users. It's actually a good thing to support Mac OS X technologies. A workflow from MS Word to Quark XPress or to Adobe Acrobat wouldn't be that unusual.

    It's sad that they won't have a Universal version ready initially.
     
  8. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #8
    All this means is that Office 2004 is going to be the new Outlook 2001, an outdated version remaining in use years after it was officially retired.

    Although Microsoft's reasons are quite valid for not porting the VBA code, they really ought to have figured out some way the macros can work in Rosetta or at the very least only included the existing macro language in the PowerPC version as an installation option. Simply wiping out a feature because you can't get it to work reminds me too much of Vista.
     
  9. macrumors member

    bleachthru

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    #9
    Wow, remind me not to upgrade to 2007. It continues to amaze me, it seems often that when a company has a good thing going, something that satisfies the majority of users... they have to go and mess with it. Seriously, what are they thinking? There has to be another solution for UB support rather than dropping cross platform macros all together.
     
  10. macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #10
    Why not use Open Office? I reads and writes MS Office files just fine.

    And if the only Windows program you need is Office the "Crossover Office" runs windows Office on the Mac without Windows.

    You only need Parallels or Bootcamp if you want torun Windows XP. Most people don't really want Windows XP they just need some Windows program so Crossover Office is perfect.
     
  11. 123
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    #11
    I don't think power users are the issue here, they always find a way around limitations (Parallels, Crossover, OpenOffice). It's a much bigger problem for the average Office user who has to fill in scripted forms (time sheets, project calculations, planning etc.) as part of a business process. It will be yet another example of Macs not fitting into the enterprise world.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    bluebomberman

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2005
    Location:
    Queens, NYC
    #12
    I guess by "power users," I also had in my mind medium-to-large enterprises that make macro templates for their employee base.

    Although in that situation, you'd hope they'd get some IT people to build Mac-friendly versions of scripted forms.

    Either way, it's gonna be a mess. Good thing it doesn't affect me personally.

    That doesn't solve the issue of running macros on the Mac.

    Effective alternatives to MS Office are great, but this is a particular situation in which not even Microsoft is addressing the issue in the most beneficial manner for Mac users.
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    #13
    One less differentiator between Office and it's competition. I'm not much of a VB fan, myself, but compatibility is important. When making the case for bringing Macs into our Windows-based office, it's important to be able to say that they're compatible with their Windows cousins. As iWork improves, and Office becomes more independent from its Windows roots I think more people are going to take the cheaper, Apple alternative. Mac Office volumes will decline and MS will decide it's not worth maintaining.

    Another example of how people don't view the Mac as a "work" machine.

    Just as interesting to me is the blog post by the MS developer describing their code. Why on earth do they need to make it so complicated?! You'd think that all of that assembly code would be there to speed things up, but Office has always been a dog in my experience. VBA compiles platform independent bytecodes to native assembly? Why bother? Sounds like they could get just as much of a performance improvement by cleaning up their cruft. Code that hasn't been touched in a decade? Oy.

    If this is how all Microsoft code is written, I can see why they're so slow to evolve. And I can see why you need a 3GHz processor to run a freakin' word processor.

    I'm curious what new features have been deemed more important than the macro language. I'm hoping for an OpenGL talking paperclip.
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    #14
    Why port VB to intel then? If it's so hard, why didn't they just keep it in PPC code and let Rosetta handle it? We already know Office runs plenty fast in Rosetta, so just keep one of the PPC elements that's difficult to port.
     
  15. macrumors 68030

    Analog Kid

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2003
    #15
    I'm guessing it has to do with how it translates itself to native assembly and connects into the rest of the Office code. I don't know that Rosetta can be invoked for subroutines.
     
  16. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #16
    I'll take a wild guess: They were thinking that they don't have to care, because people will buy the product anyway -- warts, pimples and all. And why not? It's always worked for them before.
     
  17. macrumors 601

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    #17
    Why wait and not immediately upgrade? Office 2004 runs very well under Rosetta. I don't believe you will have problems with the speed, especially on a Duo 2 Core system.
     
  18. macrumors 601

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    #18
    Microsoft is going to stop VB development and focus on a .Net solution.

    They also want to slowly abandon the Mac market and I believe that the new office will be the last one to come for the Mac...
    I think that this should have given the signal to Apple to develop Pages to a great word processor, something that isn't the case at the moment! Come on Apple, make Pages a better Word program!
     
  19. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #19
    I think it's already better. But please, let's not make this yet another Word v. Pages thread! :)
     
  20. macrumors 601

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    #20
    That wasn't my intention. I have to tell you though that I have trouble getting used to Pages. I still prefer Word
     
  21. macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #21
    I understand, but I think this is same barrier people have to cross to abandon Windows for the Mac.
     
  22. macrumors 601

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    #22
    Maybe, maybe not! I mean I have made the change and got used to the new environment very quick but Word for Mac was always there. I really think that Pages has to improve a lot in order to be able to attract as many switchers as possible.
     
  23. 123
    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2002
    #23
    Pages has some serious limitations and is full of bugs. This has nothing to do with "abandon Windows for the Mac". It's just not ready to take over.
     
  24. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #24
    Sounds like Office 2004 is worth getting, and Office 2007 will be one to skip.

    Rosetta speed on next year's intel chips will be quite adequate for word processing, and format convertors are coming for compatibility.

    Since MS does know the importance of this feature, it does sound suspiciously like they MIGHT have a long-term plan to kill Office in a few years.

    Which could have killed the Mac, once upon a time... but it's too late now! Office has too many alternatives, and the Mac has too many advantages.
     
  25. macrumors 601

    petvas

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2006
    Location:
    Mannheim, Germany
    #25
    Microsoft hasn't yet realized that Apple is growing. When they do, they will just stop developing anything for the Mac. It's as simple as that.
     

Share This Page