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.
Apple and Star Office (Sun)
- Thread starter arn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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?
MS: Office Ad's
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.
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.
StarOffice pricing
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
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
Preview of things to come
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.
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.
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
Oh. well, just my wishfull thinking
Re: My Question is
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.
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.
Re: Re: MS aren't going to be happy
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
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
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.
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.
A couple of things...
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.
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.
java apps SLOWER??\
www.getamped.org/en
check that out, and tell me if that is SLOWER under OSX?
its made in java.
www.getamped.org/en
check that out, and tell me if that is SLOWER under OSX?
its made in java.
Re: Preview of things to come
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re: Star/ Open Office discussion
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.
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.
Cocoa, Java, ObjC, etc.
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
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 $1700 iBook...
OBTW, I'm willing to bet that Microsoft makes more profit off of Office than Windows. They maybe even generate more total revenue off Office than Windows. Office, Windows, and Explorer should be all but implied when one talks about a Windows monopoly, illegal or not.
Take care,
terry
I may be wrong, but I don't think iTunes 3 is a Cocoa app. I was told a really quick way to tell if an app is Cocoa is to open a dialog with one of the 'pulsing' buttons in, and then - anywhere else on that dialog window - hold the mouse button down. If the button stops pulsing it's a Carbon app: if it keeps pulsing, it's a Cocoa app. (I may be wrong - as I'm not a Mac programmer - but it certainly seems to work for all the apps I've tried.)
Andy W
I think Apple knows exactly what they are doing. We all know that Apple is a tiny company, but we also know that Apple is really trying to do what's good for people in general. They're really our only hope against Microsoft (any other competitors?) dominating every computer in the world. Sure Jaguar may be expensive, but at least they're taking all of that money and putting it back into the end-user experience and not a phat ass waterpark in Steve Jobs backyard (Bill Gates has a digital waterpark in Puget Sound from what I've heard). So even tho I'm a college student and have little money, I'll be buying Jaguar and a .Mac membership to support Apple. **** they've given us so much for free (iApps, open source development, standards instead of propietary, etc), it's time to show them we appreciate it and help them grow.
OpenOffice and StarOffice is Apple's way of securing an office suite that cannot be held over their heads when the Microsoft vs Apple battle really heats up and Microsoft starts pullin out the trump cards (cancel Office, bring out Longhorn and Blackthorn etc.) and we all know Apple will win once it finally comes down to who has the better product instead of everyone needing to fit in with M$.
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$.
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.
Good move Apple
This was again a calculated move by apple. When classic was the only operating system, apple used M$$$$ to support a productivity suite. In the mean time, Apple developed Mac OS X. OS X appeals to Sun because it's Unix.
M$$$$ doesn't like Unix. Sun develops for Mac. Sun is happy. Apple is happy. M$$$$ out of the mac sector. Sun has openly expressed it's hatred towards M$$$$ for years. Apple has been more silent to keep peace with M$$$$. I don't think Apple cares about that relationship anymore. I really don't think Jobs would be concerned if Microsh!t went out of business tomorrow or Gates jumped off a bridge. No love lost there. I believe that Jobs is trying to bring the Trojan Horse to M$$$$. It would make Steve very happy to see Gates asking him for help someday.
This was again a calculated move by apple. When classic was the only operating system, apple used M$$$$ to support a productivity suite. In the mean time, Apple developed Mac OS X. OS X appeals to Sun because it's Unix.
M$$$$ doesn't like Unix. Sun develops for Mac. Sun is happy. Apple is happy. M$$$$ out of the mac sector. Sun has openly expressed it's hatred towards M$$$$ for years. Apple has been more silent to keep peace with M$$$$. I don't think Apple cares about that relationship anymore. I really don't think Jobs would be concerned if Microsh!t went out of business tomorrow or Gates jumped off a bridge. No love lost there. I believe that Jobs is trying to bring the Trojan Horse to M$$$$. It would make Steve very happy to see Gates asking him for help someday.
yep
"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!
"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!