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?
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.
So true ... ;-(
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
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).
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).
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.
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.
Quote:
Added benefits:
1. (true) OpenType compatible (only OS X program that is fully so).
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 10?12x more expensive.
The demo documents for Cardo in Mellel and InDesign demonstrate this pretty well.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?).
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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...
Quote:
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.
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.
Quote:
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 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.
And hey, at least Apple isn't bundling sendmail any more...
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
The reason why Apple should sell Office is multi-fold:
What are the negatives?
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.
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.
Microsoft would stop making Office for X. Then guess what would happen? People would not buy Apple because 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.
It's better to love a short girl than not a tall. No?
Sound Silly? Not at all. Remember what Microsoft did when Safari came out? They stop developing and supporting IE 5.2 on Mac.
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.
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.
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, 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.
Comments
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?
Originally posted by GrayShades
...
It is a great program. ...
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
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
(...)
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.
So true ... ;-(
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
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.
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.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
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).
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).
Originally posted by GrayShades
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.
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.
Added benefits:
1. (true) OpenType compatible (only OS X program that is fully so).
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 10?12x more expensive.
The demo documents for Cardo in Mellel and InDesign demonstrate this pretty well.
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.
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.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I still can't get the Quantrix Modeler out of my mind. It functions like a spreadsheet should.
Looks very much like a further development of Improv
Lotus Improv for NeXTStep
Originally posted by bborofka
I wonder when this is going to arrive.
All I get is "Connection refused"
Originally posted by Frank777
All I get is "Connection refused"
Bah, link isn't static. Here's a screenshot.
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.
Originally posted by FormatC2
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.
Originally posted by hmmfe
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?).
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by Amorph
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by hmmfe
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.
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 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.
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 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 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.
Originally posted by Amorph
And hey, at least Apple isn't bundling sendmail any more...
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.
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.
Yeah, I guess if you go around the obstacle - it is not an obstacle anymore
Originally posted by 9secondko
The reason why Apple should sell Office is multi-fold:
What are the negatives?
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.
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.
Originally posted by eat@me
...
Microsoft would stop making Office for X. Then guess what would happen? People would not buy Apple because 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.
It's better to love a short girl than not a tall. No?
Sound Silly? Not at all. Remember what Microsoft did when Safari came out? They stop developing and supporting IE 5.2 on Mac.
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.
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.
Originally posted by tonton
I do like Excel
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,