Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iWork '07 with Spreadsheet (Screenshot)
- Thread starter DavidLeblond
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The complexity of Office is irrelevant. I AM required to have Office. I use office docs on a daily basis. I need 100% file compatibility with Word and I need Excel. Just like most people in higher education and business.
All of this will be less of an issue when Office switches to open XML document formats. But right now me and most people are indeed required to use Office. There are no serious alternatives that are 100% compatible. It's all about being 100% compatible with just about everybody else.
I actually thought AW was excellent, and used it right up until Apple made it pretty much impossible to. Continued R&D could have turned AW into the 100% Office alternative.
You are seriously mistaken there. MS OpenXML (a most horrific misnomer if ever there was one) is a 6000+ page spec that only one company can implement. Try this for starters http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/01/how-to-hire-guillaume-portes.html and then this attrocity http://www.robweir.com/blog/2006/10/bit-about-bit-with-bits.html
this is exactly what makes me feel weird, u are perfectly happy to compare price with M$, while definitely not want to compare their function.
you think $400~$500 can't be justified, how about Adobe Creative Suite? PPC version, cost $1200. You only use 5% of office's function doesn't mean its other functions don't deserve more money.
I can't believe how attrocious it is M$ isn't adopting OpenDocument XML. Pages better use OpenDocument as standard!!!
When will the bigs corps get it? Universal standard = better for everyone.
When will the bigs corps get it? Universal standard = better for everyone.
Microsoft doesn't adopt the OpenDocument standard because... (I think)
Microsoft Office has a long history, and up to now, it has a very large user base. If they are going to use an universal standard, current users may switch to other alternatives. To keep its industry-leading market share, a unique file format is one of simplest solutions, so that users will stick with MS Office.
Microsoft Office has a long history, and up to now, it has a very large user base. If they are going to use an universal standard, current users may switch to other alternatives. To keep its industry-leading market share, a unique file format is one of simplest solutions, so that users will stick with MS Office.
They are using a "universal standard".
If everyone is forced to upgrade from Office 2003, XP and 2000 because of the new "security vulnerabilities" that are being "found" on a "daily" "basis", and a new format is the default, where if you write a new document it automatically becomes *.docx or when you open, change and press save, it gets "upgraded" to *.docx, then it becomes "the universal standard" because everyone in the universe has been made to use it.
All governmental organizations will be using MSOOXML because they will upgrade to the latest versions to ensure that they are not suseptable to unpatched security vulnerabilities from previous versions.
All companies that deal with the government will upgrade to read the documents and submit them back in the "expected" format.
Think FCC, where they do a ton of stuff in Excel using nested tables, VB and Macros, things that have never worked in OpenOffice (Nested Tables are the real complaint that I have because it prevents reading the documents).
If everyone is forced to upgrade from Office 2003, XP and 2000 because of the new "security vulnerabilities" that are being "found" on a "daily" "basis", and a new format is the default, where if you write a new document it automatically becomes *.docx or when you open, change and press save, it gets "upgraded" to *.docx, then it becomes "the universal standard" because everyone in the universe has been made to use it.
All governmental organizations will be using MSOOXML because they will upgrade to the latest versions to ensure that they are not suseptable to unpatched security vulnerabilities from previous versions.
All companies that deal with the government will upgrade to read the documents and submit them back in the "expected" format.
Think FCC, where they do a ton of stuff in Excel using nested tables, VB and Macros, things that have never worked in OpenOffice (Nested Tables are the real complaint that I have because it prevents reading the documents).
Iwork lookalike already available
http://www.x-tables.eu/more/overview.html
This is more like the screenshot than Mesa and is pretty good to use, do not know where it will stand when Iworks 07 is released though.
I use pages all the time and do all sorts of Flyers and books using it, I find it quicker and more enjoyable. Looking forward to some extra's especially the ability to comment on images and charts etc as well as text...
http://www.x-tables.eu/more/overview.html
This is more like the screenshot than Mesa and is pretty good to use, do not know where it will stand when Iworks 07 is released though.
I use pages all the time and do all sorts of Flyers and books using it, I find it quicker and more enjoyable. Looking forward to some extra's especially the ability to comment on images and charts etc as well as text...
Poor comparison there... If psd or ai were the de-facto standards for exchanging vector or bitmap graphics you could have a point. But the sandard for image exchange is jpg, gif, and eps - all of which can be manipulated with a wide range of software of varying prices and capabilities...
If MS Works (now there is an oxymoron for you) were file-compatible with office (and available on a range of platforms), then nobody would be complaining about over-priced software and illegal monopolistic marketing practices. The only component in an of the shelf Wintel PC that has increased in price over the last two decades has been the operating system. Think about it...
lol, my comparison maybe isn't as accurate as u want, but how about the comparison I mentioned that somebody kept using? do u agree with those comparisons? i.e. do u think iWork should be compared with MS Office in functions if they are to be compared in price?
Im not arguing about the bad about monoplay and copyright software, Im just making a simple point, if u think iWork isn't competing with MS Office, then stop comparing price.
Also, I don't understand where your "standard issue" comes from, there is no standard of process of doing something (so called functionalities), if u want to make a chart, diagram, plot, its not excel is standard, its that excel can do it, while others can't.
so the thing is that you already know how to use it
Having grown up don´t using MS office for school work etc, MS Office doesn't cut the mustard .Don´t get me wrong, word specially the first versions in mac are nice but as a exange format is dreadfull, and excel couldn't make a decent scientific graph even if all the MS income was bet on it and powerpoint is a pain in the butt.
if you has tasted better things for your needs and you are forced to use MS office because is the only program of this kind that accounting would accept, they already paid for it in a volume licence.
Having grown up don´t using MS office for school work etc, MS Office doesn't cut the mustard
.Don´t get me wrong, word specially the first versions in mac are nice but as a exange format is dreadfull, and excel couldn't make a decent scientific graph even if all the MS income was bet on it and powerpoint is a pain in the butt.if you has tasted better things for your needs and you are forced to use MS office because is the only program of this kind that accounting would accept, they already paid for it in a volume licence.
Having grown up don´t using MS office for school work etc, MS Office doesn't cut the mustard
if you has tasted better things for your needs and you are forced to use MS office because is the only program of this kind that accounting would accept, they already paid for it in a volume licence.
so what are u using for scientific graph? mathematics? matlab? origin?
oh yeah, I hope origin had a mac version, its very good, at least as good as this one u are using.
yes, I have to say, the function plotting in excel is painful, u can't just input a equation and expect a curve. but still, it can do most of the data plotting and simple analysis such as regression equation, extrapolation etc.
and to be honest, the software u listed, as well as origin, are beyond the market majority, mostly they are only used by professionals.
as weel as excel
The only reason most of the people can afford excel is due to volume licenses.
if everybody would have to pay 500$ that office cost none would use it. That is another problem in volume would not be much differences in price but the company has already buy excel so is "free" so using the right tool became specially difficult.
I don't find excel good in anything just barelly good enough for a lot of thing and with training easilly available.
The only reason most of the people can afford excel is due to volume licenses.
if everybody would have to pay 500$ that office cost none would use it. That is another problem in volume would not be much differences in price but the company has already buy excel so is "free" so using the right tool became specially difficult.
I don't find excel good in anything just barelly good enough for a lot of thing and with training easilly available.
I'd like to look back at ClarisWorks and AppleWorks and see what can be salvaged conceptually from them and add OpenDoc (not OpenDocument) type features to compete with Office and OLE. The *Works programs had wordprocessing, database, spreadsheet, drawing, painting and presentation. OpenDoc had the concept of container docs that could contain elements from any combination of modules, with the dynamic content changing with underlying element editting. I do see shades of this in Apple products. For me Pages remains like a layout program that needs a more efficient text-entry module. For me Word grew from acceptable as a real document processing system in the late 80s/early 90s to a bloated, non-functional mess by the late 90s and onward. I had to use it extensively for technical documentation after being forced away from Framemaker. Pages could compete with something better than Word, IMO. It's already conceptually based on a more coherent framework. As far as competing with Excel, it's doable, but one has to wonder whether it's worth the effort. Excel is really by far the most useful component of Office, but it's only a spreadsheet after all. One must assign a value to development costs of a spreadsheet vs. value to installed base. Apple could implement a fairly simple set of spreadsheet functionality and address the majority of its target market. For me, I'll probably upgrade iWork when the new version appears. It's a pretty inexpensive way to get decent functionality. I personally cannot justify regular price for Office....to me it's fairly flawed software and overly expensive to boot. As always, YMMV....
I used iWork when it was first released, but didn't stick with it. I suppose I was so used to Word and Quark and had no need for Pages.
I then tried iWork 06, saw the improvements, but again didn't stay with it.
If a spreadsheet application appears, then I will again give it a try. I use Excel quite a bit and if the new Apple offering were to offer Excel compatibility I would defo be there.
I then tried iWork 06, saw the improvements, but again didn't stay with it.
If a spreadsheet application appears, then I will again give it a try. I use Excel quite a bit and if the new Apple offering were to offer Excel compatibility I would defo be there.
A nice critique.
OpenDoc was an incredible concept. Someday, I'd like to know the real reason why Apple abandoned it.
As for Pages, Apple could borrow a page from PageMaker (so to speak), which opens a text-only editing window when double-clicking on a text block. If implemented properly (which I don't think it was in PageMaker), it could get around the complaint that Pages behaves more like a page layout application than a word processor. (Though I think this is far more perception than reality.)
Why doesn't Apple just buy Adobe?
Why doesn't Apple just buy Adobe?
Seems to me that if Apple owned PhotoShop that this would effectively prevent for all time the chance that Microsoft might threaten to stop developing Office for Mac. Apple could simply counter by threatening to stop developing PhotoShop for Windows.
By buying Adobe, Apple would own the creative side of computing, while Microsoft would own the business side. Each needs the other to survive.
Perfect parity.
Permanent symbiosis.
Why doesn't Apple just buy Adobe?
Seems to me that if Apple owned PhotoShop that this would effectively prevent for all time the chance that Microsoft might threaten to stop developing Office for Mac. Apple could simply counter by threatening to stop developing PhotoShop for Windows.
By buying Adobe, Apple would own the creative side of computing, while Microsoft would own the business side. Each needs the other to survive.
Perfect parity.
Permanent symbiosis.