Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How about a spreadsheet more like Lotus Improv, (something familiar enough to Steve) ? It is about time someone tried to move forward with a better paradigm for creating spreadsheets, one that properly separates formulas from data in an organized way.

I don't expect it, though.
 
Loge said:
How about a spreadsheet more like Lotus Improv, (something familiar enough to Steve) ? It is about time someone tried to move forward with a better paradigm for creating spreadsheets, one that properly separates formulas from data in an organized way.

I don't expect it, though.

OK
but it has to be totally compatible with excel so you can share and do work across platforms :D
 
This is the problem

Platform said:
OK
but it has to be totally compatible with excel so you can share and do work across platforms :D

See - this is where the main problem is. If everything has to be compatible with somethiing so poorly designed and structured, made by a company who laughs in the face of industry standards, it will be impossible for Apple to come up with anything as good as they could otherwise come up with.

There's only one solution. iWork for Mac and iWork for Windows become downloadable as FREE software from Apple, and Apple sneaks into its HP iPod deal that they have to include a copy of it free in each HP compter. Make the productivity suite field the same as the Quicktime/Real/WMP field - where all 3 are considered acceptable when sending data from one person to another. Sneak into the iWork suite some clever advertising for Mac hardware or software and write its development off as an advertising expense. Maybe even offer a "Pro" version that a user can upgrade to for $30.

Do it, Steve, do it!
 
jsalzer said:
See - this is where the main problem is. If everything has to be compatible with somethiing so poorly designed and structured, made by a company who laughs in the face of industry standards, it will be impossible for Apple to come up with anything as good as they could otherwise come up with.

There's only one solution. iWork for Mac and iWork for Windows become downloadable as FREE software from Apple, and Apple sneaks into its HP iPod deal that they have to include a copy of it free in each HP compter. Make the productivity suite field the same as the Quicktime/Real/WMP field - where all 3 are considered acceptable when sending data from one person to another. Sneak into the iWork suite some clever advertising for Mac hardware or software and write its development off as an advertising expense. Maybe even offer a "Pro" version that a user can upgrade to for $30.

Do it, Steve, do it!

Very nice suggestion :D a bit bad with the always compatible part tough :eek:
 
jsalzer said:
There's only one solution. iWork for Mac and iWork for Windows become downloadable as FREE software from Apple, and Apple sneaks into its HP iPod deal that they have to include a copy of it free in each HP computer. Make the productivity suite field the same as the Quicktime/Real/WMP field - where all 3 are considered acceptable when sending data from one person to another. Sneak into the iWork suite some clever advertising for Mac hardware or software and write its development off as an advertising expense. Maybe even offer a "Pro" version that a user can upgrade to for $30.

Do it, Steve, do it!

A little thinking out of the box is good. I just hope that Steve and company are doing the same.
 
jsalzer said:
There's only one solution. iWork for Mac and iWork for Windows become downloadable as FREE software from Apple, and Apple sneaks into its HP iPod deal that they have to include a copy of it free in each HP compter. Make the productivity suite field the same as the Quicktime/Real/WMP field - where all 3 are considered acceptable when sending data from one person to another. Sneak into the iWork suite some clever advertising for Mac hardware or software and write its development off as an advertising expense. Maybe even offer a "Pro" version that a user can upgrade to for $30.

Do it, Steve, do it!
A few of my friends and I were talking about this the other day. This is truly the long term method of overcoming this compatibility issue with the MS Office Suite. Don't see it happening near term though.

iWork is the thing I am looking most forward to next week. I hope it is true.
 
Loge said:
How about a spreadsheet more like Lotus Improv, (something familiar enough to Steve) ? It is about time someone tried to move forward with a better paradigm for creating spreadsheets, one that properly separates formulas from data in an organized way.

I don't expect it, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Improv

I never tried it, but it sounds nice. Especially the Steve/ NeXT factor. If not exactly the same, at least something similar. It would be different, a much better reason for iWork spreadsheet program to exist than primarily GUI improvements.
 
jsalzer said:
See - this is where the main problem is. If everything has to be compatible with somethiing so poorly designed and structured, made by a company who laughs in the face of industry standards, it will be impossible for Apple to come up with anything as good as they could otherwise come up with.

I, like many people, have a large number of old, still in use, spreadsheets that I must have access to in the future. These are in Excel formats. I don't like Microsucks but any thing I switch to _must_ be able to read Excel files. I'm not going to give up all my accumulated 20 years of work.

As much as you want to believe otherwise, Apple is not going to convert the rest of the world. There will always be a large number of people using Excel file formats and anything new needs to be able to communicate with those file formats.

Lastly, just because a program can read and write (import/export) a file format does not mean that it's internal structure needs to be the same.

On the other hand, the marketing idea you present is excellent. Go work for Apple. :)

-Walter
in Vermont
also on a Pismo
 
kcmac said:
A few of my friends and I were talking about this the other day. This is truly the long term method of overcoming this compatibility issue with the MS Office Suite. Don't see it happening near term though.

iWork is the thing I am looking most forward to next week. I hope it is true.

I'm at a point now that I don't have to worry about compatibly. So I will be willing to give this new software suite a try. Although it will need to accept my current documents.
 
wdlove said:
I'm at a point now that I don't have to worry about compatibly. So I will be willing to give this new software suite a try. Although it will need to accept my current documents.

Being able to use your current documents IS compatibility. It's not only with others.
 
Raven VII said:
I wonder maybe Pages is both Apple's answer to Frontpage, and Apple's answer to people's complaints about how simplistic HomePage is. Maybe it's a website creation software, and will be integrated with .Mac? That'd be cool.

I'm anticipating iWork more than the headless Mac.

It would be bad if it only came with .Mac and not the iWork package instead
 
What I would like it to be is an XML based word processor. What I think the world needs is a way for people to easily write content, without having to fight about the presentation aspects of it - this would cover 90% of the documents in the world. MS Word, Open Office and others have the problem that the format/presentation is an intrinsic part of the document. This is useful for things like faxes or letters to people, but not for large-scale documentation, books, manuals, reports. While a document can be based on a template, changes to that template don't affect the documents that were based on it. And currently, information in these types of files are just about impossible to integrate into larger solutions.

Most companies/organizations have all of these standard formats and templates, but even with it, something like 50% of a user's time goes towards formatting the document, rather than writing the content. In some cases, companies pay to have document formatters on staff just so they can make the documents look like thy're supposed to, or convert them between formats. With an XML based suite, most people could focus on content, and only a few (custom or canned) style sheets would be required.

Yet, amazingly, there are no good XML documentation office solutions that I've been able to find. A few half decent generic XML editors, and quite a few overly expensive enterprise level content management systems, but not an office suite solution.

Not to mention all of the other benefits that would come from XML - searchability and indexing, metadata, simplified publishing to other formats (ie website and manuals), readability, ability to integrate into other IT infrastructures, etc...

I know in the organization I work for, it would be wonderful. If I had the time, I'd be starting an open source one...
 
jsalzer said:
There's only one solution. iWork for Mac and iWork for Windows become downloadable as FREE software from Apple, and Apple sneaks into its HP iPod deal that they have to include a copy of it free in each HP compter. Make the productivity suite field the same as the Quicktime/Real/WMP field - where all 3 are considered acceptable when sending data from one person to another. Sneak into the iWork suite some clever advertising for Mac hardware or software and write its development off as an advertising expense. Maybe even offer a "Pro" version that a user can upgrade to for $30.

Do it, Steve, do it!

That is an excellent idea. I would argue that Microsoft's biggest monopoly lock is MS Office, not Windows itself. By taking the profit side out of the office suite, that might break their back and open up the market once again.
 
salmon said:
What I would like it to be is an XML based word processor. What I think the world needs is a way for people to easily write content, without having to fight about the presentation aspects of it - this would cover 90% of the documents in the world. MS Word, Open Office and others have the problem that the format/presentation is an intrinsic part of the document. This is useful for things like faxes or letters to people, but not for large-scale documentation, books, manuals, reports. While a document can be based on a template, changes to that template don't affect the documents that were based on it. And currently, information in these types of files are just about impossible to integrate into larger solutions.

Most companies/organizations have all of these standard formats and templates, but even with it, something like 50% of a user's time goes towards formatting the document, rather than writing the content. In some cases, companies pay to have document formatters on staff just so they can make the documents look like thy're supposed to, or convert them between formats. With an XML based suite, most people could focus on content, and only a few (custom or canned) style sheets would be required.

Yet, amazingly, there are no good XML documentation office solutions that I've been able to find. A few half decent generic XML editors, and quite a few overly expensive enterprise level content management systems, but not an office suite solution.

Not to mention all of the other benefits that would come from XML - searchability and indexing, metadata, simplified publishing to other formats (ie website and manuals), readability, ability to integrate into other IT infrastructures, etc...

I know in the organization I work for, it would be wonderful. If I had the time, I'd be starting an open source one...

I wouldn't be surpriseed if Apple did that. With Spotlight coming in Tiger, as well as the fact that Keynote's file format is XML based, I think it's possible to expect that 'Pages' will also use XML.

Here's to wishes. :)
 
rdowns said:
Being able to use your current documents IS compatibility. It's not only with others.

I know what they say about assume, but I figured that the new program would import my current documents. It always seemed to be that sending was the problem.
 
HasanDaddy said:
I am so JAZZED for this

If there is ONE company out there that is looking to get its @ss kicked, then clearly, its M$

We ALL know that M$ is inferior technology --- the WinDoze OS is inferior, MS OFFICE is inferior, and simple things, like their own internet browser, have already met EXTINCTION

M$, with its lousy products, are ASKING for M$ Office to become EXTINCT

CROSSBOW 'THIS' BILL GATES!!!!

Sigh, I think you need to take a step back and actually think for a moment about this complex you have with Microsoft, while I do not always agree with there business practices I do respect a company that can make an OS that is relatively user friendly and always consistant in the way it operates, have you tried developing a program for a billion and 1 different configurations? Apple products always work well because the hardware they design for is very limited. They control the hardware and software, everything that goes in a Mac is decided by Apple, Microsoft controls only the software. So you can see why sometimes there products are less stable.

Why all the MS hate? Despite what you may want to believe Microsoft has done some very cool things with the hand they have been dealt.

Besides, if there OS was reliable I'd be out of a job.

;)
 
enclave said:
Why all the MS hate? Despite what you may want to believe Microsoft has done some very cool things with the hand they have been dealt.

Most of the reasons are well explained here. Not all, but many.

I actively try to make sure the company that has stagnated and done such damage to the IT industry doesn't ever receive another dime of my money. Not easy to do mind you, but I try :)

And, try as I might, I can't come up with anything that MS has done that I would consider cool. (OK, I admit I didn't try very hard :) ). All of the MS products I don't hate, they bought from someone else and haven't had quite enough time to fully ruin yet (Visio, SQL Server). Hotmail is a great example of what happens when MS gets its hands on something decent.

If MS was my only choice for computers these days (as they'd prefer), I'd become a luddite.
 
enclave said:
Sigh, I think you need to take a step back and actually think for a moment about this complex you have with Microsoft, while I do not always agree with there business practices I do respect a company that can make an OS that is relatively user friendly and always consistant in the way it operates, have you tried developing a program for a billion and 1 different configurations? Apple products always work well because the hardware they design for is very limited. They control the hardware and software, everything that goes in a Mac is decided by Apple, Microsoft controls only the software. So you can see why sometimes there products are less stable.

Why all the MS hate? Despite what you may want to believe Microsoft has done some very cool things with the hand they have been dealt.

Besides, if there OS was reliable I'd be out of a job.

;)
An OS operating within the parameters that you state is an achievement to be certain, but too have programs that are produced by the same company that can cause a system to be unstable or unreliable is inexcusable especially when you write the OS and the program (e.g. office)the problem is is microsoft is trying to be everything to everyone and they just can't do it. I am not saying Apple can, but Microsoft does a very poor job of it
 
mattmack said:
An OS operating within the parameters that you state is an achievement to be certain, but too have programs that are produced by the same company that can cause a system to be unstable or unreliable is inexcusable especially when you write the OS and the program (e.g. office)the problem is is microsoft is trying to be everything to everyone and they just can't do it. I am not saying Apple can, but Microsoft does a very poor job of it

i would say a fair job, if it was poor they would have failed and died out long ago. The products Microsoft make "work" as stated. I have long given up on using a pc for work, merely for play.
 
enclave said:
Sigh, I think you need to take a step back and actually think for a moment about this complex you have with Microsoft, while I do not always agree with there business practices I do respect a company that can make an OS that is relatively user friendly and always consistant in the way it operates, have you tried developing a program for a billion and 1 different configurations? Apple products always work well because the hardware they design for is very limited. They control the hardware and software, everything that goes in a Mac is decided by Apple, Microsoft controls only the software. So you can see why sometimes there products are less stable.

Why all the MS hate? Despite what you may want to believe Microsoft has done some very cool things with the hand they have been dealt.

Besides, if there OS was reliable I'd be out of a job.

;)

Good point about the knee jerk bashing. The OS wars are so 90's.

I think the ms hate is mostly about their ruthless, often illegal, business practices. They essentially took their OS monopoly(which was largely handed to them by IBM) and leveraged it into every other product they make. Its nice to be able to sell the xbox at a $300 loss when you have the Windows cash cow. Or sell the Office bundle for the price of one copy of Lotus or Wordperfect. Or offer IE for free... tough to compete against a company that doesn't need the money...

And the argument about the complexity of windows configurations doesn't work anymore. Maybe ten years ago, but not now. There are only a few manufacturers left, and they make basically the same machines. 99% of desktop windows machines have Intel or AMD chipsets, Nvidia or ATI video, some off the shelf drives and RAM and thats about it. Not all that different from Macs anymore. 3rd party peripherals don't apply since the majority are now either usb or firewire, making them largely conflict-free(at least compared to the way it used to be). There is still some proprietary stuff in laptops, but, again, since there are relatively few vendors left, its much simpler for MS to get things to work right.
 
salmon said:
What I would like it to be is an XML based word processor. What I think the world needs is a way for people to easily write content, without having to fight about the presentation aspects of it - this would cover 90% of the documents in the world. MS Word, Open Office and others have the problem that the format/presentation is an intrinsic part of the document. This is useful for things like faxes or letters to people, but not for large-scale documentation, books, manuals, reports. While a document can be based on a template, changes to that template don't affect the documents that were based on it. And currently, information in these types of files are just about impossible to integrate into larger solutions.

Most companies/organizations have all of these standard formats and templates, but even with it, something like 50% of a user's time goes towards formatting the document, rather than writing the content. In some cases, companies pay to have document formatters on staff just so they can make the documents look like thy're supposed to, or convert them between formats. With an XML based suite, most people could focus on content, and only a few (custom or canned) style sheets would be required.

Yet, amazingly, there are no good XML documentation office solutions that I've been able to find. A few half decent generic XML editors, and quite a few overly expensive enterprise level content management systems, but not an office suite solution.

Not to mention all of the other benefits that would come from XML - searchability and indexing, metadata, simplified publishing to other formats (ie website and manuals), readability, ability to integrate into other IT infrastructures, etc...

Yes, Yes, Yes!!! Music to my ears!
 
macidiot said:
Good point about the knee jerk bashing. The OS wars are so 90's.

I think the ms hate is mostly about their ruthless, often illegal, business practices. They essentially took their OS monopoly(which was largely handed to them by IBM) and leveraged it into every other product they make. Its nice to be able to sell the xbox at a $300 loss when you have the Windows cash cow. Or sell the Office bundle for the price of one copy of Lotus or Wordperfect. Or offer IE for free... tough to compete against a company that doesn't need the money...

And the argument about the complexity of windows configurations doesn't work anymore. Maybe ten years ago, but not now. There are only a few manufacturers left, and they make basically the same machines. 99% of desktop windows machines have Intel or AMD chipsets, Nvidia or ATI video, some off the shelf drives and RAM and thats about it. Not all that different from Macs anymore. 3rd party peripherals don't apply since the majority are now either usb or firewire, making them largely conflict-free(at least compared to the way it used to be). There is still some proprietary stuff in laptops, but, again, since there are relatively few vendors left, its much simpler for MS to get things to work right.

Touche!

I read the link a few post above, MS has an interesting take on how to run a business, they have done really well, killing competition and making innovation through passive observation of the industry, then when something big happens, they just muscle in or buy out the innovtors, excellent sense business wise but only harms the consumer in the end. I'm highly convinced that open source is the way to go OS wise, I really applaud Apple's stance on the subject and it was one of the reasons I bought a mac.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.