This was a really good article. I do agree that what Blah64 said, I don't find Google App secure or private enough for business. I primarily use iWork at work. As far as Keynote presentations, I'm mostly just opening and viewing and not doing too much creating on my own. Although from time to time I do have to create Keynotes. I use Pages a lot and I have to use Numbers for sorting through large databases of clients. Prior to this I used Google Docs for small personal things. I haven't used Microsoft Office in probably 8 years.
(and remember I'm comparing Preview to Reader, not Acrobat. However, I do know that Acrobat is still very crappy on Macs)
what would be the need to use Acrobat Pro on a Mac? I'm not trying to set you up here. I honestly, don't know. I thought Acrobat Pro's whole reason for existing was to produce PDF documents. With Mac you just select "print to PDF" to accomplish that goal. What am I missing??
Well... I obviously didn't get the memo. Just bought Office 2013 (for Windows) to *ahem* run on my Windows 8.1 virtual machine... on my mac...
Don't ask... just wanted to get it. It's work related... However, may very well be my last Windows Office pack I'll buy.
I refuse to subscribe to Office365. I shouldn't have to pay for the "privilege" to continuously use it.
Why did you opt to use Office on a Windows 8.1 virtual machine on a Mac vs just getting Office for Mac and avoiding the need for Windows 8.1? I'm curious.
Hmmm.... Microsoft's two cash cows, Windows and Office are both sick and dying at the same time.
No. They're not.
Windows has about 91% desktop market share (source). That's about the same as two years ago. Is that what you call 'dying'? Windows 8 may not have taken off as MS would have expected, but Windows still has an absolute stranglehold in the desktop market.
Likewise, Office still has a stranglehold in the corporate environment. Web-based alternatives like Google Apps or competing products like iWork may be gaining in popularity among consumers, but it is the corporate space where the money is made.
Its been my observation that many companies are not using that latest version of Office and are in no hurry because they can not justify a need to do so. Same thing with Windows but to a lesser extent due to new HW requirements. Microsoft needs to figure out how to change that.
Windows has about 91% desktop market share (source). That's about the same as two years ago. Is that what you call 'dying'? Windows 8 may not have taken off as MS would have expected, but Windows still has an absolute stranglehold in the desktop market.
Likewise, Office still has a stranglehold in the corporate environment. Web-based alternatives like Google Apps or competing products like iWork may be gaining in popularity among consumers, but it is the corporate space where the money is made.
Thanks for providing a source but you're discounting the role of non-traditional "PCs". Marketshare could also mean they can sell 91 Windows licenses out of a 100 desktop PC sales but there are only 1,000 PCs being sold per week and 10,000,000 post-PC devices then that market is effectively useless to them.
"Worldwide PC shipments totaled 76.3 million units in the first quarter of 2013 (1Q13), down -13.9% compared to the same quarter in 2012 and worse than the forecast decline of -7.7%, according to the International Data Corporation (IDC) Worldwide Quarterly PC Tracker. The extent of the year-on-year contraction marked the worst quarter since IDC began tracking the PC market quarterly in 1994. The results also marked the fourth consecutive quarter of year-on-year shipment declines."
Their new CEO looks like he's well aware that MS needs to shift their focus. I suspect MS will eventually settle on enterprise and backend services like IBM, a still very successful company.
what would be the need to use Acrobat Pro on a Mac? I'm not trying to set you up here. I honestly, don't know. I thought Acrobat Pro's whole reason for existing was to produce PDF documents. With Mac you just select "print to PDF" to accomplish that goal. What am I missing??
There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize. It is a professional application on the same level and a complement to the Adobe CC suite. When you just print to PDF from your Mac you are using the open source specifications from 2008. If you don't have Acrobat Pro, you don't see all the items in the "Tools" and "Advanced" tabs with features that are constantly being added and refined.
there is a troubling trend in that software is continued to be devaluated. First through the Open Source movement, then through introduction of relatively low priced App store models and free Ad based models and social networks. Companies which make their money purely from SW products (w/o adds) are finding it hard to convince people to pay a premium for their offerings and make compelling updated versions worthy of upgrade. Many are going to a forced subscription models like Adobe and Microsoft because of this upgrade issue. I'm not sure it will be successful based on the backlash I have observed from users. I fear that pure SW companies as we know it are in trouble.
what would be the need to use Acrobat Pro on a Mac? I'm not trying to set you up here. I honestly, don't know. I thought Acrobat Pro's whole reason for existing was to produce PDF documents. With Mac you just select "print to PDF" to accomplish that goal. What am I missing??
There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize. It is a professional application on the same level and a complement to the Adobe CC suite. When you just print to PDF from your Mac you are using the open source specifications from 2008. If you don't have Acrobat Pro, you don't see all the items in the "Tools" and "Advanced" tabs with features that are constantly being added and refined.
"There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize." Lol. You are stating what I already know. That is why I asked. Unforunately, your response still leaves things as mystery to me.
As for producing PDF which is compatible to standard back from 2008. I am not sure how that is bad thing. I thought the whole point of producing PDF is because it is "Portable" Document Format. Why would we want to send people a new PDF formatted document which they can not read? I might as well send them MS Word version X.Y.Z formatted documents which they can not open with a previous version A.B.C.
"There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize." Lol. You are stating what I already know. That is why I asked. Unforunately, your response still leaves things as mystery to me.
As for producing PDF which is compatible to standard back from 2008. I am not sure how that is bad thing. I thought the whole point of producing PDF is because it is "Portable" Document Format. Why would we want to send people a new PDF formatted document which they can not read? I might as well send them MS Word version X.Y.Z formatted documents which they can not open with a previous version A.B.C.
It is not a matter of sending a document that they can't read, it is more about manipulating the document before you send it. Also validating it. making editable forms, chapters and table of contents, properly preparing high resolution for printing, making them compatible with automated work flows, making dynamic documents with scripting, password protecting documents, making them non-prinatable or unable to copy text, extract, or modify, assign security certificates, adding multimedia or accessibility options on, and on, and on. Like I said it is professional software for professionals. If you don't need those sorts of tools then it is not for you.
As far as it being a Portable Document Format, in Acrobat you can choose which version of compatibility you want to save it as but not all features are compatible with third party applications. They are however all supposed to be compatible with the latest version of Reader which is always free, so yes it is portable but not necessarily completely with Preview or Chrome.
I probably fall into the reports category of very light use of Office apps other than outlook. But:
1. Some of the excel files im looking at use features not in alternative web based apps 2. Office is really fast and easy with things like smart objects and screen shot buttons. So the 20 mins in a month I use word for is very efficient 3. Like most people I know Office. If i spent 2 hours learning something new. The cost of non production work for that time would be greater than the license cost for the year for Office. That basically makes Office the cheapest option.
reading more about PDF changes between Mac OS X "print to PDF" generated version 1.3 and latest Adobe Pro generated version 1.7, looks like Mac "print to PDF" users are missing out on further encryption algorithm options, embedding JPEG2000, XML forms, 3D models, Javascript and Flash.
"There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize." Lol. You are stating what I already know. That is why I asked. Unforunately, your response still leaves things as mystery to me.
As for producing PDF which is compatible to standard back from 2008. I am not sure how that is bad thing. I thought the whole point of producing PDF is because it is "Portable" Document Format. Why would we want to send people a new PDF formatted document which they can not read? I might as well send them MS Word version X.Y.Z formatted documents which they can not open with a previous version A.B.C.
It is not a matter of sending a document that they can't read, it is more about manipulating the document before you send it. Also validating it. making editable forms, properly preparing high resolution for printing, making them compatible with automated work flows, making dynamic documents with scripting, password protecting documents, making them non-prinatable or unable to copy text, extract, or modify, assign security certificates, adding multimedia or accessibility options on, and on, and on. Like I said it is professional software for professionals. If you don't need those sorts of tools then it is not for you.
3. Like most people I know Office. If i spent 2 hours learning something new. The cost of non production work for that time would be greater than the license cost for the year for Office. That basically makes Office the cheapest option.
this last point is very good. Also a reason not to upgrade to a new version of Office or Windows for some people.
there is a troubling trend in that software is continued to be devaluated. First through the Open Source movement, then through introduction of relatively low priced App store models and free Ad based models and social networks. Companies which make their money purely from SW products (w/o adds) are finding it hard to convince people to pay a premium for their offerings and make compelling updated versions worthy of upgrade. Many are going to a forced subscription models like Adobe and Microsoft because of this upgrade issue. I'm not sure it will be successful based on the backlash I have observed from users. I fear that pure SW companies as we know it are in trouble.
I only use basic functionality of word processing programs and spreadsheets. Libreoffice works fine for me on my Mac and GNU/Linux boxes. I even use their presentation software sometimes. I'm not trying to impress people with moving colorful spinning objects when I give presentations. I show images and text and go from page to page with information. If I want to embed a video it can be done.
Exactly how much better is Microsux Word compared to some of the free or even low cost word processors out there? How specialized can a text document creator really be? I remember typewriters. They seemed to create wonderful text documents that communicated messages very well. With LibreOffice I can create documents that only a print shop could create many years ago. Computers today can share documents and allow contributions from many people. I get all of that with the Libreoffice program. Prior to that I used OpenOffice. I'm experimenting with Google Drive and it seems to work well and it gives me numerous fonts from which to choose.
Maybe the reason Microsux Office is continuing to remain is that the alternatives really aren't known or advertised to corporations.
there is a troubling trend in that software is continued to be devaluated. First through the Open Source movement, then through introduction of relatively low priced App store models and free Ad based models and social networks. Companies which make their money purely from SW products (w/o adds) are finding it hard to convince people to pay a premium for their offerings and make compelling updated versions worthy of upgrade. Many are going to a forced subscription models like Adobe and Microsoft because of this upgrade issue. I'm not sure it will be successful based on the backlash I have observed from users. I fear that pure SW companies as we know it are in trouble.
I only use basic functionality of word processing programs and spreadsheets. Libreoffice works fine for me on my Mac and GNU/Linux boxes. I even use their presentation software sometimes. I'm not trying to impress people with moving colorful spinning objects when I give presentations. I show images and text and go from page to page with information. If I want to embed a video it can be done.
Exactly how much better is Microsux Word compared to some of the free or even low cost word processors out there? How specialized can a text document creator really be? I remember typewriters. They seemed to create wonderful text documents that communicated messages very well. With LibreOffice I can create documents that only a print shop could create many years ago. Computers today can share documents and allow contributions from many people. I get all of that with the Libreoffice program. Prior to that I used OpenOffice. I'm experimenting with Google Drive and it seems to work well and it gives me numerous fonts from which to choose.
Maybe the reason Microsux Office is continuing to remain is that the alternatives really aren't known or advertised to corporations.
I think for people in your position who do not depend on a large collaborative effort with others using Microsoft Office, I think you can pretty much use anything you want. Consider yourself one of the luck ones. Congrats.
I bet there are even people on this Forum that will tell you they get along just fine with LaTex and Emacs on Linux for all sort of Office tasks. If not on here, then surely you will run into these people at Open Source conferences.
That chart: Adobe Reader needs to die. It's the slowest and most unstable piece of software I've ever been forced to use. The fact that some PDFs require Adobe Reader to be opened properly is so sad.
Yup. Its dosgsting how it can't even scroll simple PDFs smoothly. Choppy as ****, always. Preview is night and day. Such a bloated, insecure piece of shit software.
I only use basic functionality of word processing programs and spreadsheets. Libreoffice works fine for me on my Mac and GNU/Linux boxes. I even use their presentation software sometimes. I'm not trying to impress people with moving colorful spinning objects when I give presentations. I show images and text and go from page to page with information. If I want to embed a video it can be done.
Exactly how much better is Microsux Word compared to some of the free or even low cost word processors out there? How specialized can a text document creator really be? I remember typewriters. They seemed to create wonderful text documents that communicated messages very well. With LibreOffice I can create documents that only a print shop could create many years ago. Computers today can share documents and allow contributions from many people. I get all of that with the Libreoffice program. Prior to that I used OpenOffice. I'm experimenting with Google Drive and it seems to work well and it gives me numerous fonts from which to choose.
Maybe the reason Microsux Office is continuing to remain is that the alternatives really aren't known or advertised to corporations.
Personally I dislike Open/LibreOffice because it is slow, clunky, ugly and just as incompatible to MS Office documents as iWork is. But that's a matter of opinion / taste.
The point with big businesses is just another one and it has nothing to do with advertising, etc. MS Office has been around for a long time now, it established itself amongst businesses and when corporations buy tens of thousands of licenses of Windows and Office they actually get quite good deals. But not even that is the point, the point is really, that corporations want support. They want to be able to call a representative, they want to be able to get consultants on site and they want to be able to get those nice little (expensive) booklets about what has changed for their employees when deploying a new version.
This is why corporations go for paid solutions, because they want a whole package. For exactly the same reason corporations deploy Red Hat instead of some free distribution, deploy IBM systems, databases, application servers over their free alternatives, etc. It's all about first and third party support and ecosystems.
Choppy as ****, always. Preview is night and day. Such a bloated, insecure piece of shit software.
To be fair, if you are comparing reading a pdf file in Safari while downloading it from the web, to reading the same pdf file in Preview when it is already on your hard drive, there are going to be differences. To take the Internet out of the equation, try reading a pdf file that is on your computer by draging it into your Safari window. I think you will notice quite a difference in how smoothly it scrolls.
Comments
(and remember I'm comparing Preview to Reader, not Acrobat. However, I do know that Acrobat is still very crappy on Macs)
what would be the need to use Acrobat Pro on a Mac? I'm not trying to set you up here. I honestly, don't know. I thought Acrobat Pro's whole reason for existing was to produce PDF documents. With Mac you just select "print to PDF" to accomplish that goal. What am I missing??
Why did you opt to use Office on a Windows 8.1 virtual machine on a Mac vs just getting Office for Mac and avoiding the need for Windows 8.1? I'm curious.
Hmmm.... Microsoft's two cash cows, Windows and Office are both sick and dying at the same time.
No. They're not.
Windows has about 91% desktop market share (source). That's about the same as two years ago. Is that what you call 'dying'? Windows 8 may not have taken off as MS would have expected, but Windows still has an absolute stranglehold in the desktop market.
Likewise, Office still has a stranglehold in the corporate environment. Web-based alternatives like Google Apps or competing products like iWork may be gaining in popularity among consumers, but it is the corporate space where the money is made.
Its been my observation that many companies are not using that latest version of Office and are in no hurry because they can not justify a need to do so. Same thing with Windows but to a lesser extent due to new HW requirements. Microsoft needs to figure out how to change that.
Thanks for providing a source but you're discounting the role of non-traditional "PCs". Marketshare could also mean they can sell 91 Windows licenses out of a 100 desktop PC sales but there are only 1,000 PCs being sold per week and 10,000,000 post-PC devices then that market is effectively useless to them.
Their new CEO looks like he's well aware that MS needs to shift their focus. I suspect MS will eventually settle on enterprise and backend services like IBM, a still very successful company.
There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize. It is a professional application on the same level and a complement to the Adobe CC suite. When you just print to PDF from your Mac you are using the open source specifications from 2008. If you don't have Acrobat Pro, you don't see all the items in the "Tools" and "Advanced" tabs with features that are constantly being added and refined.
there is a troubling trend in that software is continued to be devaluated. First through the Open Source movement, then through introduction of relatively low priced App store models and free Ad based models and social networks. Companies which make their money purely from SW products (w/o adds) are finding it hard to convince people to pay a premium for their offerings and make compelling updated versions worthy of upgrade. Many are going to a forced subscription models like Adobe and Microsoft because of this upgrade issue. I'm not sure it will be successful based on the backlash I have observed from users. I fear that pure SW companies as we know it are in trouble.
There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize. It is a professional application on the same level and a complement to the Adobe CC suite. When you just print to PDF from your Mac you are using the open source specifications from 2008. If you don't have Acrobat Pro, you don't see all the items in the "Tools" and "Advanced" tabs with features that are constantly being added and refined.
"There is a lot more to Acrobat than you realize." Lol. You are stating what I already know. That is why I asked. Unforunately, your response still leaves things as mystery to me.
As for producing PDF which is compatible to standard back from 2008. I am not sure how that is bad thing. I thought the whole point of producing PDF is because it is "Portable" Document Format. Why would we want to send people a new PDF formatted document which they can not read? I might as well send them MS Word version X.Y.Z formatted documents which they can not open with a previous version A.B.C.
As for producing PDF which is compatible to standard back from 2008. I am not sure how that is bad thing. I thought the whole point of producing PDF is because it is "Portable" Document Format. Why would we want to send people a new PDF formatted document which they can not read? I might as well send them MS Word version X.Y.Z formatted documents which they can not open with a previous version A.B.C.
It is not a matter of sending a document that they can't read, it is more about manipulating the document before you send it. Also validating it. making editable forms, chapters and table of contents, properly preparing high resolution for printing, making them compatible with automated work flows, making dynamic documents with scripting, password protecting documents, making them non-prinatable or unable to copy text, extract, or modify, assign security certificates, adding multimedia or accessibility options on, and on, and on. Like I said it is professional software for professionals. If you don't need those sorts of tools then it is not for you.
As far as it being a Portable Document Format, in Acrobat you can choose which version of compatibility you want to save it as but not all features are compatible with third party applications. They are however all supposed to be compatible with the latest version of Reader which is always free, so yes it is portable but not necessarily completely with Preview or Chrome.
1. Some of the excel files im looking at use features not in alternative web based apps
2. Office is really fast and easy with things like smart objects and screen shot buttons. So the 20 mins in a month I use word for is very efficient
3. Like most people I know Office. If i spent 2 hours learning something new. The cost of non production work for that time would be greater than the license cost for the year for Office. That basically makes Office the cheapest option.
reading more about PDF changes between Mac OS X "print to PDF" generated version 1.3 and latest Adobe Pro generated version 1.7, looks like Mac "print to PDF" users are missing out on further encryption algorithm options, embedding JPEG2000, XML forms, 3D models, Javascript and Flash.
As for producing PDF which is compatible to standard back from 2008. I am not sure how that is bad thing. I thought the whole point of producing PDF is because it is "Portable" Document Format. Why would we want to send people a new PDF formatted document which they can not read? I might as well send them MS Word version X.Y.Z formatted documents which they can not open with a previous version A.B.C.
It is not a matter of sending a document that they can't read, it is more about manipulating the document before you send it. Also validating it. making editable forms, properly preparing high resolution for printing, making them compatible with automated work flows, making dynamic documents with scripting, password protecting documents, making them non-prinatable or unable to copy text, extract, or modify, assign security certificates, adding multimedia or accessibility options on, and on, and on. Like I said it is professional software for professionals. If you don't need those sorts of tools then it is not for you.
this was helpful, thanks.
3. Like most people I know Office. If i spent 2 hours learning something new. The cost of non production work for that time would be greater than the license cost for the year for Office. That basically makes Office the cheapest option.
this last point is very good. Also a reason not to upgrade to a new version of Office or Windows for some people.
there is a troubling trend in that software is continued to be devaluated. First through the Open Source movement, then through introduction of relatively low priced App store models and free Ad based models and social networks. Companies which make their money purely from SW products (w/o adds) are finding it hard to convince people to pay a premium for their offerings and make compelling updated versions worthy of upgrade. Many are going to a forced subscription models like Adobe and Microsoft because of this upgrade issue. I'm not sure it will be successful based on the backlash I have observed from users. I fear that pure SW companies as we know it are in trouble.
I only use basic functionality of word processing programs and spreadsheets. Libreoffice works fine for me on my Mac and GNU/Linux boxes. I even use their presentation software sometimes. I'm not trying to impress people with moving colorful spinning objects when I give presentations. I show images and text and go from page to page with information. If I want to embed a video it can be done.
Exactly how much better is Microsux Word compared to some of the free or even low cost word processors out there? How specialized can a text document creator really be? I remember typewriters. They seemed to create wonderful text documents that communicated messages very well. With LibreOffice I can create documents that only a print shop could create many years ago. Computers today can share documents and allow contributions from many people. I get all of that with the Libreoffice program. Prior to that I used OpenOffice. I'm experimenting with Google Drive and it seems to work well and it gives me numerous fonts from which to choose.
Maybe the reason Microsux Office is continuing to remain is that the alternatives really aren't known or advertised to corporations.
there is a troubling trend in that software is continued to be devaluated. First through the Open Source movement, then through introduction of relatively low priced App store models and free Ad based models and social networks. Companies which make their money purely from SW products (w/o adds) are finding it hard to convince people to pay a premium for their offerings and make compelling updated versions worthy of upgrade. Many are going to a forced subscription models like Adobe and Microsoft because of this upgrade issue. I'm not sure it will be successful based on the backlash I have observed from users. I fear that pure SW companies as we know it are in trouble.
I only use basic functionality of word processing programs and spreadsheets. Libreoffice works fine for me on my Mac and GNU/Linux boxes. I even use their presentation software sometimes. I'm not trying to impress people with moving colorful spinning objects when I give presentations. I show images and text and go from page to page with information. If I want to embed a video it can be done.
Exactly how much better is Microsux Word compared to some of the free or even low cost word processors out there? How specialized can a text document creator really be? I remember typewriters. They seemed to create wonderful text documents that communicated messages very well. With LibreOffice I can create documents that only a print shop could create many years ago. Computers today can share documents and allow contributions from many people. I get all of that with the Libreoffice program. Prior to that I used OpenOffice. I'm experimenting with Google Drive and it seems to work well and it gives me numerous fonts from which to choose.
Maybe the reason Microsux Office is continuing to remain is that the alternatives really aren't known or advertised to corporations.
I think for people in your position who do not depend on a large collaborative effort with others using Microsoft Office, I think you can pretty much use anything you want. Consider yourself one of the luck ones. Congrats.
I bet there are even people on this Forum that will tell you they get along just fine with LaTex and Emacs on Linux for all sort of Office tasks. If not on here, then surely you will run into these people at Open Source conferences.
Yup. Its dosgsting how it can't even scroll simple PDFs smoothly. Choppy as ****, always. Preview is night and day. Such a bloated, insecure piece of shit software.
I only use basic functionality of word processing programs and spreadsheets. Libreoffice works fine for me on my Mac and GNU/Linux boxes. I even use their presentation software sometimes. I'm not trying to impress people with moving colorful spinning objects when I give presentations. I show images and text and go from page to page with information. If I want to embed a video it can be done.
Exactly how much better is Microsux Word compared to some of the free or even low cost word processors out there? How specialized can a text document creator really be? I remember typewriters. They seemed to create wonderful text documents that communicated messages very well. With LibreOffice I can create documents that only a print shop could create many years ago. Computers today can share documents and allow contributions from many people. I get all of that with the Libreoffice program. Prior to that I used OpenOffice. I'm experimenting with Google Drive and it seems to work well and it gives me numerous fonts from which to choose.
Maybe the reason Microsux Office is continuing to remain is that the alternatives really aren't known or advertised to corporations.
Personally I dislike Open/LibreOffice because it is slow, clunky, ugly and just as incompatible to MS Office documents as iWork is. But that's a matter of opinion / taste.
The point with big businesses is just another one and it has nothing to do with advertising, etc. MS Office has been around for a long time now, it established itself amongst businesses and when corporations buy tens of thousands of licenses of Windows and Office they actually get quite good deals. But not even that is the point, the point is really, that corporations want support. They want to be able to call a representative, they want to be able to get consultants on site and they want to be able to get those nice little (expensive) booklets about what has changed for their employees when deploying a new version.
This is why corporations go for paid solutions, because they want a whole package. For exactly the same reason corporations deploy Red Hat instead of some free distribution, deploy IBM systems, databases, application servers over their free alternatives, etc. It's all about first and third party support and ecosystems.
To be fair, if you are comparing reading a pdf file in Safari while downloading it from the web, to reading the same pdf file in Preview when it is already on your hard drive, there are going to be differences. To take the Internet out of the equation, try reading a pdf file that is on your computer by draging it into your Safari window. I think you will notice quite a difference in how smoothly it scrolls.
Wait... is this "Attack Microsoft Saturday"? I thought it was "Attack Samsung Saturday"...