If the new Office is not based on Cocoa, it probably will not be accessible (or fully accessible) with VoiceOver. It cannot, therefor be purchased by federal and state governments who must comply with accessibility standards.
I mean this doesn't really matter that much. Office is about the last application you need to support 64 bit instructions.
However, I'm stunned that Office 2011 isn't totally converted to Cocoa by now. Really Microsoft? This is your flagship product and the only way you can get money out of wealthy Apple customers.
People don't forget this thing (2011) is just the beta. The real deal (SP2) will come out in another year or two, and by then they will implement 64 bit and make it launch fast enough to be bearable. This is MS after all.
I mean this doesn't really matter that much. Office is about the last application you need to support 64 bit instructions.
However, I'm stunned that Office 2011 isn't totally converted to Cocoa by now. Really Microsoft? This is your flagship product and the only way you can get money out of wealthy Apple customers.
I'd love to see a Microsoft vs. Adobe snail race.
One more time
and apple's excuse for iTunes in 32 bit Carbin would be what exactly?
People don't forget this thing (2011) is just the beta. The real deal (SP2) will come out in another year or two, and by then they will implement 64 bit and make it launch fast enough to be bearable. This is MS after all.
yep
the final unbloated version will be available by 2015, but everyone will have ipads by then
Take your time, Microsoft. I mean it's only been about eight years since Apple started strongly suggesting all developers move their apps to Cocoa and xCode. .
Did you stop using the Finder until Snow Leopard came out?
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.
Office for Mac (2008) requires a little over 1GB for a full install. That's 4 programs.
iWork requires 1.2GB... That's 3 programs. But i don't hear you calling it a massive pig...
Sure, Entourage takes a long time (20-30 seconds) to load if you've got all of your emails from the past 5 years saved to disc and therefore a 5 GB user account that has to be read every time you start up, but I find the startup speed is similar to quite a few other programs, including apple's own iTunes (with a large library), Final Cut (also still 32-bit, by the way), and Logic (64-bit). iPhoto can also take 20-30 seconds to load up with a large library.
Anyways, it's to be expected that Office 2011 will bring lots of improvements.
As has been stated many times in this thread:
99.9% of Office users don't require a 64-bit version.
There are plenty of Apple apps still running as 32-bit apps. iTunes is free, but Final Cut Pro is not, and could REALLY use 64-bit architecture. I mean, if anything needs 4GB+ of memory, it's video editing, not word processing and emailing. Also, Finder only made the move to Cocoa last year, which is also pretty late considering it's a foundation of the entire OS...
Anyways, I doubt too many people will choose iWork over Office based on 32- vs 64-bits. The molecular scientist guys can try switching to Numbers, but I'm sure the lack of features in Numbers vs Excel will startle him.
iWork may also be cheaper, but considering there's been iWork 05, 06, 08 and 09, over a 3 year cycle you'll pay $160-240 to stay updated with iWork for 3/3.5 years, and $150 to stay updated with MS Office for the same timeframe...
Do most users need 64bit Office? Yes because they run 64bit Mac OS X.
Question: How many Snow Leopard Macs actually use the 64-bit kernel? I was under the impression that in the majority of circumstances, the system loads the hybrid 32-bit kernel by default.
Don't get me wrong -- 64-bit apps run just fine with the 32-bit kernel in Snow Leopard, provided you're on a 64-bit CPU.
If Apple is satisfied with the performance of using a 32-bit kernel in a 64-bit operating environment by default, then it stands to reason to me that it should be possible to write other 32 bit applications with acceptable performance in a 64-bit environment.
Quote:
That means on the fly translation from 32bit to 64bit which means more work for the computer to do.
There is no "translation" in the way you seem to be implying -- at no point does the OS do anything along the lines of fetching a 32-bit instruction, then translating it into its 64-bit equivalent, then passing the 64-bit equivalent on to the CPU for processing. The CPU has a compatibility mode that fetches and executes the 32-bit code directly.
Switching the CPU between 64-bit and 32-bit operation mainly involves flipping a bit in a register. This should normally be done automatically every time a context switch occurs, as part of pushing and popping the running process's register set. So the performance penalty for switching back and forth between 64-bit code and 32-bit code should be just about indistinguishable from the normal performance hit that comes whenever any other context switch occurred.
Yeah, the whole 320bit thing doesnt bother me as much as the UI. Regardless of aesthetics... or that "Mac feel" apps tend to have over a typical Windows OS Experience... from my personal experience, i make the assumption that more and more people are bouncing back and forth between OS's now aday... and the UI needs to be identical. This has been a problem with MS Office for mac for the last years. I feel as though I have to learn two completely different sets of apps depending if I want to work on Office for mac or Office for PC.
Do you think they are just trying to differentiate it for branding purposes? I'm really perplexed.
I agree.
The two things I want from Excel are compatible file formats and compatible user interface.
I certainly don't. Personally, I have used 2008 Office and it's doing fine. It works on my latest MacBook Pro. I wish I could acclimate to iWork, but Office is just fine. Rattle the sword, MS, talk to the hand.....
I welcome Office for the iPad because, not only can competition be a good thing, but it would also help push the legitimacy of the iPad as the next PC. For all the hatred of Office (which is somewhat well-deserved) it is the standard and the most purchased app on the Mac. I'm sure MS is paying attention to iPad sales and they should know that they will make a killing off such a product. It would continually be in the top 5 of purchased app and the App Store would be a good way for preventing piracy.
I have a feeling they won't develop Office for iPad because it'll hasten the demise of the PC And so their Windows licenses will fall. Well Mac too, but they don't care about that.
Right now they only sell Mac Office software so they can continue their business of selling Windows to everyone else using Office. So the Mac doesn't actually compete with Microsoft, it complements them.
I will start my declaring my Apple loyalty. We have 2 iMacs, a Mac Pro and iPhones. Compatibility with work software recently saw me dig in my pocket and buy and inexpensive Acer i5 running Windows 7. I have also installed PC Office 2010 Beta on it.
Unfortunately for those wanting a strongly biased review, I cannot provide one. Windows 7 seems to just work and Office 2010 (even in Beta testing mode) also just works, neither have crashed once. I cannot see how 32 v's 64 bit is going to make a jot of realistic difference for 99.9% of users unless you enjoy HD video encoding and running every Office program all at the same time on Mac Office 2011.
Also reading peoples comments, I wonder just how people expect software writers to create a single product that can be all things to all people. I have found the expanding toolbars on Office 2010 to be a clever way of bringing me more when I want it in a clearer and more presentable way, while otherwise keeping the screen generally clear. Sure, there's been a steep learning curve, but that's only because I like to know all the ins and outs. For those that don't it will work fine too.
All I hope really is that Mac Office 2011 will feel similar to PC Office 2010 so I don't have to learn too much again. Entourage becoming Outlook will be a great help too for he same reason. I honestly can't see myself sitting there cursing Microsoft for not writing it in 64 bit code.
Except you're not differentiating Mac and Windows Office, which are basically 2 totally different product cycles... For all intents and purposes, Microsoft has released Office for Mac 2004, 2008 and 2011, which when all is said and done is half as many versions as iWork will have had in that timeframe. (2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011)
Comments
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.
ty!
However, I'm stunned that Office 2011 isn't totally converted to Cocoa by now. Really Microsoft? This is your flagship product and the only way you can get money out of wealthy Apple customers.
I'd love to see a Microsoft vs. Adobe snail race.
Like I said above
And Apple's excuse for iTunes (as one example) being 32 bit Carbon is what exactly?
Probably ROI, since iTunes is free and MS Office costs $150-$500.
I suspect that iTunes will be ported to Cocoa at some point, but right now there isn't a pressing business reason to do so.
I'm thinking they might be waiting until it's okay to make iTunes an Intel-only app before reconstructing it.
I mean this doesn't really matter that much. Office is about the last application you need to support 64 bit instructions.
However, I'm stunned that Office 2011 isn't totally converted to Cocoa by now. Really Microsoft? This is your flagship product and the only way you can get money out of wealthy Apple customers.
I'd love to see a Microsoft vs. Adobe snail race.
One more time
and apple's excuse for iTunes in 32 bit Carbin would be what exactly?
People don't forget this thing (2011) is just the beta. The real deal (SP2) will come out in another year or two, and by then they will implement 64 bit and make it launch fast enough to be bearable. This is MS after all.
yep
the final unbloated version will be available by 2015, but everyone will have ipads by then
I suspect that iTunes will be ported to Cocoa at some point, but right now there isn't a pressing business reason to do so.
I would bet money it will be Cocoa, 64-bit and called iTunes X this fall with the iPod/iTunes event.
Microsoft's business seems modeled after the US car industry. Every year they have to come up with something different, just for the sake of it.
This didn't help the US car industry.
...Office 2004, Office 2008, Office 2011. Yep, yearly.
O.o
Take your time, Microsoft. I mean it's only been about eight years since Apple started strongly suggesting all developers move their apps to Cocoa and xCode.
Did you stop using the Finder until Snow Leopard came out?
Are you on strike against Final Cut Pro too?
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.
Office for Mac (2008) requires a little over 1GB for a full install. That's 4 programs.
iWork requires 1.2GB... That's 3 programs. But i don't hear you calling it a massive pig...
Sure, Entourage takes a long time (20-30 seconds) to load if you've got all of your emails from the past 5 years saved to disc and therefore a 5 GB user account that has to be read every time you start up, but I find the startup speed is similar to quite a few other programs, including apple's own iTunes (with a large library), Final Cut (also still 32-bit, by the way), and Logic (64-bit). iPhoto can also take 20-30 seconds to load up with a large library.
Anyways, it's to be expected that Office 2011 will bring lots of improvements.
As has been stated many times in this thread:
99.9% of Office users don't require a 64-bit version.
There are plenty of Apple apps still running as 32-bit apps. iTunes is free, but Final Cut Pro is not, and could REALLY use 64-bit architecture. I mean, if anything needs 4GB+ of memory, it's video editing, not word processing and emailing. Also, Finder only made the move to Cocoa last year, which is also pretty late considering it's a foundation of the entire OS...
Anyways, I doubt too many people will choose iWork over Office based on 32- vs 64-bits. The molecular scientist guys can try switching to Numbers, but I'm sure the lack of features in Numbers vs Excel will startle him.
iWork may also be cheaper, but considering there's been iWork 05, 06, 08 and 09, over a 3 year cycle you'll pay $160-240 to stay updated with iWork for 3/3.5 years, and $150 to stay updated with MS Office for the same timeframe...
Do most users need 64bit Office? Yes because they run 64bit Mac OS X.
Question: How many Snow Leopard Macs actually use the 64-bit kernel? I was under the impression that in the majority of circumstances, the system loads the hybrid 32-bit kernel by default.
Don't get me wrong -- 64-bit apps run just fine with the 32-bit kernel in Snow Leopard, provided you're on a 64-bit CPU.
If Apple is satisfied with the performance of using a 32-bit kernel in a 64-bit operating environment by default, then it stands to reason to me that it should be possible to write other 32 bit applications with acceptable performance in a 64-bit environment.
That means on the fly translation from 32bit to 64bit which means more work for the computer to do.
There is no "translation" in the way you seem to be implying -- at no point does the OS do anything along the lines of fetching a 32-bit instruction, then translating it into its 64-bit equivalent, then passing the 64-bit equivalent on to the CPU for processing. The CPU has a compatibility mode that fetches and executes the 32-bit code directly.
Switching the CPU between 64-bit and 32-bit operation mainly involves flipping a bit in a register. This should normally be done automatically every time a context switch occurs, as part of pushing and popping the running process's register set. So the performance penalty for switching back and forth between 64-bit code and 32-bit code should be just about indistinguishable from the normal performance hit that comes whenever any other context switch occurred.
Yeah, the whole 320bit thing doesnt bother me as much as the UI. Regardless of aesthetics... or that "Mac feel" apps tend to have over a typical Windows OS Experience... from my personal experience, i make the assumption that more and more people are bouncing back and forth between OS's now aday... and the UI needs to be identical. This has been a problem with MS Office for mac for the last years. I feel as though I have to learn two completely different sets of apps depending if I want to work on Office for mac or Office for PC.
Do you think they are just trying to differentiate it for branding purposes? I'm really perplexed.
I agree.
The two things I want from Excel are compatible file formats and compatible user interface.
Yep, yearly.
Fixed it for you.
I welcome Office for the iPad because, not only can competition be a good thing, but it would also help push the legitimacy of the iPad as the next PC. For all the hatred of Office (which is somewhat well-deserved) it is the standard and the most purchased app on the Mac. I'm sure MS is paying attention to iPad sales and they should know that they will make a killing off such a product. It would continually be in the top 5 of purchased app and the App Store would be a good way for preventing piracy.
I have a feeling they won't develop Office for iPad because it'll hasten the demise of the PC
Right now they only sell Mac Office software so they can continue their business of selling Windows to everyone else using Office. So the Mac doesn't actually compete with Microsoft, it complements them.
and apple's excuse for iTunes in 32 bit Carbon would be what exactly?
That it's free, unlike Office.
Unfortunately for those wanting a strongly biased review, I cannot provide one. Windows 7 seems to just work and Office 2010 (even in Beta testing mode) also just works, neither have crashed once. I cannot see how 32 v's 64 bit is going to make a jot of realistic difference for 99.9% of users unless you enjoy HD video encoding and running every Office program all at the same time on Mac Office 2011.
Also reading peoples comments, I wonder just how people expect software writers to create a single product that can be all things to all people. I have found the expanding toolbars on Office 2010 to be a clever way of bringing me more when I want it in a clearer and more presentable way, while otherwise keeping the screen generally clear. Sure, there's been a steep learning curve, but that's only because I like to know all the ins and outs. For those that don't it will work fine too.
All I hope really is that Mac Office 2011 will feel similar to PC Office 2010 so I don't have to learn too much again. Entourage becoming Outlook will be a great help too for he same reason. I honestly can't see myself sitting there cursing Microsoft for not writing it in 64 bit code.
Office 2000, Office 2002, Office 2003, Office 2004, Office 2007, Office 2008, Office 2010, Office 2011.
Fixed it for you.
Nice one.
Except you're not differentiating Mac and Windows Office, which are basically 2 totally different product cycles... For all intents and purposes, Microsoft has released Office for Mac 2004, 2008 and 2011, which when all is said and done is half as many versions as iWork will have had in that timeframe. (2005, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2011)
Nice try, though.