Thing is that consumers shouldn't have to pay mucho bucks for DTP style apps. Obviously a consumer oriented DTP program wouldn't have the advanced features of Quark or even Pagemaker and should cost no more than $129.
And, most consumers really don't know the difference between DTP and WP. When there's a project to do, they go for the program they know... not necessarily the one that's right for the job. That's what Amorph was complaining about, and I think a WP app with some DTP capabilities could be very strong.
Also one advantage to PDF is if you put it on a website, you can view it from within the browser (except Safari, grrr). Word docs: no.
This is five days too late to be an aside, but anyway... Someone should have pointed you to the Safari PDF Browser Plug-in. Just drop the plug-in into (~)/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/ and you can view, save and print PDFs from inside Safari. I've started using Safari as my usual PDF viewer/printer since Acrobat Reader 6 (yuck) and Preview can be so slow to open.
The .doc format is proprietary, just like Colonel Sanders famous recipe and Coca-Cola's 7X ingredient! If .doc were open, I am sure we would not be having this debate - several developers would have full Word (and Excel, Powerpoint) compatibility built into their Mac software offerings.
Keynote already opens .ppt files. Don't recall hearing of Apple paying ransom for that. KFC and Cokes formulas are a trade secret which != proprietary. Despite that there is Pepsi and any number of crappy greasy chicken outlet.
Nisus has been able to open word docs, and there is an open-source project called antiword that does as as well. The Mesa spreadsheet opens and saves in .xls format. One of the only reasons that Excel was able to gain any foothold was its ability to open Lotus files.
Proprietary file format have been reverse engineered for years, and no ones pays a fscking cent for this.
Keynote already opens .ppt files. Don't recall hearing of Apple paying ransom for that. KFC and Cokes formulas are a trade secret which != proprietary. Despite that there is Pepsi and any number of crappy greasy chicken outlet.
Nisus has been able to open word docs, and there is an open-source project called antiword that does as as well. The Mesa spreadsheet opens and saves in .xls format. One of the only reasons that Excel was able to gain any foothold was its ability to open Lotus files.
Proprietary file format have been reverse engineered for years, and no ones pays a fscking cent for this.
I guess it depends on how much compatibility someone is looking for. For example, as a long time user of Excel on both the NT and Mac platforms, converting spreadsheets with pivot tables, iteration (circular references), graphs and even some basic functions (RANK, EDATE, etc) to name a few can only be done Excel to Excel (Mesa won't let you complete any of the tasks listed and will only convert the most basic of spreadsheets). Similarly with Word - try and convert a document with complex tables and header and footer information (such as an average legal document) using Nisus - NADA.
Believe me - the proprietary nature of the .doc/.xls/.ppt files is a significant problem to wide acceptance of third party productivity software. Even Microsoft has trouble getting cross platform conversion of PowerPoint files working properly (check the font and paragraph spacing or graphic conversions next time you take a .ppt file across to the Mac and print it). This is a major issue. Then ask yourself why 90% of users have adopted Office - it is because they (or the people making the purchasing decision for them) need the comfort of 100% compatibility. 99% is not good enough (at least not in the commercial/government world).
I believe that Apple understands this and this might be a reason why we have not seen Apple go head to head with an AppleOffice release. They can only release an upscale package when they can offer 100% compatibility. My suggestion of paying a nominal licencing fee for access behind the MS kimono is one way of achieving that while at the same time placating MS.
I guess it depends on how much compatibility someone is looking for. For example, as a long time user of Excel on both the NT and Mac platforms, converting spreadsheets with pivot tables, iteration (circular references), graphs and even some basic functions (RANK, EDATE, etc) to name a few can only be done Excel to Excel (Mesa won't let you complete any of the tasks listed and will only convert the most basic of spreadsheets). Similarly with Word - try and convert a document with complex tables and header and footer information (such as an average legal document) using Nisus - NADA.
Believe me - the proprietary nature of the .doc/.xls/.ppt files is a significant problem to wide acceptance of third party productivity software. Even Microsoft has trouble getting cross platform conversion of PowerPoint files working properly (check the font and paragraph spacing or graphic conversions next time you take a .ppt file across to the Mac and print it). This is a major issue. Then ask yourself why 90% of users have adopted Office - it is because they (or the people making the purchasing decision for them) need the comfort of 100% compatibility. 99% is not good enough (at least not in the commercial/government world).
I believe that Apple understands this and this might be a reason why we have not seen Apple go head to head with an AppleOffice release. They can only release an upscale package when they can offer 100% compatibility. My suggestion of paying a nominal licencing fee for access behind the MS kimono is one way of achieving that while at the same time placating MS.
I agree. Even if Apple launched its own open source cross-platform document formats (as some people have suggested)- and even if it had some success doing it, I am not sure that it would offer a real alternative to MS Office for many of us. . That's not because Office does not need an alternative, but because it has become the de facto standard. It may not be the greatest of standards, but that, unfortunately, is not the issue. Further, I agree that for many of us, compatibility means essentially perfect compatibility. Conversion ? in the full sense ? is not good enough.
Having Office for OSX, I find that it does in fact offer very good compatibility (not quite perfect though, I?ll admit), even for complex PowerPoints. I have had occasional minor font issues, but that is about it. The documents remain entirely stable and I have had no problem with graphics and special formatting. I am not sure what sort of ?conversion? takes place for .doc and .ppt documents between Office for OSX and Office XP, but I am guessing that it is not ?conversion? in the full sense of conversion such as exists between AppleWorks and Office or the Corel Suite and Office (which have caused me major headaches in the past).
All this is to say that I think that there is any argument that Apple should base its efforts on the MS formats. Perhaps they can take .doc and .ppt and do a better job of them than MS have done. Certainly, they could do a better job of Office for OSX than MS have done. While, as I state, Office for OSX works well from a compatibility perspective, I do agree with many other comments on these forums that it is ?bloat-ware? that urgently needs to be rewritten. (Take a look how slowly Office for OS X works even on a G5 in the test of G5s vs. ?the competition? in the latest issue of MacWorld ? this is not a G5 issue, this is a software issue).
If MS won?t improve .doc and .ppt on OSX, then Apple should take over and put out something themselves.
MS is working on 'improving' the .doc format, they are supposedly incorporating xml into it, to provide so called "interoperability" with other apps. But it is of course done the MS way, keeping parts of the code obscured from privy eyes, non-'open'.
This is the basic problem with using the .doc format: each time they have had competitors reading the format, it has changed.
A solution is to launch a new format that does the most essential things (notes, tables, multiuser collaboration, etc) - and then something, to persuade users to use the format. It could be DTP, or blogging features, or other 'dynamic' features, incorporating already existing 'open standards' protocols and systems...
What they should do, IMO, is offer a word processing program that outputs professional-quality work within the constraints of a word processor - none of the fancy reflowing and positioning and layering options, as you say, but a precisely laid out and beautifully kerned rendering of whatever letter or essay or proposal is being written.
Then you could offer AppleWorks-style DTP: Very simple, mostly template-based, but good enough for newsletters and such. And, again, done in such a way that if you fired up InDesign and did the same thing, it wouldn't look all that much different.
The world has suffered enough at the hands of Word documents.
Agree with all that, except the bit about templates. Please don't make them compulsory! Appleworks-level DTP is all I need... (at least, it would be if it could cope with pictures of over 72dpi!) But I never use templates - I always start from scratch with a blank page.
And, most consumers really don't know the difference between DTP and WP. When there's a project to do, they go for the program they know... not necessarily the one that's right for the job. That's what Amorph was complaining about, and I think a WP app with some DTP capabilities could be very strong.
So maybe Apple should make both programs, and bundle them together. When you launch one, it asks you what kind of document you want to create, and switches programs if you got it wrong. (Of course, there'd be a 'don't show again' option for people who actually know what they're doing!)
Comments
Originally posted by Outsider
Thing is that consumers shouldn't have to pay mucho bucks for DTP style apps. Obviously a consumer oriented DTP program wouldn't have the advanced features of Quark or even Pagemaker and should cost no more than $129.
And, most consumers really don't know the difference between DTP and WP. When there's a project to do, they go for the program they know... not necessarily the one that's right for the job. That's what Amorph was complaining about, and I think a WP app with some DTP capabilities could be very strong.
Originally posted by Outsider
Also one advantage to PDF is if you put it on a website, you can view it from within the browser (except Safari, grrr). Word docs: no.
This is five days too late to be an aside, but anyway... Someone should have pointed you to the Safari PDF Browser Plug-in. Just drop the plug-in into (~)/Library/Internet Plug-Ins/ and you can view, save and print PDFs from inside Safari. I've started using Safari as my usual PDF viewer/printer since Acrobat Reader 6 (yuck) and Preview can be so slow to open.
The .doc format is proprietary, just like Colonel Sanders famous recipe and Coca-Cola's 7X ingredient! If .doc were open, I am sure we would not be having this debate - several developers would have full Word (and Excel, Powerpoint) compatibility built into their Mac software offerings.
Keynote already opens .ppt files. Don't recall hearing of Apple paying ransom for that. KFC and Cokes formulas are a trade secret which != proprietary. Despite that there is Pepsi and any number of crappy greasy chicken outlet.
Nisus has been able to open word docs, and there is an open-source project called antiword that does as as well. The Mesa spreadsheet opens and saves in .xls format. One of the only reasons that Excel was able to gain any foothold was its ability to open Lotus files.
Proprietary file format have been reverse engineered for years, and no ones pays a fscking cent for this.
Originally posted by cowerd
Keynote already opens .ppt files. Don't recall hearing of Apple paying ransom for that. KFC and Cokes formulas are a trade secret which != proprietary. Despite that there is Pepsi and any number of crappy greasy chicken outlet.
Nisus has been able to open word docs, and there is an open-source project called antiword that does as as well. The Mesa spreadsheet opens and saves in .xls format. One of the only reasons that Excel was able to gain any foothold was its ability to open Lotus files.
Proprietary file format have been reverse engineered for years, and no ones pays a fscking cent for this.
I guess it depends on how much compatibility someone is looking for. For example, as a long time user of Excel on both the NT and Mac platforms, converting spreadsheets with pivot tables, iteration (circular references), graphs and even some basic functions (RANK, EDATE, etc) to name a few can only be done Excel to Excel (Mesa won't let you complete any of the tasks listed and will only convert the most basic of spreadsheets). Similarly with Word - try and convert a document with complex tables and header and footer information (such as an average legal document) using Nisus - NADA.
Believe me - the proprietary nature of the .doc/.xls/.ppt files is a significant problem to wide acceptance of third party productivity software. Even Microsoft has trouble getting cross platform conversion of PowerPoint files working properly (check the font and paragraph spacing or graphic conversions next time you take a .ppt file across to the Mac and print it). This is a major issue. Then ask yourself why 90% of users have adopted Office - it is because they (or the people making the purchasing decision for them) need the comfort of 100% compatibility. 99% is not good enough (at least not in the commercial/government world).
I believe that Apple understands this and this might be a reason why we have not seen Apple go head to head with an AppleOffice release. They can only release an upscale package when they can offer 100% compatibility. My suggestion of paying a nominal licencing fee for access behind the MS kimono is one way of achieving that while at the same time placating MS.
BTW: Does Pepsi taste the same as Coke?
Originally posted by McCrab
BTW: Does Pepsi taste the same as Coke?
Hell no. Pepsi is vastly superior. Much sweeter and less gassy.
Coke rules.
Originally posted by McCrab
I guess it depends on how much compatibility someone is looking for. For example, as a long time user of Excel on both the NT and Mac platforms, converting spreadsheets with pivot tables, iteration (circular references), graphs and even some basic functions (RANK, EDATE, etc) to name a few can only be done Excel to Excel (Mesa won't let you complete any of the tasks listed and will only convert the most basic of spreadsheets). Similarly with Word - try and convert a document with complex tables and header and footer information (such as an average legal document) using Nisus - NADA.
Believe me - the proprietary nature of the .doc/.xls/.ppt files is a significant problem to wide acceptance of third party productivity software. Even Microsoft has trouble getting cross platform conversion of PowerPoint files working properly (check the font and paragraph spacing or graphic conversions next time you take a .ppt file across to the Mac and print it). This is a major issue. Then ask yourself why 90% of users have adopted Office - it is because they (or the people making the purchasing decision for them) need the comfort of 100% compatibility. 99% is not good enough (at least not in the commercial/government world).
I believe that Apple understands this and this might be a reason why we have not seen Apple go head to head with an AppleOffice release. They can only release an upscale package when they can offer 100% compatibility. My suggestion of paying a nominal licencing fee for access behind the MS kimono is one way of achieving that while at the same time placating MS.
I agree. Even if Apple launched its own open source cross-platform document formats (as some people have suggested)- and even if it had some success doing it, I am not sure that it would offer a real alternative to MS Office for many of us. . That's not because Office does not need an alternative, but because it has become the de facto standard. It may not be the greatest of standards, but that, unfortunately, is not the issue. Further, I agree that for many of us, compatibility means essentially perfect compatibility. Conversion ? in the full sense ? is not good enough.
Having Office for OSX, I find that it does in fact offer very good compatibility (not quite perfect though, I?ll admit), even for complex PowerPoints. I have had occasional minor font issues, but that is about it. The documents remain entirely stable and I have had no problem with graphics and special formatting. I am not sure what sort of ?conversion? takes place for .doc and .ppt documents between Office for OSX and Office XP, but I am guessing that it is not ?conversion? in the full sense of conversion such as exists between AppleWorks and Office or the Corel Suite and Office (which have caused me major headaches in the past).
All this is to say that I think that there is any argument that Apple should base its efforts on the MS formats. Perhaps they can take .doc and .ppt and do a better job of them than MS have done. Certainly, they could do a better job of Office for OSX than MS have done. While, as I state, Office for OSX works well from a compatibility perspective, I do agree with many other comments on these forums that it is ?bloat-ware? that urgently needs to be rewritten. (Take a look how slowly Office for OS X works even on a G5 in the test of G5s vs. ?the competition? in the latest issue of MacWorld ? this is not a G5 issue, this is a software issue).
If MS won?t improve .doc and .ppt on OSX, then Apple should take over and put out something themselves.
This is the basic problem with using the .doc format: each time they have had competitors reading the format, it has changed.
A solution is to launch a new format that does the most essential things (notes, tables, multiuser collaboration, etc) - and then something, to persuade users to use the format. It could be DTP, or blogging features, or other 'dynamic' features, incorporating already existing 'open standards' protocols and systems...
- pdf's are already used on almost as many computers as .doc.
- Apple already use pdf integrated in its operating system.
Originally posted by Amorph
What they should do, IMO, is offer a word processing program that outputs professional-quality work within the constraints of a word processor - none of the fancy reflowing and positioning and layering options, as you say, but a precisely laid out and beautifully kerned rendering of whatever letter or essay or proposal is being written.
Then you could offer AppleWorks-style DTP: Very simple, mostly template-based, but good enough for newsletters and such. And, again, done in such a way that if you fired up InDesign and did the same thing, it wouldn't look all that much different.
The world has suffered enough at the hands of Word documents.
Agree with all that, except the bit about templates. Please don't make them compulsory! Appleworks-level DTP is all I need... (at least, it would be if it could cope with pictures of over 72dpi!) But I never use templates - I always start from scratch with a blank page.
Amorya
Originally posted by bauman
And, most consumers really don't know the difference between DTP and WP. When there's a project to do, they go for the program they know... not necessarily the one that's right for the job. That's what Amorph was complaining about, and I think a WP app with some DTP capabilities could be very strong.
So maybe Apple should make both programs, and bundle them together. When you launch one, it asks you what kind of document you want to create, and switches programs if you got it wrong. (Of course, there'd be a 'don't show again' option for people who actually know what they're doing!)
Amorya