Will this stop most users from updating? Not likely.
Is this good for iWork? Yes.
Is it a fail? Not really.
Do most users need 64bit Office? Yes because they run 64bit Mac OS X.
The number one reason why Flash kicks in the fans hardcore is because it is a 32bit app running on a full 64bit OS. That means on the fly translation from 32bit to 64bit which means more work for the computer to do.
64bit isn't just about faster speeds it's about efficiency and the more efficient you can be the better.
Considering for the past 5 years Macs have been on a 64bit platform Microsoft is way behind the ball but then when are they in front of it?
Too bad, you're missing out on iWork. It's a nice suite, and inexpensive. OOo is still kinda ugly, and it isn't as smooth. But, it is free, so that's nice.
I actually paid for the very first iWork release. Keynote totally owns PowerPoint, and that was 5 years ago. It probably annihilates it by now. I haven't had to do any slide presentations since then that would warrant revisiting Keynote.
Pages I was sort of on the fence about. It was absolutely amazing with things that would normally be the domain of something like InDesign, but not that great in the traditional Word Processor department. Again, we're talking 2005 -- obviously things have matured.
Numbers I've never used since it didn't exist back then. For what I do with spreadsheets I'm sure its fine.
iWork hasn't been ruled out. Yet if the feel of Pages is the same as back then, I'll likely end up in OpenOffice land. I work as a writer so I get comfy in certain environments and don't like drastic change. That's one reason I haven't moved to Office 2008 and its horrible interface, even on Intel hardware.
I'm retired and don't need MS Office to be fully compatible anymore. The next time I upgrade my word processing and spreadsheet software I will go with Apple's iWork. It doesn't seem to have all the capabilities of MS Office but that may only be because I'm not as familiar with iWork.
I am about as big an Apple fan as a person can be, and I sometimes cringe at the thought of a world without Apple, and I shudder at the thought of ever having to use Windows again. That being said, Word is a tool to create documents -no more and no less. A hallmark of Apple design is that it tends to avoid obsessing over technical specifications, and focuses instead on utility and experience.
If the new Office proves itself to be a more capable tool than the previous version, and is less cumbersome to use, then I think it will be appropriate to consider it a success. If, alternatively, it fails to be more useful and/or user-friendly, then those should be the bases on which the product is chastised.
I do think that we, as Apple users with a higher level of knowledge and understanding than the average user, should avoid fueling the debate over tech-specs that are really nothing more than fodder for arguments between people who are not sophisticated enough to qualitatively critique technology in a meaningful way.
Considering for the past 5 years Macs have been on a 64bit platform Microsoft is way behind the ball but then when are they in front of it?
If it were another company, who had a full plate of software on their table, I don't think many people would be outraged about it being part-Carbon or 32-bit.
The fact is though, the MacBU doesn't have any other project but Office, so you'd think they could get it right. I wonder if they'll delay right-to-left language support yet again, blaming it on the Carbon interface? Windows Office has had it for over 10 years.
When I hear the word MacBU all I can picture is 50 people with their feet on the desk, playing video games -- taking calls and checking E-Mails in between. Why is it a company like Panic can turn out awesome apps with one or two devs behind the wheel, but these jerkoffs can't even get one product right with 50 people working on it and a huge budget? Load a 100+ page document into Word on a Mac and watch it trudge through; then open the same doc on a PC and it handles it splendidly. Better yet, load the same doc in something like OpenOffice and watch it fly. Remember when the XML switch happened on PCs, and open source methods of reading XML Office docs on Mac arrived on the scene months before MS provided a workaround? That's why people shit on MS when they hear stuff like this.
I remember Roz Ho speaking at WWDC or something one year, sounding like she had no idea what was actually going on. It was laugh inducing. When you have someone leading your department whose presentation skills are equal to a sixth grader's, you know that division is not being taken seriously. Yes, I know she's gone now but . . .
Will this stop most users from updating? Not likely.
Is this good for iWork? Yes.
Is it a fail? Not really.
Exactly. It would be nice, but not because of 32 vs 64 bit. I would prefer that they completed their transition to Cocoa, but I couldn't care less that it's 32 bit.
Can anyone explain why I need a 64 bit word processor?
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
Why do the Windows and Mac versions look so different? It seems completely pointless to have one application that runs of two different platforms and not have identical visual functionality layout. They may have different colors and such but it seems ridiculous to have different layouts and different naming conventions.
I would go one step further. I hate the ribbon interface, but I'm willing to live with it if it's identical to the Windows version. If there's ANY difference (even colors), what's the point of forcing Mac users to accept the crappy ribbon convention? Either make the UI identical or optimize the UI for each platform and let them look different.
In the immortal words of Mr. Miyagi:
"Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape."
I use Mac Office at work. I need it to be compatible. It does that well.
Entourage is shit. Lack of VBA is shit. They are fixing those, good. Strangly, I'm most looking forward to Outlook to push sync with Google. Probably not what MS or Apple had in mind. Bits? Not gonna affect me.
I will be smug that Mac Office 2010 still has a menubar in addition to the ribbons. Ribbons have destroyed what user experience there was for many.
So, it's been like what, almost 10 years since Apple told everyone to get their a$$ onto Cocoa? 32/64bit doesn't really matter with office apps. Don't care about that. I just can't believe MS STILL hasn't transitioned to Cocoa. There are other good reasons to make the transition - like leaving outdated slow/bloat code behind.
Despite their feet dragging, I'll probably buy Office 2011 for use at work. It looks to be a huge improvement over the '08 version, and I'm glad it does NOT look exactly like the Windows version - I can't stand to use the Windows version. *hair pulling*
So, it's been like what, almost 10 years since Apple told everyone to get their a$$ onto Cocoa? 32/64bit doesn't really matter with office apps. Don't care about that. I just can't believe MS STILL hasn't transitioned to Cocoa. There are other good reasons to make the transition - like leaving outdated slow/bloat code behind.
Despite their feet dragging, I'll probably buy Office 2011 for use at work. It looks to be a huge improvement over the '08 version, and I'm glad it does NOT look exactly like the Windows version - I can't stand to use the Windows version. *hair pulling*
Like I said above
And Apple's excuse for iTunes (as one example) being 32 bit Carbon is what exactly?
Office is the most bloated, resource-eating, slow-as-hell collection of programs on the platform. Seriously, HD After Effects renders are less taxing on my Mac Pro than launching Microsoft Entourage.
Agree. PowerPoint is worst of them all. Horrible, just horrible
There is nothing in Office that can really benefit from 64bit anyway.
A speed boost isn't a benefit?
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
I suppose iTunes is also a "fail" because it it still 32 bit and uses Carbon
Absolutely, the coverage of this reminded me of iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
, and you won't consider using it until Apple finally gets its act together.
If I had a better alternative I'd use it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by franktinsley
I think until Apple themselves gets all their apps to cocoa, this is just going to keep happening. They can't keep releasing new versions of their own apps in carbon and expect 3rd parties to do better.
Excellent point. Apple has tended to be just as bad an offender if not worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
so what is the advantage of 64 bit that makes it so vital for a program like Office.
Speed. True, it's not a major speed bump, but apps this bloated need all the help they can get.
I have yet to see an app that didn't run faster in 64 bit mode.
Do most users need 64bit Office? Yes because they run 64bit Mac OS X.
What's sad is that Office-type programs have gotten so bloated and inefficient despite how few demands people have of it. If it were efficient in the first place, I don't think you'd notice if it were 32 or 64 bit. I do just as well with a ten year old Office-type suite as I do with the latest, I've run the old suite for a long time just because it was so much more efficient than something that's current.
Quote:
The number one reason why Flash kicks in the fans hardcore is because it is a 32bit app running on a full 64bit OS. That means on the fly translation from 32bit to 64bit which means more work for the computer to do.
That's not the number one reason why flash sucks. Just another reason. Macromedia scripting-type products have been exasperatingly inefficient even in the 16 bit era. Though I don't know about this "on the fly translation" business. Most of the 32 bit code should be running natively.
It certainly isn't fail. No one forced Microsoft to port Office to Mac (or now via Cocoa), they are doing it by their own graces, and having Office across both Windows and OS X benefits everyone. I actually like the layout of the Mac ribbon more than the Windows ribbon. As one who used Office 2007 for two years at my previous job and now has gone back to Office 2003 at my current job, going back is painful. You don't appreciate the ribbon feature until you've used it for awhile. People here who say that the ribbon is awful clearly haven't used it long enough.
Does anyone actually remember that Microsoft Office (well... Word actually...) was actually released on the Mac *first*?
Does anyone actually remember that Microsoft Office (well... Word actually...) was actually released on the Mac *first*?
I'm certain Excel was originally written for the Mac; it was distributed on a single floppy disk.
Word was originally a DOS program. The first Windows version was awful, but became marginally useful after Windows 3.0.
AFAIK first Mac version of Word was 5.1 and it was pretty good. At least one subsequent version was a Windows port and it was abysmal. I'm pretty sure I used Word 5.1 until OS X.
Comments
Do most users need 64 bit office? No.
Does it run in 64-bit snow leopard? Yes.
Will this stop most users from updating? Not likely.
Is this good for iWork? Yes.
Is it a fail? Not really.
Do most users need 64bit Office? Yes because they run 64bit Mac OS X.
The number one reason why Flash kicks in the fans hardcore is because it is a 32bit app running on a full 64bit OS. That means on the fly translation from 32bit to 64bit which means more work for the computer to do.
64bit isn't just about faster speeds it's about efficiency and the more efficient you can be the better.
Considering for the past 5 years Macs have been on a 64bit platform Microsoft is way behind the ball but then when are they in front of it?
Too bad, you're missing out on iWork. It's a nice suite, and inexpensive. OOo is still kinda ugly, and it isn't as smooth. But, it is free, so that's nice.
I actually paid for the very first iWork release. Keynote totally owns PowerPoint, and that was 5 years ago. It probably annihilates it by now. I haven't had to do any slide presentations since then that would warrant revisiting Keynote.
Pages I was sort of on the fence about. It was absolutely amazing with things that would normally be the domain of something like InDesign, but not that great in the traditional Word Processor department. Again, we're talking 2005 -- obviously things have matured.
Numbers I've never used since it didn't exist back then. For what I do with spreadsheets I'm sure its fine.
iWork hasn't been ruled out. Yet if the feel of Pages is the same as back then, I'll likely end up in OpenOffice land. I work as a writer so I get comfy in certain environments and don't like drastic change. That's one reason I haven't moved to Office 2008 and its horrible interface, even on Intel hardware.
If the new Office proves itself to be a more capable tool than the previous version, and is less cumbersome to use, then I think it will be appropriate to consider it a success. If, alternatively, it fails to be more useful and/or user-friendly, then those should be the bases on which the product is chastised.
I do think that we, as Apple users with a higher level of knowledge and understanding than the average user, should avoid fueling the debate over tech-specs that are really nothing more than fodder for arguments between people who are not sophisticated enough to qualitatively critique technology in a meaningful way.
Considering for the past 5 years Macs have been on a 64bit platform Microsoft is way behind the ball but then when are they in front of it?
If it were another company, who had a full plate of software on their table, I don't think many people would be outraged about it being part-Carbon or 32-bit.
The fact is though, the MacBU doesn't have any other project but Office, so you'd think they could get it right. I wonder if they'll delay right-to-left language support yet again, blaming it on the Carbon interface? Windows Office has had it for over 10 years.
When I hear the word MacBU all I can picture is 50 people with their feet on the desk, playing video games -- taking calls and checking E-Mails in between. Why is it a company like Panic can turn out awesome apps with one or two devs behind the wheel, but these jerkoffs can't even get one product right with 50 people working on it and a huge budget? Load a 100+ page document into Word on a Mac and watch it trudge through; then open the same doc on a PC and it handles it splendidly. Better yet, load the same doc in something like OpenOffice and watch it fly. Remember when the XML switch happened on PCs, and open source methods of reading XML Office docs on Mac arrived on the scene months before MS provided a workaround? That's why people shit on MS when they hear stuff like this.
I remember Roz Ho speaking at WWDC or something one year, sounding like she had no idea what was actually going on. It was laugh inducing. When you have someone leading your department whose presentation skills are equal to a sixth grader's, you know that division is not being taken seriously. Yes, I know she's gone now but . . .
Considering for the past 5 years Macs have been on a 64bit platform Microsoft is way behind the ball but then when are they in front of it?
And Apple's excuse for iTunes (as one example) being 32 bit Carbon is what exactly?
Do most users need 64 bit office? No.
Does it run in 64-bit snow leopard? Yes.
Will this stop most users from updating? Not likely.
Is this good for iWork? Yes.
Is it a fail? Not really.
Exactly. It would be nice, but not because of 32 vs 64 bit. I would prefer that they completed their transition to Cocoa, but I couldn't care less that it's 32 bit.
Can anyone explain why I need a 64 bit word processor?
Why do the Windows and Mac versions look so different? It seems completely pointless to have one application that runs of two different platforms and not have identical visual functionality layout. They may have different colors and such but it seems ridiculous to have different layouts and different naming conventions.
I would go one step further. I hate the ribbon interface, but I'm willing to live with it if it's identical to the Windows version. If there's ANY difference (even colors), what's the point of forcing Mac users to accept the crappy ribbon convention? Either make the UI identical or optimize the UI for each platform and let them look different.
In the immortal words of Mr. Miyagi:
"Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish just like grape."
Entourage is shit. Lack of VBA is shit. They are fixing those, good. Strangly, I'm most looking forward to Outlook to push sync with Google. Probably not what MS or Apple had in mind. Bits? Not gonna affect me.
I will be smug that Mac Office 2010 still has a menubar in addition to the ribbons. Ribbons have destroyed what user experience there was for many.
Despite their feet dragging, I'll probably buy Office 2011 for use at work. It looks to be a huge improvement over the '08 version, and I'm glad it does NOT look exactly like the Windows version - I can't stand to use the Windows version. *hair pulling*
So, it's been like what, almost 10 years since Apple told everyone to get their a$$ onto Cocoa? 32/64bit doesn't really matter with office apps. Don't care about that. I just can't believe MS STILL hasn't transitioned to Cocoa. There are other good reasons to make the transition - like leaving outdated slow/bloat code behind.
Despite their feet dragging, I'll probably buy Office 2011 for use at work. It looks to be a huge improvement over the '08 version, and I'm glad it does NOT look exactly like the Windows version - I can't stand to use the Windows version. *hair pulling*
Like I said above
And Apple's excuse for iTunes (as one example) being 32 bit Carbon is what exactly?
Office is the most bloated, resource-eating, slow-as-hell collection of programs on the platform. Seriously, HD After Effects renders are less taxing on my Mac Pro than launching Microsoft Entourage.
Agree. PowerPoint is worst of them all. Horrible, just horrible
There is nothing in Office that can really benefit from 64bit anyway.
A speed boost isn't a benefit?
I suppose iTunes is also a "fail" because it it still 32 bit and uses Carbon
Absolutely, the coverage of this reminded me of iTunes.
, and you won't consider using it until Apple finally gets its act together.
If I had a better alternative I'd use it.
I think until Apple themselves gets all their apps to cocoa, this is just going to keep happening. They can't keep releasing new versions of their own apps in carbon and expect 3rd parties to do better.
Excellent point. Apple has tended to be just as bad an offender if not worse.
so what is the advantage of 64 bit that makes it so vital for a program like Office.
Speed. True, it's not a major speed bump, but apps this bloated need all the help they can get.
I have yet to see an app that didn't run faster in 64 bit mode.
Absolutely, the coverage of this reminded me of iTunes.
If I had a better alternative I'd use it.
.
Song Bird is pretty good, but not perfect.
Do most users need 64bit Office? Yes because they run 64bit Mac OS X.
What's sad is that Office-type programs have gotten so bloated and inefficient despite how few demands people have of it. If it were efficient in the first place, I don't think you'd notice if it were 32 or 64 bit. I do just as well with a ten year old Office-type suite as I do with the latest, I've run the old suite for a long time just because it was so much more efficient than something that's current.
The number one reason why Flash kicks in the fans hardcore is because it is a 32bit app running on a full 64bit OS. That means on the fly translation from 32bit to 64bit which means more work for the computer to do.
That's not the number one reason why flash sucks. Just another reason. Macromedia scripting-type products have been exasperatingly inefficient even in the 16 bit era. Though I don't know about this "on the fly translation" business. Most of the 32 bit code should be running natively.
Zing.
It certainly isn't fail. No one forced Microsoft to port Office to Mac (or now via Cocoa), they are doing it by their own graces, and having Office across both Windows and OS X benefits everyone. I actually like the layout of the Mac ribbon more than the Windows ribbon. As one who used Office 2007 for two years at my previous job and now has gone back to Office 2003 at my current job, going back is painful. You don't appreciate the ribbon feature until you've used it for awhile. People here who say that the ribbon is awful clearly haven't used it long enough.
Does anyone actually remember that Microsoft Office (well... Word actually...) was actually released on the Mac *first*?
I will remain with Office 2004 until it quits working. At that point it's OpenOffice time.
As I will remain with Office v.X until it quits working.
Does anyone actually remember that Microsoft Office (well... Word actually...) was actually released on the Mac *first*?
I'm certain Excel was originally written for the Mac; it was distributed on a single floppy disk.
Word was originally a DOS program. The first Windows version was awful, but became marginally useful after Windows 3.0.
AFAIK first Mac version of Word was 5.1 and it was pretty good. At least one subsequent version was a Windows port and it was abysmal. I'm pretty sure I used Word 5.1 until OS X.
This didn't help the US car industry.
I mean, seriously, who needs a 64-bit version of Office now?
MS does.
Office is gonna need 64-bits anyway just to support the bloat. The mere 4GB you get in 32-bit seems awfully limiting for such a massive pig.