Office for Mac 2011 to Be 32-Bit Only

[JAT]

You can say that all you want but apple gave them no dead line or even hint that it was going to be forced.

If apple had stated that they would not of made a 64 bit back in 2007 then the move would of happen. Instead apple said it was coming and a year later pulled out from under them. At that point for both Adobe and MS they were to far invested in the next release of their suites to go back and make the changed so the result was 32 bit only.

Also Apple has zero excuse for this as well because you have apps like iTunes that have yet to make the changed and that in itself is sad based on pushing everyone else.

For microsoft and Adobe the rewriting comes down to this. What to they have to gain from making the switch. Minor speed improvements for huge cost of money and time or betteriImprovements they can make elsewere in the code for less money and less time. I would choose the other one.

They were promised 64 bit carbon and apple broke it. That means 64 bit version by apple doing got delayed years.

So the poor, "just want everyone to get along" do-gooders at MS and Adobe should have, WOULD have moved to Cocoa....if it weren't for the bastards at Apple. But....Apple shouldn't be bothered to switch, themselves?:

On top of that a question has to be ask. What is there to legitimately gained by doing that. It cost a fair amount of time and money to make the switch for more than likely less than minor gains. That money could be put elsewhere in the the same app to get better gains with fair less time and money spent.

They were promised 64 bit carbon and apple broke it. That means 64 bit version by apple doing got delayed years.

It's been years. But maybe those poor programmers have had their feelings hurt SSOOOOO much...they just can't handle new stuff anymore. Maybe they should get some disability leave and we can start some candlelight vigils.

I'll just keep using LaTeX, OpenOffice and MySQL. It's surprising how much of my work I can get done even in Bean, which is a really great, lightweight and free word processor.

Oh, cool, which of these are 64 bit?



Seriously, it's ok to hate Apple....but why come here to discuss it so much??

 

[Rodimus Prime]

So the poor, "just want everyone to get along" do-gooders at MS and Adobe should have, WOULD have moved to Cocoa....if it weren't for the bastards at Apple. But....Apple shouldn't be bothered to switch, themselves?:



It's been years. But maybe those poor programmers have had their feelings hurt SSOOOOO much...they just can't handle new stuff anymore. Maybe they should get some disability leave and we can start some candlelight vigils.

Oh, cool, which of these are 64 bit?



Seriously, it's ok to hate Apple....but why come here to discuss it so much??

Let me get this straight. You are telling me it is ok for apple to break promises and screw over others and it is the fault of those that got screwed over.

The reason why there is no 64bit Photoshop or office for years is directly related to apple breaking a promise. Plan and simple.

Last night I was looking up the change from Carbon to Cocoa. Yes if you were developing a new app Cocoa was the way to go but if you had an existing Carbon app with a lot of lines of code or in the cause of office millions of lines there just was not much to gain by it other than investing a lot of time and money into it. Microsof and adobe got screwed plan and simple.
Lack of 64bit Office and photoshop is the fault of one company and that company is Apple Inc.

 

[Mattie Num Nums]

It's not 64 bit that really irks people, it's the fact that Microsoft, like Adobe, has had ten years to migrate to cocoa and they have chosen to sit on their ass.

FYI not all of APPLES programs have been converted yet

 

[macsmurf]

FYI not all of APPLES programs have been converted yet

Just to clarify your point. Not all Apple applications have moved from carbon to cocoa yet.

Not all Apple applications have moved from 32 bit to 64 bit yet.

...and one of my own: Cocoa and 64 bit is probably not the first place one should look for performance gains when optimizing the software.

 

[AppleFan1984]

Cocoa and 64 bit is probably not the first place one should look for performance gains when optimizing the software.

+100 insightful

 

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Well!

There goes one of the biggest reasons to upgrade down the drain.

Not a big MS Word user, but would have considered getting it for the school teacher wife.

p.s. The current version is a hog.

Not a hog on Windows. Funny how much trouble developers have with Apple's APIs and making things run smoothly.

The issue with Cocoa is entirely on Apple's head. The had pushed Carbon 64 and that didn't work. That's why Photoshop CS4 was 64 bit for Windows and not for Mac.

There are a lot of things that are absolute hogs on the Mac due to Apple's philosophy of control. Apple wants to ensure that they can crush any of their developers if they want to. Very much like Microsoft used to act.

 

[AppleFan1984]

The issue with Cocoa is entirely on Apple's head.

That may explain why so many of the posts here read like copy-n-paste from Jobs' "Thoughts on Flash" than from anyone who actually cuts code.

The conspicuous absence from both Jobs' rant and this thread is the MS bashers who believe Apple themselves actually uses Cocoa for everything, when of course some major apps they make are still not updated with it. Funny that Jobs forgot to mention that.

There are plenty of reasons to poke fun at Microsoft, but this isn't among them.

 

[AidenShaw]

For example, iTunes is still Carbon. It takes much longer than most other Carbon apps to launch....

So, if Itunes is a pig compared to other Carbon apps, wouldn't it be reasonable conclude that the problem is Itunes and not Carbon?

Seriously, though, it's difficult to try to compare any Carbon app with a Cocoa port of the same app. This is primarily because Carbon->Cocoa ports are usually part of a major rewrite of the application. (example - finder)

It's very hard to claim that any performance losses or gains are due to the change in frameworks - since so much is changed.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

So, if Itunes is a pig compared to other Carbon apps, wouldn't it be reasonable conclude that the problem is Itunes and not Carbon?

Seriously, though, it's difficult to try to compare any Carbon app with a Cocoa port of the same app. This is primarily because Carbon->Cocoa ports are usually part of a major rewrite of the application. (example - finder)

It's very hard to claim that any performance losses or gains are due to the change in frameworks - since so much is changed.

iTunes is a huge pig of an app on both windows and OSX.
It used to be such a great light weight media player program and it has grown and become very bloated and heavy over the years. on the flip side Microsoft has removed a lot of the bloat from windows media player.

 

[SeattleMoose]

Get A Room You Two!!!

AidenShaw and Rodimus Prime are so "in bed together" on their MS fanboy rants that they should just get a room. And throw in Ballmer to spice things up.

 

[Lord Vader]

AidenShaw and Rodimus Prime are so "in bed together" on their MS fanboy rants that they should just get a room. And throw in Ballmer to spice things up.

I noticed after all true love only between men .

 

[DeepIn2U]

You don't need Microsoft SQL to have a SQL database. MySQL runs on OSX just fine.

Yeah, there are databases for OS X (although Oracle's dropping support), but none of them are produced by Microsoft. Which was the original claim:

Neither of Microsoft's currently-supported (and none of their myriad no-longer-supported) SQL database systems runs on OS X.

It's SQL-Lite which is open sourced within OS X, its the same available for older Nokia S60 smartphones and now in iOS3/4, and in BlackBerry OS 5.

Microsoft SQL Server has no support in OS X; doubtful it ever will.

 

[Dillenger]

NO problem.

Thanks for the input, I'll pass it along

Dr. Bill, while you are at you please loan me a few million, I promise I'll pay it back. I'll PM you where to send the money.

 

[supmango]

iWork is more equivalent to the old Microsoft Works app than a real replacement for Office. Its adequate but nowhere near MS Office.

That said, I can't see the 32/64 bit issue being an issue for anyone but the tippity-top .0001% of all Office users out there. Soooo....meh.

It is pretty clear that people like this have never used iWork. I use it as my replacement for Office every day. I only keep Office on my Mac for nostalgia purposes at this point, and the occasion when I need to save something as a docx file. As soon as Apple gets their act together to allow us to save Pages documents as a docx, it will be removed from my computer. And yes, my job is entirely word processing and report writing.

Some people don't like Numbers either. I can understand some of the contention, however I find it much better than Excel for what I do (home budgeting and graphing data). Excel is so buggy when it comes to doing any kind of graphing, regardless of the platform. Hopefully 2010 will be better for all of those Windows users.

 

[PhotoshopGeek]

I'm assuming you don't use OSX often if at all. Compare the performance of a 32 bit Cocoa App and a 32-bit Carbon App. Launch times, overall responsiveness, and resource management are greatly improved from Carbon to Cocoa. For example, iTunes is still Carbon. It takes much longer than most other Carbon apps to launch, and is somewhat laggy while other Cocoa apps of higher complexity run with the upmost fluidity.
Most apps have moved over to Cocoa for a reason, even CS5 will finally be full Cocoa. There's clearly a benefit to Cocoa besides 64-bit on the Mac.

You are clearly wrong. There was no performance benefit in moving to Cocoa whatsoever for Photoshop. Photoshop was running into address space fragmentation in 32bits and memory intensive operations like "content aware fill" would fail more often than not on 32 bits. The only reason Photoshop moved to Cocoa was because of the enormous address space that a 64 bit app would provide. In fact, Adobe had to fine-tune the app so much just to get the start-up performance to be even with that of CS4 which was Carbon. If Apple had delivered a Carbon64 as Adobe expected in 2007, Photoshop CS4 would have been 64 bits and Adobe would have addressed any performance problems related to Carbon64. Carbon or Cocoa mostly affect how the UI is done (which is the majority of code of any UI intensive app like PS) and the meat of all image processing is cross-platform. It took a herculean effort to move PS to Cocoa in CS5 to say the least. Those Adobe programmers are lazy indeed! Adobe has Lightroom, Photoshop, Premiere and After Effects on 64bits Cocoa and can you tell me how many of Apple's own applications are 64bits now? If it is so easy to port Carbon applications to Cocoa and Cocoa gave so much performance boost, why hasn't Apple ported Final Cut Pro to Cocoa yet? (I know FCP could use some address space!).

 

[ar.pablo]

Office 2011 beta 4 does not work in Power PC processor - Intel only

How am I not paying attention? I never SAID Office 2011 wasn't Intel only. Read my posts.

iWork is already faster than Office but it also has less features in Pages compared to Word. I don't have "hatred" for PPC but it's 2010 now, not 2005. PCC hasn't been in an Apple computer for a long time.

------------------------

Bad news for PPC owners:

Office 2011 (beta 4) does not work in a Mac Mini PPC G4 1.4 ghz running Leopard 10.5.8 (at least in mine one).

Here is a capture:
http://yfrog.com/f/03office2011beta4ppcp/