AppleOffice? - Page 3

Kind of interesting to realize that the .pdf format is in many cases a workaround for these problems with common file formats. For example, we often use .pdfs so others can open and print our CAD documents. AutoCAD is fighting .pdf with their own portable format, and Acrobat 7 seems mostly geared towards this specific market, so I guess there is some major money and power at stake with this kind of function.

Since I don't use Word, I've had to give people .pdfs of my resume and other text documents too. I do it for anything that uses graphics as well, though for printers, I will also supply .tiffs at the same time on disc.

At times, I've offered simple .rtf and .txt files to people for this purpose, but people feel safe with knowing that they can read .pdfs, or rather "Acrobat files," since there's an app called Acrobat reader that is free. But that's savvy marketing than anything else.

Anyway, I wonder where the .pdf format would be if word processors saved in a more, uh, graphics-savvy format, and that format was an open standard. PDF isn't really breaking the lock on the .doc format or .xls but it just demonstrates that 1. people don't trust these formats for locked or secure info and that 2. people seem to be demanding a workaround to these proprietary formats.

PDF isn't a 'workaround' for .doc issues. It is *the* perfect format for delivering read only documents that are intended to be printed. If a European sends a .doc file to someone in the US, the change in paper size (A4 -> US Letter) breaks the formatting. How dumb is that? Your beautifully laid out CV, created on a screen and emailed, gets its formatting broken because of a printer setting even though the majority of Word documents are never printed. Whereas PDFs do get printed, and still don't have these problems.

Not having the right fonts also breaks the formatting. That's why the new Novel Linux Desktop ships with fonts that are 'metrically-compatible' with the standard MSFT selection. Because even if OpenOffice read the document 100% correctly, the document file format is so irredeemably broken that it still wouldn't display the same as on Windows due to different fonts.

So if PDF is so cool and useful, why can't MSFT Office make PDFs?

Because MSTF is a fat lazy monopolist and what is good for the consumer is generally speaking bad for Microsoft, and the very smart people that MSFT employs know this. If PDFs gain further ground as a document interchange format, even if the editing is done in .doc then their Office monopoly is on a shoogly peg, and their OS monopoly will follow if it goes.

On the other hand, OpenOffice (the program, not the file format) will let you create read-only PDFs from your document, after you've collaborated and edited it in OpenOffice's format or even Word's. That's PDFs, built-in, for free, on every platform, meaning you can distribute read-only files to anyone.

And of course the Mac lets you create PDFs of damn near anything so it's a given that AppleOffice will let you do it too (though probably in a more intuitive, and hopefully more controllable, manner).

Yes. I have been using it for two months - primarily for theological papers (English, Hebrew, Greek, German, and Latin). The style sheets are unique, but once I figured them out, I find it far more intuitive than any other program (using F-Keys for variations, Bold, Italic, Greek, Hebrew, etc.); very fast switching between languages.

It is a great program. Of course, there are needed refinements. But it does a very nice job. The Redlex programming team interacts with users almost daily on the Yahoo groups discussion list; they are very responsive to features requests. Also, some very experienced users there.

Added benefits:

1. (true) OpenType compatible (only OS X program that is fully so).

2. And - it's current version is 1.8, the next major release (2.0?) will use the XML format as its base - thus fitting in with the OOo approach.

Ended up at Costco today, and saw that ThinkFree Office is now for sale at $47.99 Canadian. The box contains the Mac/Windows/Linux versions and the license allows multiple installs per user.

The price is amazing, how's the software?

The box design seemed new. Is this a new version, or simply the same, slow Java app repackaged in a new box?

Confirmed

I like the overall design, it is very straight forward, it is a dedicated word What? processor.

My only BUT is:

It doesn't open MS Word .docs properly, ... and i receive a lot of these bugs

best

So true ... ;-(


I wonder why Adobe does not offer a free basic version of the Distiller for Windows and Linux.

And they should get rid of the metaphore of PDF as a format that stands between the creation of the document and the final printing. That's what pure PS is for and PDFs are handled like every other "save as..." format and so their creation should be.


I had a few problems with PDFs created through OS X's (Jaguar) built-in capabilities.

I "saved" a Word document as PDF to print it on a Windows system. Some special characters - especially currency and math symbols - did not appear on the Windows Acrobat Reader and in the print-out. And I thought that with uni-code this kind of problem would belong to the past. And there is no option to include fonts (complete or by glyphs (sp?) used).

Yep, I love Mellel (as most people who know me will realise by now). The very strong style support is one of the reasons why I love it although this could easily be improved (better bi-directional replacement/synchronisation of styles between the document and the program, for starters). The tight integration of a bibliographic database is also important for me.


To be completely fair, Indesign CS offers broadly comparable OpenType support to Mellel. It's not exactly the right program for academic word-processing, however. And it is kind of 1012x more expensive.

The demo documents for Cardo in Mellel and InDesign demonstrate this pretty well.


This is true, although they will not be using the OASIS XML format that OOo use because, in their words, its unacceptably ugly and obfuscated (if you've ever seen it, it's hard to disagree with this assessment). I imagine someone, possibly even the Redlers, will come up with an XSLT transformation for it soon enough.

As an academic word processor, Mellel is currently non-pareil in the OS X world, as far as I'm concerned. Having said that, it's missing a lot of features that normal people want (columns, properly manipulable images/text wrap), and a few that academics will want (hyphenation (coming soon, they say), regex find/replace (also coming soon), scripting/macros).

Vox Barbara: re. Word compatability, Mellel currently uses the Apple Word import for importing Word documents, so you can expect to see this improve in Tiger. They did, however, roll their own very good RTF import engine, so your best bet would be to convert your Word docs to RTF and then import them into Mellel.

Looks very much like a further development of Improv
Lotus Improv for NeXTStep

I wonder when this is going to arrive.

All I get is "Connection refused"

Bah, link isn't static. Here's a screenshot.

Entourage is an absolute joke when it comes to Exchange support.

If Apple wants to break into the corporate market, I would like to see them license the MAPI protocol, and everything else they need, to write an Outlook replacement for OS X.

I understand your motivation for this want, but I hope Apple doesn't do it. Exchange is just plain aweful.

I do think Apple should develop a solid email server (with groupware features) and not the cobbled together collection they have today. They could then develop a nice groupware client that works with this server (maybe part of the new Apple Office Suite?).

Apple has a real shot at getting back into the SMB space with Tiger server (and really even with Panther server). Apple just needs a few apps to complete the picture. In the end, however, I don't think Apple has the desire to enter this market.

Nothing prevents them from developing a client side solution (not necessarily one app) that works with the "cobbled together collection" of respected, battle-tested solutions that they have now. In fact, that would be the better solution. Monolithic server apps don't scale well, as our campus IT department has found with Exchange. There are enough open, available protocols, and enough finished, proven server applications that implement them, that Apple could offer an Exchange equivalent with only the work involved in system integration, and working them into the server's UI.

The only real obstacle, as usual, is dealing with MS' proprietary formats and protocols. As long as peoples' data is locked up in Exchange, they're not going to consider another solution unless Exchange utterly fails them and there's an alternative that is significantly, unambiguously superior.


They've signaled recently that they are, and that Tiger Server has features aimed at SMB. Consider also the iMac G5, which is I believe the most user-serviceable Mac ever, and possibly one of the most user-serviceable PCs ever (how many PC desktops let you swap out the LCD panel in the monitor?). And finally, as I noted when they were first released, the combination of Mail, Address Book, iCal, and iSync looks like a nascent Outlook/Exchange killer. They've looked more and more like one with every enhancement.

What matters, in the end, is whether the apps are integrated in terms of use, not whether they're actually stuffed into one big executable. Apple's done a fine job making their apps work together efficiently. It looks like Tiger will take that to a new level.

I mostly agree. I personally don't think squirrel mail is adequate, but that is beside the point. I was trying (and apparently failed) to suggest they put some spit/polish into the apps is all. Nice foundation mostly, but needs some work.

I agree that the individual apps could make a better solution. I did not intend to suggest that they should start from scratch and somehow reverse engineer Exchange. I was arguing for some added effort to really pull these apps together. My "cobbled together" comment was not to disparage the individual apps as much as to suggest that additional work can/should/may happen.

I really don't think Exchange is much of an obstacle. Apple is not going to make a frontal assault on current Exchange customers anyway. They should focus on the non-Exchange customer - typically that means too small or non-technical.



Yeah, I've said the same thing in another tread about Tiger. ACLs are a nice start and I am hopefull that OpenDirectory3 is a worthy AD-killer. Also, made similar comment regarding mail/address book/iCal as a good start to a business-oriented "groupware" client. Let me be clear. I think they have the tools, the capability, etc. I am not quite sure they are ready to openly say that they are competing in the corportate world again. I do think the time is right, though.

I don't recall suggesting that there be "one big executable" in my post. In fact, Apple has been very successful at creating purpose-built apps then tying them together into a nice admin interface or some clever programming as you said.

OK, I read too much into your contrast of "a solid email server" with "the cobbled together collection," and your use of "client," singular. Thanks for the clarification.

From the scant information dribbled out by people playing with Tiger Server, it sounds like spit and polish is what we'll be getting. There's nothing new or astonishing (yet), just a solid evolution.

And hey, at least Apple isn't bundling sendmail any more...


I agree that they'll avoid a frontal assault on Exchange, but I'd say it's because Exchange is too great an obstacle, so the best strategy is to route around it. They've done a great job being modest and careful in their server strategy, and this fits right in.


I don't think the time will be right until they actually are competing in that space, not when they think they're ready to. There's a lot of interest in their solutions, and there are a lot of people keeping an eye on them to see when or if they become appropriate. The interest is there—this is one market where if you build it, they will come, once they're assured that it's a robust and well-supported solution.

I also think they'll stay fairly quiet about enterprise, and focus on SMB, because they want to fly under Microsoft's radar to the extent possible.

lol...you're not kidding. I do hope for a better webmail solution than squirrelmail - or at least work on the php to make it more appealing.


Yeah, I guess if you go around the obstacle - it is not an obstacle anymore Unfortunately, I have to work on Exchange daily - it is a very bad solution for SMBs. But, it is undeniable that Exchange has mindshare in that space. I could not agree more that their re-entry into corporate computing should be as stealthy as possible. I see more and more acceptance for non-MS solutions out there - just don't want Apple to miss the boat.

what do you think would happen if Apple created Office????

Microsoft would stop making Office for X. Then guess what would happen? People would not buy Apple becuase it is not compatible with one of the world's most used applications.

Sound Silly? Not at all. Remember what Microsoft did when Safari came out? They stop developing and supporting IE 5.2 on Mac.

That is probably the reason that Keynote is stuck in version 1.1 after almost 2 years.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

People aren't sticking with Office because they like it, they stick with it because their data is held hostage by it. Another application that can read/write the proper files with 100% compatibility, and offer a better user experience, would be highly welcome.

It's better to love a short girl than not a tall. No?

Development already stopped on IE5 before Apple announced Safari. Well before. IE is dead except for Longhorn. MS has stopped all IE development for Win2K and WinXP, except for Service Packs and the emergency we-gotta-release-something-because-Longhorn-ship-slipped-again features releases.

This may be true for Word, but not Excel. I beg anyone to name a single competitor to Excel that is even close to as good.

Lotus Improv was stunning. Couldn't make headway against the entrenched Excel. I have a copy upstairs on my NeXTstation, and Excel still can't match it for ease of use or flexibility IMO. The lowest common denominator won out here... a dumb grid was something an *accountant* could understand without training, so a dumb grid is what we got. Then momentum took over. Anytime someone came out with a spreadsheet competitor, unless it was more or less exactly the same conceptual model, it was seen as 'too weird' by the bean counters... even if it was just simply a better system.

So *right now*, no, Excel has won. For a while though, it wasn't even in the running for features, usability or power... and yet it still is the only one left standing. Welcome to data lock-in.

What was the interface paradigm for Improv? How could it help me best if I want to quickly implement a grading chart, for instance, which calculates grades based on several assignment and examination criteria with flexible weighting? I know grading programs are out there, but they're generally not as flexible as I'd like them to be.

Another grading application I've used Excel for was an automatic calculation of a multiple choice examination. Took me about fifteen minutes to do, for a test with 120 questions. Type in the handwritten answers for each student, and the spreadsheet calculates their score, and highlights their wrong answers for analysis. A very simple project, but Excel makes it so easy to do very quickly.

The most impressive thing I've used Excel for was a few years ago, when I developed a very successful proprietary quotation system for offset printing, with reports and order sheets produced according to a wide range of data, with enough flexibility to add new paper types, special ink costs, etc. It also automatically calculated paper wastage based on various available sheet sizes according to the book trim size. I did in a week in-house what other printing companies outsourced to programmers for tens of thousands of dollars to do over a period of few months, with added costs for revisions, etc. Would Improv have helped there?

I do like Excel, and I always feel great when I develop a new spreadsheet to automate time consuming tasks. I've never thought it was difficult to use in any way.

Excel is the jewel in the Office crown, the user interface for Word was apparently explicitly modelled after it, which partly explains why Word sucks so much. But Excel is generally quite a nice app, however...

Having important data locked in proprietary formats still sucks. Microsoft didn't invent spreadsheets it's just yet another invention everyone associates with Microsoft that was born on Apple along with PowerPoint, WYSIWYG Word and Web browsers (on Next). And having the dead hand of Microsoft smothering innovation in the area of spreadsheets by A) controlling what should be an interchangeable format, B) killing competitors with bundling and monopoly power, and C) only making changes that force you to upgrade your Office suit or your Operating System rather than actually adding any value to the end-user, is a drag for everyone concerned.

So we've come full circle in this thread.

The lack of a quality spreadsheet app is a huge problem for Mac users wanting to be free of Redmond. I still don't get why Nisus or Mellel or some other third party developer doesn't pick up on this.

I mean, it can't be that hard.

I'm no programmer, but a page full of cells with basic functions should be relatively simple.
It would take longer to add all the bells and whistles, but look at how many people have waited for Nisus Writer and Mellel to finally take shape.

The market is there.

Yes, we've come full circle. Actually, once you get to a level comparable to Excel, a spreadsheet program is actually more complex than a word processor. I believe that Mesa is the best contender on OS X right now (since it originates from Next), and that if Mac customers would pick it up, it would develop into something way better than Excel.

The point though is that it's not about replacing a proprietary file format for another. A spreadsheet program would have to use a standard file format to be successfull, and right now the best file format being proposed is the OASIS one. If anyone doesn't like it, they are free to be part of the group that writes the specs for the file format and try to modify or improve it.

Thirty-four dollars? Are you kidding me?

Just downloaded the free evaluation. Toolbar's a bit sparse (and seems unchangable) but otherwise looks fine.

I don't understand why something like this isn't marketed better. Microsoft has a Home Bundle, why don't Mac Developers bundle their own?

A Mac Home Bundle could contain:

Nisus Writer Express (Nisus)
Mesa Spreadsheet (P&L)
iCash personal finance manager (MaxProg)
Keynote theme templates

Any other suggestions?

I stand corrected. The toolbar is customizable.
However, it will take some work to get a toolbar consistent with the Excel counterpart. This should be an option.

Oh yes, and the icons need some work.

That's what I'm talking about! It's time for a 3rd party to make a good quality, affordable office suite for the Mac where Apple can't (because they don't want to piss off Microsoft and loose their office suite). If need be, a few of those companies could decide to merge in order to create that office suite.

I've never understood why people are insistent that every application that competes with Excel, or Word, or PowerPoint have an identical interface where ever possible. It's not like MS is the bastion of UI design.

Take Keynote - even though its design tools are much more powerful than PowerPoint's, all I heard for the first three months was "The drawing tools aren't as good." Well duh, it's not a drawing app - but you can drag in any art from any other app, from the free gimp up to expensive professional suites. Talk about missing the point.

I understand a certain amount of gross familiarity being a comforting thing, but is it really that critical for people to maintain a certain paradigm, when it's pretty obvious on the face of it that that approach has some serious flaws?

I was thinking about the lemmings.

InDesign has a Quark interface setting. It's sort of standard to include the interface of the market leader to encourage switching.

Embrace, Extend, Extinguish!

Isn't this a HUGE factor in the whole Mac-switcher thing too? MS won the desktop wars, they won the productivity wars, they won the browser wars, and that means people want MS-alikes in these areas. People can't learn, or rather they don't think they can memorize another set of commands, so they want what is familiar even if it is ad-hoc. This is why Jobs once said as CEO of NeXT that MS has set back computing 20 years, or something to that effect. It's true in all of these areas. How many people have come here or have you met in the "real" world who take an interest in Macs, only to back out when they realize that they have to do things differently. It doesn't matter if different is sometimes or often better, the fear of having to go through th headaches of when they first learn to do steps on their windows desktop, in their IE browser or in their Office suite is to much to get past. So long as that fear is predominant, we won't see a huge wave of switchers, and we won't see any viable alternatives to Office. MS knew that all along -- the GUI is not a primary factor in people's initial buying decisions, it just has to get people hooked into your way of doing things.

Word 7 or 95 had a WordPerfect mode too. It was so complete that the whole screen turned blue with white text, just like old-school WP. WP keys were mapped to Word's keys also.

Absolutely. I do know a bunch of people who actually switched to the Mac
and were a bit disappointed about the fact that they apparently all of a sudden lost all their hard gained "knowledge of computing", their hard boiled knowledge of the MF**** way! They all trained to think hard. No pleasure intended. Pressure only. This kills people. Click "OK", stupid!

Actually i simply don't get the fact that apple apparently do not intend
to promote their superior OS. Why so?

Okay, add OmniOutliner 3.0 to my list. That thing is way cool.

ditto.

Most people put _HUGE_ amounts of effort into learning their software ( usually MS ) and typically feel like they are walking on a tightrope when they are using it. From a historical perspective they are justified in thinking that learning new software will be just as hard, and they don't want to do it again. Based on their previous experience they have no basis for thinking that another program might be easier to learn. Geeks dont really get this, because we relish the use of computers for their own sake, quite a different motivation to users who just want to get things done.


Powerpoint is an interesting example. Despite the fact that I have knowledgable coworkers, who are aware of and have used software like Visio, the preferred drawing app in my office is powerpoint. I very rarely see PP used to create presentations. I see it used all the time to create drawings and diagrams. The two reasons I see that this happens are:
a) it is the only drawing program available on a lot of computers ( we expect all of our correspondents to have Office, and hence PP, but not Visio ), even those used by the drawers ( it is easy to order a new computer with office installed, but very hard to get money for additional software ).
b) unlike a lot of drawing programs it can create multi paged documents ( omni graffle does to ).


Ive observed a lot of non-technical users. Many of them have only come to grips with their software ( typically Office ) after _YEARS_ of use. Just the thought of repeating that period of time in a state of ignorance scares the living beejeesus out of them.

I can understand why they'd avoid Visio, it's a horrible application. Everything just feels far more difficult than it should be in Visio.

I installed Office Mac for I need Word and Excel (some powerpoint) for much of my school life. I did notice though, that when I was done and looking through applications, I couldn't find the Appleworks stuff. Does Office read the appleworks stuff, or is it hidden somewhere? What is text edit? Is it like the text application in windows where you can save it to multiple things? Can I save html, java,php, ect. through textedit in the meantime of me waiting to get Macromedia Studio MX?