Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft to Continue Mac Support

rakeswell writes "Though Microsoft's five-year agreement to support some Microsoft applications on the Mac has come to a close, Microsoft announces that it will continue its support of the platform. This means that new versions of Office, IE, ODBC, and Palm synchronization will be made available for Mac OS X. Also, they intend to build in .NET support for the Mac, though Microsoft says that they do not intend to push .NET for Mac developers."

37 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Obvious (?) reasons by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The iMac is still bought by many people. Even die-hard techno-geeks are buying TiBooks and running Win2K in Virtual PC for the best of all worlds (Unix with a slick GUI and driver support, Win32 for Exchange and MS VPN, etc.). The G4 is slick looking, and people shell out $$ for them. Microsoft has every interest in keeping its fingers into everything out there, so of course they're going to support the Mac. Besides, this is ammo for their argument that they're not a monopoly - they're nice and work with everyone.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Obvious (?) reasons by smagoun · · Score: 4, Informative
      This is OT, but you mentioned MS VPN support. While MS doesn't produce a Mac VPN client, there are a pair of PPTP clients that just popped up for OS X. They support CHAP/CHAPv2 authentication, and one of them even works with classic:

      DigiTunnel

      PiePants

    2. Re:Obvious (?) reasons by macinslak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I beleive the poster means not abusing their monopoly. You can't be prosecuted for just having one.

  2. Support? by Kickstart70 · · Score: 3, Offtopic

    When the hell has Microsoft ever supported me? I administer 150 NT workstations, 10 Win2k workstation, 3 Win2k servers, and 2 linux boxes, and I still have to find out how to do things through Google because Microsoft's support website sucks, both for navigation and content.

    If this is what they mean by support, then I'd suggest the Mac folks could do better by hiring a few net-researchers instead.

    1. Re:Support? by madenosine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Although my experience with the Mirosoft support site has been good, I have not had to use it much.

      But I do know one thing....Microsoft supports its developers. With the MSDN Library and the Platform SDK documentation, one can find pretty much anything

  3. LOL! by RobPiano · · Score: 3, Funny

    "though Microsoft says that they do not intend to push .NET for Mac developers"

    Well, duh...

  4. Products. by saintlupus · · Score: 4, Informative

    This means that new versions of Office, IE, ODBC, and Palm synchronization will be made available for Mac OS X.

    ...and I will continue using Appleworks, Mozilla, and Palm Desktop, because I don't want to support MS any more than strictly necessary.

    It's a shame that the Mac developers who put out stuff like Office:Mac are working for such an ethically bankrupt company. They do really good work.

    --saint

    1. Re:Products. by TotallyUseless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You touched on a valid point. The mac versions of MS apps are usually nicer, and sometimes more feature laden than their windows counterparts. The MBU (Mac Business Unit) at MS are some of the best mac programmers around, truly. They are honest macheads trying and succeeding at making quality software. Too bad that their contracts probably prevent them from leaving en masse and forming their own company to compete in the Mac software market.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    2. Re:Products. by saintlupus · · Score: 4, Funny

      The mac versions of MS apps are usually nicer, and sometimes more feature laden than their windows counterparts.

      I always thought it was funny that the only element of Office that _didn't_ start on the Mac is Access, which is widely derided for being such a complete and utter piece of shit.

      Of course, even so, Macs are not suitable for Serious Business Use.

      Oh, well. I've got one on my desk, and really, that's all that concerns me.

      --saint

    3. Re:Products. by zephc · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly. I don't think most /. readers understand how almost totally autonomous the MBU is from the rest of MS. They're weak push for .NET on the Mac I think is a bit of a busines decision, because that would mean Office .NET could be ported with little difficulty (assuming Office .NET is written using the CLI/.NET Runtime)

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    4. Re:Products. by d0n+quix0te · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Quote:
      -----
      It's a shame that the Mac developers who put out stuff like Office:Mac are working for such an ethically bankrupt company. They do really good work.
      ------

      I think these guys are among the most staunch Mac people. Willing to even work for the Beast to make sure we have a good version of Office.

      I know some of these guys and trust me they are staunch Apple supporters.

    5. Re:Products. by TotallyUseless · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Of course, even so, Macs are not suitable for Serious Business Use."

      well, I guess that would depend on your business now, wouldnt it? I currently work for a hardware company which deals mainly in hp and sun servers. our office is windows only, except me. I do all the web work and perl programming, but i also do support for all of the office PCs. As far as pure usage goes, I have no problems communicating with anyone in the office, with the sole exception of access, which has no mac client/solution at this point. Hopefully the MBU will get to work on that. Anyway, my point is, if you are running a wintel workplace, it really isnt that hard to integrate macs into the workplace. if you run an all *nix office, it might be even easier, although i havent had the pleasure of finding out yet.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    6. Re:Products. by TotallyUseless · · Score: 3, Informative

      My point exactly. For generic office work a mac is just as good as a pc, and generally has the same apps available. When it comes to word processing, excel, powerpoint, and the rest of the office apps, the main difference at this point is the mac versions are slightly more polished. Part of the problem probably comes from in-house visual basic apps. While there is no way to natively run these apps, virtual pc can always be employed, even tho it is a kludge. Or you could use Real Basic which is great for producing the same types of apps as visualbasic, but has the bonus of being able to compile for mac and windows.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    7. Re:Products. by TotallyUseless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yes, the MBU is almost a like a different company within MS. They really do get to make their own decisions, as is shown by the fact they write their mac apps from scratch, rather than roughly porting over their pc counterparts. This results in real mac apps that quite often end up putting their PC counterparts to shame.

      --

      Time for some tasty Shiner Bock!
    8. Re:Products. by DavidJA · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I always thought it was funny that the only element of Office that _didn't_ start on the Mac is Access, which is widely derided for being such a complete and utter piece of shit

      Name one desktop RDBMS with front end that comes even close to being as good as access (and don't say fileMaker, it's about as relational as DbaseII

      The problem with access is that there are idiots out there at attempt to run their web sites off it.

    9. Re:Products. by spongman · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Yeah Access, the utter piece of shit that blew its competition (Borland Quattro Pro) out of the water.

      No, the reason that Word/Excel are part of Mac Office is that they were written from the start (pretty much) to run on the Mac. Word & Excel had graphical interfaces on the Mac well before Word for Windows came out. The Mac versions of these apps were eventually built from the same codebase as their Windows counterparts using a windows portability library (WLM) developed internally at microsoft which was shipped as part of Visual C++ Macintosh Edition (which was the first project I worked on at MS). Access was always a Windows-only app and since they reimplemented all of the windows controls (to support Access Basic & Databinding) it would be pretty tricky to port it to the Mac.

    10. Re:Products. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Informative

      They said in the article that they're not going to port Access. It'd be too much work, and they feel like FileMaker already ownz the Mac desktop DB market. The speaker suggested that it would take the entire MacBU about 2 and a half years to port.

      --

      There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
    11. Re:Products. by connorbd · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Believe me. To most average joe users, the distinction is lost (do you realize how many people are running Excel databases?).

      That statement isn't quite as silly as it sounds; I once spent the better part of a summer working on an inventory database, and the first thing I did was convert it from an Excel spreadsheet to FileMaker. I don't know if they converted it back... hope they didn't...

      /Brian

    12. Re:Products. by connorbd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Even Big Bill was, at the beginning.

      Thing is, Microsoft needs those people there. To those of you who only jumped on the bandwagon with OS X, you've probably been only passingly familiar with the monstrosity that was Word 6. It was pretty much a straight port of Word 95 (or so I've heard) and was one of the worst recieved Mac apps ever; MS created the MacBU not long after that and junked the compatibility layer.

      The end result is that Mac users who do use Microsoft Office get a product created by die-hard Mac addicts for die-hard Mac addicts, and the result is polished, functional software that has been getting grudging raves (as in "it's so bad, but it feels so good") ever since Office 98 came out. I don't use it myself -- I rarely even use IE unless I need to view a java page (Mozilla is my regular browser). But those who use it are using good software.

      Just another excuse for us Macheads to laugh at PC users :-)

      /Brian

  5. palm? by rnd() · · Score: 4, Informative
    and Palm synchronization

    I didn't know Microsoft had any control over that? I though it was these guys.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

  6. And this move is a surprise WHY? by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's think this through, OK?

    Scenario #1: Microsoft dumps Apple, focuses solely upon Windows. Courts notice behavior. Courts say "Now you are going too far with the monopoly thing, Mr. Sedaka, would you please do the honors?" (cue Breaking Up Is Hard To Do).

    Meanwhile, a cadre of users are pissed, and start buying products other than Microsoft. The market for such products becomes large enough to be noticed, and somebody else moves in and starts making money. This Will Not Do.

    Scenario #2: MS continues support for the Mac. As a result, most Mac users use IE, Word, Office, Excel, etc. for Mac. Competition in those areas is stifled.

    In addition, MS can better spread their .Net and capture and control the industry.

    Which course of action would YOU take?

    1. Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? by smagoun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ....nevermind that the Macintosh Business Unit is one of the most profitable divisions at Microsoft.....

    2. Re:And this move is a surprise WHY? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Link, please. Or supporting evidence.

  7. Wouldn't the courts love this by willy_me · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If MS were to cancel a very profitable line of software running on a competitor's OS for no apparent reason.

    It is actually in Microsoft's best interest to make Office X even if it wan't that profitable. Microsoft knows that Apple doesn't pose a threat to it's market share. By supporting Apple's OS they say to the courts that they're really not that bad.

    Willy

  8. Re:palm? by AnamanFan · · Score: 5, Informative

    Well, your partly correct. Palm did have to create the software for HotSync to work natively on OS X before any OS X compatability would be possiable. But now Palm put out the software for OS X so they are all cleared.

    Now it is MS's responsibility to make the conduit that connects Entoruge with the new version of HotSync. Now, weither or not MS creates the programing in-house, or contracts it out like the PC version, I don't know.

    Course, I could be wrong. Any one care to correct if I am?

    --
    AnamanFan - Trying to find the Truth, one post at a time.
  9. Oooops by Begemot · · Score: 4, Funny

    Then Greg Maffei gets an email from Gates saying smth like: 'You spent $150 million on what? 'Don't you listen? I said, 'Snapple!'

  10. Great, Plam sync... by EddydaSquige · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but is Microstuff's ever going to bring about some sort of Mac compatability for pocket PC's?

  11. lock-in by Xtifr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Gee, MS can either keep people locked into their proprietary document formats, or they can let a moderately sizable portion of the market escape and start promoting other formats. No-brainer there. Of course they're going to keep making Office/IE for Mac.

    The only reason that I can see why they haven't already made Office/IE for Linux is that MS has a bug up their butt about the GPL. Don't be surprised if they release their lock-in magic for FreeBSD before long.

    Supporting (or should that be "supporting") Apple is a big win for them in another way too, though, because a certain percentage of Apple users are going to realize that they're mostly using MS products, and are going to find the idea of a switch to an MS platform that much more palatable. Especially given the price advantage of the (admitedly flakey) commodity hardware platform.

    What the Linux community needs to do in response (IMO) is also support OS/X as well as we can, so that we make Linux (and, by extension, the BSDs) another viable out for Mac users. And gain the sympathy of the more loyal Mac users, who will surely appreciate having more software (esp. free software) available for their platform.

    I know that I'm brushing up my ObjC and starting to browse the GNUstep sites.

  12. /rubs eyes by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 3, Funny

    Entirely my fault because the advice is "read the article" which I did, but I also "read into" the article.

    what it said:
    The premise of .NET is the growing digital interconnectedness of business and personal pursuits

    What I saw the first read:
    The premise of .NET is the growing digital intercourse of business and personal pursuits

    IOW: here they fscking go again.

    Oh, and this gem in the comments:
    Mac ODBC doens't work unless you aren't actually using it...

    MMmmph, snort, ahahahahhhhaaa.
    Yeah, my car doesn't work when I don't use it, either.

    /me reaches for a cluebyfour
    Naaah, you'd just duck.

    .

    --
    Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
  13. Translation by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Translation:

    "As long as we can use the Mac version of MS Office as a cudgel to beat you with, you will continue to do everything we tell you to. There's no need to extend the contract."

    Seriously... would Apple even dare to put Netscape back into Mac OS? All they have to do is merely think about it and Microsoft would start threatening them. Ditto for web services, media services, and whatever market Microsoft wants to park its steamroller in on any particular day.

    Apple really ought to make an effort to get OpenOffice working really, really well as a native Mac OS X application. Then they should use the Mozilla technology to integrate a web browser into the Finder. If done well enough (and we know how good Apple is at desktop stuff), they could make Microsoft irrelevant on the Macintosh platform -- and then they wouldn't have to let Bill push them around anymore.

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
    1. Re:Translation by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Apple really ought to make an effort to get OpenOffice working really, really well as a native Mac OS X application.

      As a Mac user, I really hope they don't. OpenOffice is awful compared to the Mac version of Office and OO is being developed to be cross platform and then ported. Office for Mac is written specifically for the Mac. I don't want crappy ported software that looks like it belongs on Windows, I want good Mac software (same argument applies in reverse when I'm using my Windows box btw).

      Then they should use the Mozilla technology to integrate a web browser into the Finder.

      Again, please don't. Mozilla is awful - it makes no attempt to fit in with Mac OS and advertises that fact as one of it's features (customizable interface - does that sound like a Mac experience to you?). Mozilla fits in really well with Linux with it's customizability and it's general look and feel of the interface, but it does not fit into Mac OS. It's saving grace however may be Chimera (or some similar name) which is taking the Mozilla engine and putting a proper OS X interface on it using native widgets (not just trying to simulate them).

      If done well enough (and we know how good Apple is at desktop stuff), they could make Microsoft irrelevant on the Macintosh platform

      Microsoft has no power on the Macintosh platform - we use their products because they happen to be good, not because we need to. AppleWorks is an excellent office alternative which reads and writes Office files. Mac users have already shown that if MS puts out a bad version of Office they are happy to either not upgrade or switch to AppleWorks - it happened when Word 6.0 came out as a Windows port instead of a real Mac version.

      Basically, Mac users are picky about their user interfaces, that's what makes the Mac platform so much easier to use - anything that doesn't conform to the human interface guidlines is hammered in reviews and given really bad publicity all over the place, resulting in really poor sales. Mac users don't want Windows software and they don't want Linux software, they want Mac software that looks *and feels* like Mac software, just looking the same does not cut it.

    2. Re:Translation by krmt · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Apple really ought to make an effort to get OpenOffice working really, really well as a native Mac OS X application.

      As a Mac user, I really hope they don't. OpenOffice is awful compared to the Mac version of Office and OO is being developed to be cross platform and then ported. Office for Mac is written specifically for the Mac. I don't want crappy ported software that looks like it belongs on Windows, I want good Mac software (same argument applies in reverse when I'm using my Windows box btw).

      How can you say something like this? If Apple puts resources in to making OO run great on OSX, why would you complain about that? Or, perhaps you don't like choice, especially when Microsoft holds so much power over the office suites on Mac. Yes, Appleworks is great (I've been a big fan since ClarisWorks) but it's not really a competitor to MS Office, in large part because it doesn't focus on cross-platform support the way OO is. The fact that MS Office is dominant on Windows goes the majority of the way towards making it the dominant office suite on Macs. I personally agree with the parent and think Apple should pour at least some resources in to OO and eventually release their own version of the thing, with the UI set up to work perfectly with OSX. Would you complain about this?

      And as for Mozilla... it might suck now on OSX, but it's a damn fine piece of technology, and the fact that it can be heavily customized means that it can be configured for full OSX style UI with some Javascript and CSS. You're not forced to use it, but this could be the default behavior for the OSX binary distribution of the program. Apple could even do it themselves, or... hell, even you could do it! Anyone can! Meanwhile, you're still stuck with a dated version of IE (which is hideously slow whenever I've used it on Mac) and Omniweb, which still needs DOM work. With these as your alternate choices, how can you say that this would be a bad thing?

      But then... I left the Mac because I wanted the freedom to choose for myself what to use rather than what was handed to me. I guess things haven't changed that much then. sigh
      --

      "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

    3. Re:Translation by TheAJofOZ · · Score: 3, Informative
      Sorry to burst you bubble, but Office for Mac is not written specifically for the Mac. I don't know about the entire suite, but I am certain that Excel is written as platform idependent code. There is an underlying interface that allows the code to be run on the mac, but it is based off the same code as the windows version.

      Wrong, the entire sweet is specifically written for Mac. Of course there will be code reuse, but none of it is a port of the windows version nor is it specifically designed to be used for both. To prove this to yourself look at a) incompatible file formats between the mac and windows versions (not including Office vX) b) the difference in features between platforms. The mac business unit is a separate division of MS that creates it's own products.

  14. Misinterpretation. by saintlupus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course, even so, Macs are not suitable for Serious Business Use.

    Hmm. Judging from some of the responses I got to this, I should have used explicit sarcasm tags.

    I support Macs for a college -- I'm well aware that they are perfectly suited to anything that a typical office requires. I just think it's sort of odd that a reliable computer with quality hardware, a pretty much crashproof OS that's Unix-based to boot, and the best office suite on the market is usually dismissed out of hand as being for "graphics and stuff."

    Serious Business Use [tm] is not a problem, but Macs have an unjust reputation as being too lightweight to handle it.

    --saint

  15. .NET? OpenSTEP? Its all about the frameworks baby! by joshsnow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also, they intend to build in .NET support for the Mac, though Microsoft says that they do not intend to push .NET for Mac developers."
    People tend to forget that OSX has its own framework - the one based on OpenStep. This is also represented on Linux as GNUStep. Mewonders exactly what Mickey is trying to achieve wihh .NET.

  16. Re:Office on Apple is good because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > The development environment on OS/X is quite bad...

    Bzzt. Wrong.

    There are a few different development environments available for OS X. Not the least of which is a full GNU toolchain (actually the NATIVE toolchain) and it ships on a CD with each and every copy of OS X. Carbon and Coca are supported by a very nice IDE (also on the same CD). If you really must, there is also a Metroworks IDE and toolchain, which is one of the best around.

    Having come from Linux (since Linux 0.95!), I'm right at home developing on OS X. Having used a pile of different IDEs, Project Builder is very fine piece of work, RAD tools and all.

    J

  17. Re:palm? by clontzman · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are; MS has never made a HotSync coduit for either Outlook or Entourage on the PC or the Mac. There are a few third parties that make conduits to do this, but the pigs will be flying before MS even considers supporting Palm, which not only competes with them, but is _winning_ in the handheld market. Not true. Office 2001 for the Mac (which includes Entourage) installs MS-produced conduits for the HotSync manager that allows the Palm to sync with Entourage.