AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Microsoft axes Virtual PC for Mac, Office still planned
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft axes Virtual PC for Mac, Office still planned - Page 3

post #81 of 106
8/8/06 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Therein lies the basic problem. Organisations are very unlikely to buy the PC version and run it on Macs. They will just buy PCs and run Office on them and a lot of people who used to be able to use Macs at home and PCs at work, including many potential switchers, no longer can without being slugged extra expense.

Sure they can. They can just steal Windows. Fuck you Microsoft, looks like the plan backfired. I bet tons of people here and out there steal Windows. Don't most people? I remember seeing a staggeringly high statistic. Same thing with Office. I myself plan on stealing Windows and Office and running it in Crossover. Whoops that was a typo, I meant I'm going to buy Windows XP, and Office, and Windows Vista. And Parallels or VMWare. Gee that's probably going to be more than my MacBook will cost. Yep but I'm going to buy it. Why? Microsoft deserves my hard-earned money, and I mean that, I've been working outside in 105 degree heat in jeans on a farm for a month, for 8.00 an hour, for a professor for research. I'm going to fork that money right over to Microsoft. Definitely not going to download it. No way.

I think MS's plan may backfire, with this as an example. Sometimes, when you charge a customer too much, or piss them off too much, you risk things like this. I think there will be a lot of illegal copies of Windows and Office on Macs. What a surprise. I hope this Genuine Advantage crap calms down or someone comes out with a hack for it.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
Reply
post #82 of 106
8/8/06 at 9:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by physguy

Not to derail the discussion but isn't the aim of OS such that if you add such a thing at VBA to OO that you need to make that available back to the community??? I'm still trying to understand the details of OS. Thanks in advance.

It is, but there's no time-limit to it. You can do it as soon as you release the product, and you can do it in a month, or two. Novell hasn't done it yet - just as they didn't with XGL 'til a certain point - but they most definitely will.

And no, they don't have a licence from MS. They reverse-engineered it.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #83 of 106
8/8/06 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquatic

Sure they can. They can just steal Windows. Fuck you Microsoft, looks like the plan backfired. I bet tons of people here and out there steal Windows. Don't most people? I remember seeing a staggeringly high statistic. Same thing with Office. I myself plan on stealing Windows and Office and running it in Crossover.

You're a naughty, naughty boy.
Reply
Reply
post #84 of 106
8/9/06 at 2:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Clean

It is, but there's no time-limit to it. You can do it as soon as you release the product, and you can do it in a month, or two. Novell hasn't done it yet - just as they didn't with XGL 'til a certain point - but they most definitely will.

And no, they don't have a licence from MS. They reverse-engineered it.

I've not looked at Novell's VBA implementation but if it's not using any GPLd code then they don't have to release the source. Whereas it's not in the spirit of the project, it's perfectly legal to produce closed source addons to an open source project.

Hopefully that's not the case though as it benefits everyone to release the source, including Novell.
Reply
Reply
post #85 of 106
8/9/06 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telomar

Wouldn't hurt for people to let Microsoft know what they think either.

For me I simply won't upgrade to the next version. That's assuming the new file formats don't remove compatibility in the current versions too.

I'm still running Excel classic to maintain compatibility with macros I wrote years ago. Now not only will we lose this, we will lose the VB ones I've written to maintain test data for the company I work for.

Bummers, no new version of Office in my department for a while, since no one else here can write macros or VB for my department. How steep is the learning curve for Filemaker Pro?
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
just waiting to be included in one of Apple's target markets.
Don't get me wrong, I like the flat panel iMac, actually own an iMac, and I like the Mac mini, but...........
Reply
post #86 of 106
8/9/06 at 9:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

I've not looked at Novell's VBA implementation but if it's not using any GPLd code then they don't have to release the source. Whereas it's not in the spirit of the project, it's perfectly legal to produce closed source addons to an open source project.

Hopefully that's not the case though as it benefits everyone to release the source, including Novell.

If they're using GPL (or LGPL) code, and they're extending, improving, or otherwise modifying the code and publicly distributing that modified code, they have to provide sources. If they kept it to themselves, they wouldn't have to, but this is obviously publicly distributed.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #87 of 106
8/9/06 at 10:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Clean

If they're using GPL (or LGPL) code, and they're extending, improving, or otherwise modifying the code and publicly distributing that modified code, they have to provide sources. If they kept it to themselves, they wouldn't have to, but this is obviously publicly distributed.

Often, the source for plug-ins don't have to be released because it's not a part of the software. For instance, it is not against the GPL to make a closed-source Linux kernel module, so long as GPL code isn't in in that module's code, it just has to conform to a certain interface and that's it. There are at least a few commercial, closed source Linux modules available and they are clear of any OSS entanglement.
Reply
Reply
post #88 of 106
8/9/06 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Often, the source for plug-ins don't have to be released because it's not a part of the software.

For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.

For the LGPL, that's correct.

Quote:
For instance, it is not against the GPL to make a closed-source Linux kernel module, so long as GPL code isn't in in that module's code, it just has to conform to a certain interface and that's it.

This is highly debatable. One Linux kernel maintainer living inside an ivory tower on Uranus or something keeps flaming against closed-source Linux kernel modules, alleging they are illegal and in breach of the GPL.
Reply
Reply
post #89 of 106
8/9/06 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.

For the LGPL, that's correct.

This is highly debatable. One Linux kernel maintainer living inside an ivory tower on Uranus or something keeps flaming against closed-source Linux kernel modules, alleging they are illegal and in breach of the GPL.

It does appear there may be a bit of a grey area. The fact that no one has done anything that I can find to stop the practice makes me think that such people are likely just blowing smoke. All or almost all of the companies that distribute a binary Linux kernel without releasing the code have complied, but as far as I can find no real action has been taken against the binary module makers.

Heck, if SUN believed Novell's plug-in was against whatever their license is for OO.o, then they can stop them pretty quickly.
Reply
Reply
post #90 of 106
8/9/06 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

IHeck, if SUN believed Novell's plug-in was against whatever their license is for OO.o, then they can stop them pretty quickly.

It's LGPL, and no, SUN can't stop them. I'm pretty optimistic that Novell will release the code, as it has done with other things in the past.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #91 of 106
8/9/06 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

For the GPL, that's untrue. As soon as you link to the code, you need to follow the GPL yourself.

So don't statically link to GPLd code or use GPLd stubs.

Provided there's a clean plugin interface that doesn't require you to link I thought you were fine.
Reply
Reply
post #92 of 106
8/9/06 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

So don't statically link to GPLd code

It applies to dynamic linking as well. You can't link non-GPL code to GPL code, static or dynamic.
Reply
Reply
post #93 of 106
8/9/06 at 4:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

It applies to dynamic linking as well. You can't link non-GPL code to GPL code, static or dynamic.

Do you have links that go through that analysis. As I read GPL, to me its highly debatable (read interpretable) with respect to dynamic linking. I'd be interested in other interpretations, especially the 'why' behind the conclusions.
Reply
Reply
post #94 of 106
8/9/06 at 6:08pm
Two MacBU developers have posted very interesting comments on their blogs:

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

http://blogs.msdn.com/rick_schaut/ar...09/693499.aspx
Reply
Reply
post #95 of 106
8/9/06 at 7:08pm
And in response to Microsoft's blogs...

http://reverendted.wordpress.com/200...el-vba-macros/
Reply
Reply
post #96 of 106
9/8/06 at 10:23pm
I'm confused as to why Microsoft likes to include the year in the title of its product. After a year, it becomes outdated. Microsoft Office 2004? It's 2006 already. Hopefully, iWork gets better and becomes more suitable for an Office replacement.
Reply
Reply
post #97 of 106
9/9/06 at 12:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by trtam

I'm confused as to why Microsoft likes to include the year in the title of its product. After a year, it becomes outdated. Microsoft Office 2004? It's 2006 already. Hopefully, iWork gets better and becomes more suitable for an Office replacement.

Exactly. It makes people more inclined to upgrade, because they're more aware of how "old" it is.
Reply
Reply
post #98 of 106
9/9/06 at 1:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

Exactly. It makes people more inclined to upgrade, because they're more aware of how "old" it is.

iLife1,2,3,4,5,6, and would you guess what the number might be for next year?
Reply
Reply
post #99 of 106
9/9/06 at 9:45pm
I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.

http://blogs.msdn.com/macmojo/default.aspx

Quote:
It's been quite a week for us at MacBU, especially for such a short one. There's a lot of buzz about the blogs here at work and I think the engineers are really feeling the energy that comes from talking directly to users of the products that we build. Macworld is months away and we're already planning for that.

I think we should wait and see what happens with Office before everybody starts going crazy, the new version of iWork should be out before Office, NeoOffice is improving and from what I've read Office 07/08 for Mac should be very good.

Like I've said before Lets wait and see guys, having a little patience never killed anybody
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
post #100 of 106
9/9/06 at 9:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Apple

I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.

http://blogs.msdn.com/macmojo/default.aspx



I think we should wait and see what happens with Office before everybody starts going crazy, the new version of iWork should be out before Office, NeoOffice is improving and from what I've read Office 07/08 for Mac should be very good.

Like I've said before Lets wait and see guys, having a little patience never killed anybody

Blaming the BU serves no purpose for anyone. I agree.

They do the best they can, in an organization that is opposed to the work they are doing, and likely keeps it going for anti-trust issues more than for any other reason.

Any orders they get come from much higher in the organization.
Reply
Reply
post #101 of 106
9/10/06 at 2:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Apple

I think that some of you guys are attacking the Mac BU a bit to much, read there blog and you will see that they do care about making great Mac products and they are not evil people who want to screw Mac users.

That may be true but the fact of the matter is they've dropped products in the last few years (Virtual PC, VBA, WMP, IE..) and not created any new products, just warmed over old ones.

With the transition happening, the problems they have with that strategy have come home to roost. If they didn't have a monopoly position, they'd be toast, but instead they can milk their cash cow.

The MacBU is also outside of Microsoft's strategy for Office or Windows. Just go look at all the 'Live' services Microsoft are launching which exclude the Mac, or the sorry state of MSN for the Mac.

Does anyone know how many Mac developers their are in the MacBU? They claim to have the second largest group of developers (1st being Apple) but the evidence of that in product releases is slim.
Reply
Reply
post #102 of 106
9/10/06 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

The MacBU is also outside of Microsoft's strategy for Office or Windows. Just go look at all the 'Live' services Microsoft are launching which exclude the Mac, or the sorry state of MSN for the Mac.

Well, MSN is dead, regardless of Mac OS or Windows.

Quote:
Does anyone know how many Mac developers their are in the MacBU? They claim to have the second largest group of developers (1st being Apple) but the evidence of that in product releases is slim.

About 150, IIRC.
Reply
Reply
post #103 of 106
9/10/06 at 6:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Well, MSN is dead, regardless of Mac OS or Windows.

In America maybe. Elsewhere it's the predominant instant messaging platform.
Reply
Reply
post #104 of 106
9/10/06 at 6:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

In America maybe. Elsewhere it's the predominant instant messaging platform.

Er, if you're talking about MSN Messenger, that's being re-branded as Windows Live Messenger.

MSN, as a brand, is dead.
Reply
Reply
post #105 of 106
9/10/06 at 7:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chucker

Er, if you're talking about MSN Messenger, that's being re-branded as Windows Live Messenger.

MSN, as a brand, is dead.

Same shit, different name.
Reply
Reply
post #106 of 106
9/10/06 at 7:24am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign

Same shit, different name.

Whatever man. MSN was a branding, and Windows Live / Office Live are a branding, too. Personally, I feel the latter makes a lot more sense.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Microsoft axes Virtual PC for Mac, Office still planned