First Looks at Mac Microsoft Office 2008

[wjbombo]

why are you using Excel for such large spreadsheets? Aren't there better programs for doing that kind of analysis in your field?

crackpip

Yeah, good point. I'm still amazed how many people I've come across trying to use Excel as a database. It's like an auto mechanic changing the oil on a car with a screwdriver... "Just poke a hole in the oil pan, let it drain, then plug the hole when it's done. Works great!"

or better yet... Jeff Spicoli...

"Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it."

Peace,
Will

 

[gauchogolfer]

If some of you don't mind responding, why are you using Excel for such large spreadsheets? Aren't there better programs for doing that kind of analysis in your field? For the data I work with, there are scripting/visualization languages like NCL or IDL. There are other programs like Mathematica or Matlab. Then, of course, I write specific analysis programs, too. GPS data seems like a good candidate for something besides Excel. Certainly climate data is being geared more towards NCL/NCAR Graphics.

I really dislike Office, but what really gets me is how often I'm forced to use it. Although, hehe, as people force me to use Office, I've started forcing other people to deal with my PDF's so I can then use whatever program I want (mostly LaTeX because of my derivations).

crackpip

For our data reduction, we certainly do use IDL to crunch on large amounts of data, as well as MatLAB. I would use Origin for my plotting if I had the opportunity, but the corporate licensing is exorbitantly high. I guess my answer is that while I don't necessarily use Excel for looking at large arrays of data very often, I was often limited back when it only supported 256 columns. I think that 16000 will keep me sorted for awhile yet.

BTW, I work for a company that makes large sensors for visible/IR cameras, so we deal with many-megapixel arrays.

 

[nemaslov]

I have used the older versions for years and love it. I use Entourage for my email and think it is great. The personal/student version for $150. or $129. at Amazon and can be used on up to three computers. Has everything that most personal users would need.

 

[iSee]

Yeah, good point. I'm still amazed how many people I've come across trying to use Excel as a database. It's like an auto mechanic changing the oil on a car with a screwdriver... "Just poke a hole in the oil pan, let it drain, then plug the hole when it's done. Works great!"

or better yet... Jeff Spicoli...

"Relax, all right? My old man is a television repairman, he's got this ultimate set of tools. I can fix it."

Peace,
Will

I ran in to the 64K row limit when pulling data from a database or log file into Excel. Excel is very useful as a general "data mining" tool. It was usually not that big of a deal since, ultimately, I'd just want to get at some aggregate data (I could go back to the source and re-query), but it would have been useful to just load it all into Excel and figure out exactly how I wanted to break it down later. The back and forth was annoying...

 

[iSee]

One person's bloat...

I actually loved it when MS word did word processing (i.e. I type, it corrects my spelling and grammar). I do like some of the list printing features as one person pointed out... but I think MS and others would better service the customers by giving us reliability and speed over fancy features I'd rather leave to the DTP applications.

No Macro support? Now that is a shame... must be another ploy to try and keep corporate america on Windoze.

Heh, we complain about bloat, and we complain when features are cut

 

[spinne1]

This comment makes no sense. You do realize that regardless whether a person uses a Mac or a Windows based machine Microsoft gets a sale either way.

Office is one of Microsoft's largest money making divisions. Why would they want to exclude the Apple market share?

Most mac users have purchased their fair share of software from Microsoft, especially if they are running VM's or boot camp. Microsoft makes money either way. However if they alienate the Apple users then they lose software sales they do not gain OS market share.

Your logic is flawed. Yes, MS makes money on every sale of Office. But they also make money on every sale of Windows as well. Therefore, they have a huge incentive to cripple the Mac version of Office because that would diminish the appeal of the Mac to many current Windows users. If compatibility was perfect then many more would switch (why is there no Access or Outlook on the Mac?--for more on the second question-->http://blog.entourage.mvps.org/2007/05/why_did_microsoft_replace_outl.html)

Microsoft has more to lose with Windows users flocking to the Mac than to gain from Mac users buying Office.

It is not strictly a market share issue (ie numbers of copies of Windows OS sold), but a control of the market (particularly corporate market) issue. MS's bank is fat because the entire corporate infrastructure in the US (and the world) is largely reliant upon MS's products. THAT is what they want desperately to maintain and they can see a trend starting towards Apple that scares them to death (and rightly should.)

What Apple should do (and I think will do) is perfect the software needed to not only compete but downright destroy the Microsoft advantage. Take iWork and make it perfect for all of corporate America. Make it so good and powerful and yet still easy to use that companies will find it hard to resist once tried (word of mouth is a major part of this type of thing). Right now Apple still tries hard to meet the needs of the home user or small business user but not so much corporate America. When that changes, the market share will boom.

 

[cgc]

The pricing seems outrageous...especially when iWork is so much cheaper and nearly as capable. I have been a Nisus Writer convert for several years and with Nisus Writer Pro out I can't be happier.

Excel's inability to display more than 256 columns was a serious limitation as I used it at work for a yearly work schedule with one column per day...glad to see Excel 2008 at least supporting larger spreadsheets...

 

[Phormic]

What's the deal with MAPI? I can't think of a reason why they can't include it. I find it ridiculous that Microsoft's solution for getting Exchange connectivity on a Mac isn't 100% compatible. Now I have to keep running VMWare just to read my work email.

I can think of a very good reason. To ensure that Macs are just that little bit more difficult to integrate into a Microsoft owned corporate environment.

It really is infuriating. To leave MAPI support out is quite deliberate.

 

[137489]

What gauchogolfer said, plus I'm not sure we're getting the whole story on macro support. Anyone got links? It seems more likely to me they're switching languages rather than unceremoniously dumping macro support in toto, which is a huge, huge Excel feature, and the largest advantage it has over Numbers in my mind. I'm sure it's a nice, big security hazard, but so is having employees use computers in the first place. Turning them off closes that security hazard, and cripples their productivity.

In any case, today Windows Office does support macros, and as long as it does Mac Excel users will be at an enormous disadvantage if they need compatibility. Especially if it takes MS this long to pump out their next (supposedly entirely macro-less) version....

Here is a link - this is the most I could find on Google.... One of the reply's was from a MACBU guy at MS. Take it for what it is worth.

http://www.brad-x.com/2007/11/10/the-shame-of-microsofts-mac-business-unit

 

[Prez1082]

I'm just looking forward to PowerPoint and Entourage not running soooooo slooooowwwwwww - even on my MacBook it's painfully slow - will this version fix it?

"...It's been a long time between drinks for Mac users waiting for a new version of Office..."

With the exception of Palmerized in the first post, I've not heard of anyone wanting or needing an upgrade to Office. Specifically to Palmerized: why do you look forward to it? It is simply the "something new" factor, or are there some features of Office that you need and are not present in the shipping version? Sure it looks different and may perform advanced functions easier, but do you use any of those functions? Personally I've not used Office in years and I don't even launch iWork all that much. TexEdit is my go-to workhorse for anything that isn't page-layout.

I work for a Mac reseller and I know that almost our entire user base uses Office simply for MS Word to write simple letters and school papers. 90%+ of that work could just as easily have been completed with Mac's TextEdit program for free.
For those looking for more complex layout, I always suggest iWork at 1/2 the price (of Student Teacher) first. It's faster, easier and integrates with all your other media on the Mac more easily.
The maybe 2% of people who actually "need" Office are those who are sending documents via email to others who will edit and return those documents. Sure you could do this with iWork via export, but it's an extra step and you really have to use the menu items or be a contortionist to hit the shortcut key for "Save as...". iWork needs a "default to Microsoft" save option.
Even for those who send lots of documents, most don't need the recipient to edit them, and I still suggest iWork and "Save as PDF", it's more universal and no worries about changes on the other end.

So I really do want to know... what is in it for the consumer to get an Office upgrade? I know what's in it for MS, lots of money.

 

[Virgil-TB2]

meh

Hardly a "first look."

This is more of an abbreviated list of features without much commentary at all. Almost the only time if varies from this script is when it bends over to kiss MS's collective bum.

With the constant development of Keynote, Powerpoint is finally coming up against some serious competition."

WTF? Most people I know who've tried both thought that Keynote beat PowerPoint hands down in it's first iteration. How is it that Keynote version 3 is only now "serious competition?"

 

[jettredmont]

[i complained that you can't paste a graphic into Word without breaking Windows compatibility]

Drag in a JPEG. That works fine. I do agree that Word for Window's inability to read TIFF files and cut/paste of images from a Mac is a serious drag in life.

Well, yeah. Except that, most of the time when I want a graphic in a document, it's not starting life as an image file, but instead as an OmniGraffle document (which Word can't embed) or a screen shot on the clipboard. There is no JPEG or PDF to work from, just the graphics which are on the clipboard! Granted, the clipboard graphics are PICT format graphics, but every other development shop has figured out how to convert from PICT to something more portable (like, say, PNG or PDF); why can't Microsoft?

Saving everything to a file is a painful workaround. Yes, it works. But, it makes Office stand out as a serious productivity impediment. A "productivity tool" impeding my workflow (and I don't think cut/paste is a terribly novel workflow) means that it has failed its primary mission in life.

Perhaps the worst part of this whole issue is that there is absolutely no indication that the files you are writing and saving are not "standard" Word documents. I know that in our office, where we were 100% Macs for writing documentation until a new boss came in who wanted everything readable on his Windows desktop, just about every technical document shows up on the Boss's desktop with no visible graphics. That just plain sucks. Years and years of technical documentation, and if the boss man wants to see any of it, we have to bring it up on a Mac and print to PDF for him (or, worse, if he wants to be able to amend any docs we have to save each image out to disk using special incantations and re-import each one, then resave the document). And, it shows that pretty much everyone else in the company generating documentation of any sort was also using clipboard paste as the primary way of getting their pretty graphics into Word!

Microsoft has known about this issue forever, and refused to do anything about it. Fixing it would be so damned easy. Heck, pay me a consultant fee for a week and I'll fix it for you!

So, like I said: if this issue isn't fixed, I'm not upgrading. There's simply no reason to do so. The alternatives are just as likely to produce an Office/Win compatible document, and cost a hell of a lot less!

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Let's hope it doesn't feel like this...

Usually each version of an M$ product feels and looks like that... M$ seems to add to a product not develop.

 

[DaBrain]

I'm actually looking forward to this release. It hit home last week when I was trying to print some file labels ... NeoOffice completely bungled a simple label format. I ended up switching to MS Office on my Dell and it got the labels perfect on the first go.


($649 or $399 for an upgrade) or an Office 2008 for Mac Special Media Edition ($849, or $549 for upgrade)

Well for that price the damn thing should make love to ya, put ya to sleep, cook dinner and clean house!

Unreal!

 

[jettredmont]

I have gone over the limit several times at work. It is very inconvenient so Im glad theyve improved that aspect since I dont think it would be too hard to do.

(emphasis mine)

Actually, you'd e amazed at how hard it is to increase the row/column limits in a program designed around specific row/column limits. Of course, you'd have thought that they would have already made their limits "huge" instead of just "larger" when they expanded beyond the 256 column limitations by changing all the single-bytes to quad-byte words or such ... but apparently they had only thought ahead one or two years back then.

Really, though, this is a sure sign of low-level over-optimization. Having a more dynamic row/column max size would be great for a large number of users, but decrease performance by a (non-humanly-perceptible) 1-5%. Thus, it is not done. Instead, just trade one hard-coded static max size for another slightly larger hard-coded static max size.

 

[MacRumors0108]

No Macro support?

No Macro Support is a deal breaker. Numbers covered one of the reasons I bought Excel in the first place (no viable alternative). Lack of Macro support in Excel 2008 covers the other (be able to work on files form the office at home).

I'll continue to hobble along with Excel 2004 on my G5, but will gladly dump MS with my next machine and migrate to the Apple suite.

 

[Glenny2lappies]

It's not worth upgrading - it's worse than the current version

AFAICS there is absolutely NO reason to upgrade. The new version adds few features that are new (dicking around with the UI isn't a feature). With the lack of Macro support, they've taken away more than they've added. From what I see the new UI is a confused mess.

The only solid reason for upgrading, universal support, has been completely negated by the additional bloat and pointless eye candy.

READ THE AppleInsider REVIEW before making your buying decision
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/11/12/road_to_mac_office_2008_an_introduction.html

Microsoft don't deserve your money. Buy Office 2004 and pay the $25 upgrade fee. Then you've got both versions.

And for those whinging about 1M rows not being enough in Excel, do yourself a favour and use the right tool for the job; a database. Which, of course, reminds us that Microsoft have elected to not build Access for Macs -- despite its evil habits, it's a useful database application.

 

[nadyne]

Is this really a longterm decision that MBU made or is no macro support just a response until the MBU gets a clear directive about the future of Mac Office? I think Microsoft is near the end of it's agreement to support Mac for office.

Upon the creation of the MacBU, Microsoft signed a five-year agreement with Apple to support Macs for five years. That agreement expired, and we continued to make new Mac products. Office 2004 was shipped after the expiration of the original agreement, as were a few versions of Messenger:Mac, and Remote Desktop Connection was a brand-new free download.

In 2006, on stage with Steve at MWSF, we announced a new five-year agreement to continue work on our Mac products. We did this only to quell fears that we were going to pull out of the market. Office:Mac is a successful product, so we have lots of incentive to continue to make it.

Maybe MS was willing to spend enough resources to get out MSOffice 2008 but they didn't want to work on VB for Mac until they had a better understanding of the mac market. The MBU is fairly small and may need a lot more help to take on the task of VB for intel mac.

If you want to know what led us to the decision to remove VBA, you can read a blog post from one of our lead developers: Saying Goodbye to Visual Basic. We know that this isn't optimal for some of our users, but we were in a pretty tough position. Office 2008 was already delayed, and delaying it further for in the inclusion of VBA didn't seem like a great decision to meet the needs of the majority of our users who were looking for a Universal application (not to mention some of our other features, like native support of the new XML-based file format or the million rows in Excel) sooner rather than later.

To help mitigate some of the concerns about losing VBA, we've improved our already well-established AppleScript support, and have added support for Automator. We know that this doesn't fix all of the issues involved with VBA, but hope that it can go some way towards addressing them. If you haven't seen it yet, AppleScripting genius Paul Berkowitz wrote a massive VBA to AppleScript transition guide.

Regards,
Nadyne.

 

[mzeb]

Not Quite

Don't get me wrong, I love OS X Client for home use, but OS X has a long way to go in the enterprise world, including the built in apps. I use both OS X and Windows in my environment (So tightly coupled that the Mac OS X Server is pulling it's kerb tickets and identities from the windows DC) There's a long list but here's a few points:

1) No Exchange digital signature support in Mail. Yes mail does work with exchange but when you're in need of signatures with your e-mail, Mail just doesn't cut it. I'd be happy if some other protocol support but exchange is it.
2) NFS Compatibility: The NLM support in the nfs client makes life interesting, as in, one delayed NLM packed and the finder will claim your share is disconnected. To make things worse, it actually isn't... I leave that up to you. But MS's NFS support is still better than Apple's, if you consider Sun the standard (they do own the NFS RFC after all )
3) User/Machine Policy - trying to manage users and machines and how the two interact is something MS has down with AD. Mac OS X's tools for managing large networks and rule bases just aren't there yet. Furthermore, when you have multiple admins working on different sections of the network it is far easier to step on each other's toes in the directory and not know it with OS X
4) Backup. Need I say more. MS has both server and client backup down in comparison to Apple. Sorry, but time machine is a file level backup and despite having a pretty UI, it still eats space. MS has been doing block level backup since XP. C'mon Apple. You own HFS+ just like MS owns NTFS. You can do better.

Sorry, I got a little ranty there. But Apple is still pushing for the home user and hasn't made it very far in the enterprise market. Small business, maybe a bit, but not enterprise.

Excel without macros = fail. More crap being shoveled on us from the industry leader. Erwe all knew that MS would give us a sub par product tho. The Mac OS is just a productivity suite away from replacing Ms in the enterprise.

 

[gauchogolfer]

Thanks for the response, Nadyne, and for the link on VBA->Applescript.

And for those whinging about 1M rows not being enough in Excel, do yourself a favour and use the right tool for the job; a database. Which, of course, reminds us that Microsoft have elected to not build Access for Macs -- despite its evil habits, it's a useful database application.

I didn't see anyone here complaining that 1M rows weren't enough. My only earlier comment was that 256 columns was not enough for my application, and that 16000 will hold me for awhile. I don't understand how the program is written, so I can't comment on how easy/hard it would be to make unlimited- (only limited by HD space) sized spreadsheets.

 

[Loudwater]

Sorry MS... I'm using iWork now. Good luck with that price range.

P.S. I just read: "Excel without Micro"??!!! Seriously, WTF are they thinking...

 

[BWhaler]

Cool but they lost me. I went iWork '08 and have enjoyed every minute of it. I'm not even going to try the trail version of Office.

I am envious and right behind you.

Numbers is just not there yet. It's close, but it needs Pivot tables, speed, and a handful of other key features and I'll be there with you.

Microsoft Free 2009...

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Good. I'm seriously looking forward to it. Office on my MBP just isn't anywhere near as speedy as it is on my PPC... and that Ribbon, seriously, once you get used to it it's amazing.

 

[bosskxx1]

3. Doesn't spotlight work already in 2004? (rhetorical question, i know it works, but...) maybe you're looking for better functionality...

(I agree that single monolithic database sucks)

It does for Word and Excel, but not for Entourage. The spotlight indexer can't index the monolithic pst file. But thats not really a problem since you can search for e-mails within entourage. The bigger problem is with Time Machine. Any time you make a change in entourage, it updates the whole pst file. So instead of just of a few kb per backup, it ends up being a few gb per backup. According to Mac Mojo blog, the mac BU recommends that you exclude your pst file. But like most people, your e-mail is important, especially if you POP your e-mail.

What gauchogolfer said, plus I'm not sure we're getting the whole story on macro support. Anyone got links? It seems more likely to me they're switching languages rather than unceremoniously dumping macro support in toto, which is a huge, huge Excel feature, and the largest advantage it has over Numbers in my mind. I'm sure it's a nice, big security hazard, but so is having employees use computers in the first place. Turning them off closes that security hazard, and cripples their productivity.

In any case, today Windows Office does support macros, and as long as it does Mac Excel users will be at an enormous disadvantage if they need compatibility. Especially if it takes MS this long to pump out their next (supposedly entirely macro-less) version....

Here is an article that basically explains why they dropped macro support in office 2008

http://www.schwieb.com/blog/2006/08/08/saying-goodbye-to-visual-basic/

Basically they wrote the initial macro support in PPC assembly code. For those of you don't know, assembly code is the lowest form of programming. Essentially it is processor commands. This type of programming is not very portable, and very hard to work with. They concluded while this was a bad decision to do it this way, it was an acceptable form of programing in the late 90's

 

[botrash]

Beta Testing Impressions

I've been beta testing Office 2008 for the last two or three months.

First everything runs amazingly faster than 2004.

Second, don't count on much more exchange support than is currently offered in 2004. Entourage is much better looking but it provides little if any additional exchange functionality that isn't already available in 2004. You can do OOO, but not much more. It is not Outlook for the mac.

...