Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Office On OSX, *BSD, *nix?
aliya writes: "Microsoft has announced Office and IE5.5 for Mac OS X in mid-2001. Given that OS X is based on BSD, what are the ramifications for those trying to get these apps on unix? Seems like a generic OS X-to-unix API translation would be a lot easier than Win32 API-to-unix. Not that I'm a big fan of the MS Office monopoly or the broken IE5 implementations, but it seems like this is going to have major ramifications for any application ported to Mac OS X." Of course, Microsoft promised products before which have mysteriously failed to appear, but still...interesting.
If Microsoft ports to OS X, it doesn't mean that a port to other BSD operating systems (and to some degree Linux) would be easier than coming straight from OS 7-9 versions or Windows, but it isn't going to help much, because the hardest part of the port, the GUI, isn't going to transfer. OS X uses a GUI system that I don't know the exact name of (is Aqua the name of the GUI, or is Aqua the API, over which the GUI runs?). It's about as far away from X as you can get (Anti-aliasing? Of course, it's automatic. Alpha channels? That too.)
Regarding the suggestion Microsoft will be porting to the Carbon APIs, I just don't see that as likely. Microsoft actually supports Macintosh really well. They wouldn't be taking a year to port to carbon. The next version they deliver will probably be built for carbon as well. Remember, the Macintosh version of IE 5 is the only standards compliant browser around that supports Java (ruling out Opera).
I really like what I've seen of OS X. If only I didn't have to buy the hardware from Apple, I might consider going to a Mac for my next machine. I wonder when we're going to get SMP G3+'s from IBM running Linux or BeOS.
The goal is not Microsoft on more platforms, it's the elimination of closed, proprietary protocols like exchange and active-x controls.
MSHAFT's strategy is to develop as many closed protocols as possible, and foist them on their corporate customers, hoping it will lock up the home market.
Imagine your company decides to let you work at home. If you use non-ms products at home, you night not be able to get your email or access the company web pages. You're screwed.
My main concern is the way they develop closed protocols and make workplaces "Microsoft Only" -- if the exchange server has Microserfs administering it, no mail client will work except outlook.
If the company does webpages with active-x, no browser works except IE.
The situation sucks. The only hope is that I keep seeing more ads on the job boards for Linux developers and admins.
I'm a firm believer that legislation should be enacted to force all inter-machine communication protocols to be open and documented.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Here is what Microsoft has to say. Notice they don't actually mention OS X at all, but I'm sure it's an implied thing... While porting Office to a Posix/Unix style OS is a lot of work, porting the GUI to X/Windows will surely be a bigger task, should they try to do it.
:)
What's actually scarier... Follow the link on the bottom of that press release to this.
Word 2001 introduces the Data Merge Manager, a feature available first for the Mac that simplifies and consolidates into a single window the entire process of using data to conduct mass communications via e-mail or letter. Tight integration with the new e-mail and personal information manager makes it easy to merge contacts from the Address Book into a bulk mailing.
Eeeek! Is it me, or does it sound like Microsoft is giving every Mac user who buys Office some mass spam software?
-- Kevin
I like how in this article they point out that very little code is shared between the mac and windows teams. That much is obvious, since IE5 on windows conforms so poorly, yet the mac one is just fine. Perhapse Microsoft doesn't need a lesson from us, they need a lesson from some of their own people.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
OS X has two main APIs.
Coccoa, which is the revised OpenStep API with a few new tricks.
Carbon, which is the OS 7,8,9, etc API minus the cruft, which allows software makers to create native OS X apps with only minor modification (Photoshop was ported within two weeks). It is not an emulator.
Classic, a OS 9 Virtual Machine is used for running Classic MacOS apps.
Microsoft would port to either Carbon or Coccoa. They wouldn't even touch the BSD innards. Now a simple trip to http://www.apple.com/macosx/ could have answered this question in about 30 seconds. Next time Slashdot should use some care, not just post anything that includes "Office, ported and BSD or Linux" in the same message.
Seems encouraging, doesn't it?
Don't get your hopes up.
The OS X MS Office ports are written such that OS X basically emulates the OS 9 operating environment for them. There is not an ounce of Unix code in these ports.
MacOS X has three user interfaces, one of which is Carbon and provides legacy compatibility for all the thousands of MacOS apps out there now. This is the API MS is using; their code won't take advantage of any of the two newer APIs in the OS.
--
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.