Slashdot Mirror


Native KOffice for Mac OS X

bsharitt writes "A preliminary version of KOffice has been built natively on Mac OS X. It looks like a lot of the hard part is over, and now a lot of cleaning up and bug fixes stand between Mac OS X and a free full featured office suite." There's also a story on the dot.

51 of 335 comments (clear)

  1. OpenOffice.org by Valegor · · Score: 5, Informative

    There already is free full-featured office suite that runs on Mac OS X. Openoffice.org has run on Mac for a couple releases now. Having used both open office and Koffice(koffice on Linux, openoffice on Linux and Windows), I find openoffice to be more versatile. It is all a matter of opinion though

    1. Re:OpenOffice.org by Hanji · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, OOo is a `` free full-featured office suite that runs on Mac OS X''. However, the important difference is that this port of KOffice runs natively on OS X - it does not require you to be running an X11 server.

      For some people, that may not be a big deal, but most of us on OS X hate to have to use X11, and would *much* rather use native apps if we can at all avoid X11. It's not that it's bad, it's just that it's an inconvenience and doesn't blend in well with the rest of the environment.

      --
      A Minesweeper clone that doesn't suck
    2. Re:OpenOffice.org by ir0b0t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      OpenOffice is the best! I use it in my office every day to produce tons of heavily formatted documents. It saved me. I'm never going back to Microsoft Office. Koffice was not as useful as OpenOffice when I tried to switch before. Why not just concentrate on making OpenOffice better and better?

      --
      I'm laughing at clouds.
    3. Re:OpenOffice.org by aergern · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, since there is a project underway to develop a QT interface for OO then OO/QT will compile natively on OSX and all is well. KOffice never seemed to deal well with MS Office docs as far as saving them correctly but OO rocks..and with a QT UI for OO then QT/Mac will be the God sent for OSX users. :)

      --
      Tell me what you believe...I'll tell you what you should see.
    4. Re:OpenOffice.org by Valegor · · Score: 5, Funny

      When I judge on a pruely objective basis, regarding the abilities of various office products (not I am looking at the product only) then MS Office wins every time, every application.

      When I judge a post based on proper spelling and punctuation vs. the message you are trying to get across, your post loses every time.

    5. Re:OpenOffice.org by j-pimp · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What annoys you about it? Granted, it took me a while to get used to my iBook, but I love it now. Sure its a little weird not having a differentiation between a maximized window and one thats just the size of the screen. However, once you embrace the Jobs way its useable.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    6. Re:OpenOffice.org by WatertonMan · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I'm not sure what you mean by "KDE had to be hacked to run natively on OSX." So far as I know KDE doesn't run "natively" on OSX. Unless you mean the KDE that is part of Fink and runs under X11. I'm not sure what dependencies were there. I know Fink still doesn't have the latest version of Gnome running yet. (Although I believe DarwinPorts does) So I admittedly am not familiar with other low-level features.

      The port of Konquerer and KOffice is using the native QT/Mac port. This is great for two reasons. For one it helps find bugs and missing features in QT/Mac. That'll make porting future projects easier and make using QT/Mac for cross platform development better. Secondly it will enable a lot of fairly good programs to run native.

      I agree that KOffice isn't that great, although it holds promise. But having it native is a big deal. Open Office might be more powerful, but because it is an X11 app, it really doesn't have an Aqua look and feel. Further cutting and pasting of graphics or drag and drop don't work. That's a rather large failing with Open Office. (I also think Open Office is weak compared to MS Office and further Apple is expected by some to be releasing its office suite this winter or spring)

      I'd kind of like to have a native Konquerer, if only to deal with directories with lots of files. Something the Finder doesn't deal well with. Using it to organize my web directories would be very nice as well...

    7. Re:OpenOffice.org by geoffspear · · Score: 5, Informative

      Projected OS X native availability of OpenOffice.org 2.0 is currently Q1 2006. - from porting.openoffice.org. I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    8. Re:OpenOffice.org by jafac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Why not just concentrate on making OpenOffice better and better?"

      Because we're all much better off when three or four teams of talented programmers compete with eachother to make ALL of their solutions better and better.

      With your logic, one could just as easily say; "Microsoft Office is the best! I use it in my office every day to produce tons of heavily formatted documentss. It saved me. I'm never going back to Open Office. KOffice was not as useful as Microsoft Office when I tried to switch before. Why not just concentrate on making Microsoft Office better and better?"

      see?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    9. Re:OpenOffice.org by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Interesting
      While this version of KOffice does, indeed, not require X11, I hesitate to agree that it is a "native" port. A quick look at the buttons, scrollbars, etc, suggests that this version of KOffice does not use the OS X widgets. In other words, this is as native as, say, Mozilla, rather than, say, Camino.

      Which is odd because I thought the QT for Mac was supposed to use the OS X native widgets.

      I don't want to suggest this means it's useless. Obviously, having an application you can place anywhere in the file system, double click to run, associate with files (with a file, as the default for a type of file where the file isn't associated, and used for Open With...), etc, is infinitely better than an X11 version, but, well, I suspect most of those with MS Office or even AppleWorks will probably stick with their proprietary apps for now. Which is a shame.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    10. Re:OpenOffice.org by ir0b0t · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There would be nothing wrong with how you altered the statement if MS Office were open source. Since MS isn't open source, non-programmer type folks who work daily with a word processor on heavily formatted documents have limited choices if they care about trying to implement open source in a professional office. OO is the sole open source application that currently stands up to the proprietary competition. It would be great if it could be improved further.

      --
      I'm laughing at clouds.
    11. Re:OpenOffice.org by crisco · · Score: 4, Informative
      OOo does have a relational database with forms and reporting capability, unfotunately it is buried in the Writer and Spreadsheet components and doesn't yet have its own icon in the menu.

      OOo 2.0 will have a full fledged database application to better compete with Access.

      --

      Bleh!

    12. Re:OpenOffice.org by Natalie's+Hot+Grits · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, but this is BETA. The main goal of this project is to get KOffice working on MacOS X using native file and print dialogues, and desktop themes, and other features that would allow KOffice to integrate well with the Mac OS X Desktop.

      The reason this is possible is because QT/Mac was released under the GPL, and so KOffice can be ported using the native QT Themes provided on the OS X platform. All the work is pretty much done for them via QT. Now they just need to get them to play well together.

      --
      Two infinite things: your stupidity and mine. But I'm not sure about the latter. If my sig offends you, I'm sorry.
    13. Re:OpenOffice.org by samdaone · · Score: 4, Interesting

      People also look at the price. For poor people like me price is still a big factor in what influences my decisions to run what software.

      --

      Make me your friend. All my friends get +1 modifier and I need friends :)

    14. Re:OpenOffice.org by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Native to me does not mean native widgets. Native to me means "if I download this, it will run smoothly without parts of another operating system installed for emulation (or X11)." Once this is running smoothly, it will satisfy my criteria for "native."

    15. Re:OpenOffice.org by fault0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > Which is odd because I thought the QT for Mac was supposed to use the OS X native widgets.

      It is using Native widgets and such, but:

      - the Qt version in use is BETA
      - they just made the native widget style code work two days ago. Very little work has been put in that direction yet.

    16. Re:OpenOffice.org by asm0deu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm yet to see a Qt/Mac app that doesn't look like ass. Though I've only tried a couple (LyX, Psi, and some game), all the "native" widgets were bad emulations that fit in worse than a Java Swing application, and in some cases didn't really work.

  2. I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by Fortunato_NC · · Score: 5, Informative

    But no, a version that requires you to load an X server doesn't count.

    Congratulations to everyone who's worked on this.

    --
    Blogging Weight Loss, Distance Education, and more at verlin.com
    1. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by angst_ridden_hipster · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know you're joking, but(*) ...

      In any case, the latest two versions of OS X *do* include an X server (Xfree variant). You can run it in rootless mode, which is quite functional and nice.

      (*) in the event you're not, we'd have to start with ancient history, when Mac OS was sold for clone systems, when the NeXTStep version of Mac OS was called OS 8, and ... er ... well, other things too far lost in the haze of Steve-induced fog to recall.

      --
      Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
      www.fogbound.net
    2. Re:I really expected OpenOffice.org to be first... by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It does. But it's optional, since none of the programs that an average user will ever see need it, and not installed by default. And even if it were acceptable to make the user dig out their OS CDs and install another piece of software just to use an office program, it's X11, which means it takes a certain amount of expertise to use it. Apple has made it as simple as possible, but in this case, when the unstoppable force met the immovable object, the immovable X server won the usability battle.

      As for the name (I'm hoping your post was sarcastic on that point, but you never know) X is the roman numeral for 10. Mac OS X came after Mac OS 9.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  3. Re:I'm ignorant... by 2nd+Post! · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is a build of OpenOffice under X11 on OS X.

    KOffice doesn't require X11. KWord, for example, runs natively under OS X.

  4. OSX Theme by IceFox · · Score: 5, Informative
    And the *really* important feature: The native OSX theme I got working the other day: here

    So even thought some of the other screenshots are in the ugly Motif theme they will soon be all re-taken using the OSX theme.

    Also notice how in the Dock the KDE applications icons show up (and scale wonderfully!). We have a script that generates OS X .app directories of the KDE applications and also generates those directories with the proper icons. You can see some of them in the background of the screenshot in Finder.

    -Benjamin Meyer

    --
    Do you changes clothes while making the "chee-chee-cha-cha-choh" transformation sound?
  5. Funny? by Libor+Vanek · · Score: 4, Funny

    "...hard part is over, and now a lot of cleaning up and bug fixes..."

    Does only me finds this funny? NOW the hard BORING part starts...

  6. Opportunity by blackmonday · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Perfect opportunity for Apple to do what they did with Safari and Darwin. Extend it, make it better, include it as an Apple branded product, and give the changes back to the community.

    I wonder how long it will be before Appleworks is nixed in favor of a kOffice - based product. Microsoft Office for the Mac is actually a really good product, and Appleworks doesn't touch it. Get to work Apple!

  7. Wow! by K8Fan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is going to potentially have more impact on the popularity of Open Source software than anything to date. Office X on OS X has some really annoying "features" like the finking on it's self through a LAN. If this is solid and "Mac-like" it could prove to be a very popular alternative for Mac users who want to be free of Redmond.

    --
    "How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
  8. Koffice for OSX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a Mac user I like it that these apps don't require X-windows and that they already look quite a bit like native OSX applications.

    really, excellent work.

    A friend of mine has Openoffice running on his powerbook, indeed it "works" but since it doesn't look as slick as the native OSX apps, I am not that eager to try it.

    I hope that now a lot of other K-software will be ported!

    best regards, Tom

  9. 90/10 rule in effect by MrEd · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It looks like a lot of the hard part is over, and now a lot of cleaning up and bug fixes stand between Mac OS X and a free full featured office suite.


    Unfortunately, in almost all Open Source projects the 'hard' and 'easy' parts are reversed...


    The challenge and glory is done, now all that's left is methodical, monotonous bug chasing. Who's up? :)

    --

    Wah!

  10. Re:Free not important? by ahbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ok, you do have a point there. Most people who buy a Mac could afford MS Office. But here's my question, do you want to use MS Office? And this is my point. I us a Mac (I'm on my 12" PB right now) because I DO NOT want anything from Microsoft! I personally intend to give what I can (I'm poor after all) to help support the KOffice team. I really appreciate the hard work they guys and gals have done to make this happen. In the Mac world a native non MS full featured office suite is huge.

  11. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    An eMac costs 899 . Office:Mac costs 509 . So, yes.

  12. Re:I'm ignorant... by Boltronics · · Score: 5, Informative

    OpenOffice on OSX has fallen behind. They are only up to 1.0.3, when other supported platforms are up to 1.1

    The installation process on the Mac is much harder than other platforms also. X11 (and a few other dependencies) are included in the download, making it a whopping 173MB! That's roughly 100MB more than Windows and GNU/Linux versions.

    I'm certain if KOffice was ported better than OpenOffice on OSX, it would be a more popular choice for those looking for a free office suite.

    --
    It's GNU/Linux dammit!
  13. Apple should take care of this project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "now all that's left is methodical, monotonous bug chasing. Who's up?"

    Apple? Like they did with khtml.

  14. Re:Free not important? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the price of a Mac, is *free* that big of a deal? Open source I understand, but it doesn't seem that anyone who can afford a Mac can't afford an office suite.

    Consider the example of lack of Hebrew support in Microsoft Office for Mac. There is no technical reason for it; the Unicode-based MacOS X is ready to support Hebrew out-of-the-box. It's just a political decision of the vendor of this particular office suite trying to force Israeli Mac users to abandon their platform of choice. I think this example is enough for you to understand why *free* (as in speech) office suite is a big deal indeed, after all.

  15. Re:Free not important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Man, is that ever an uniformed post. How does being able to afford a Mac equate to being able to afford Microsoft Office too? After paying $2600 for a Powerbook, the last thing I need is to pay another $400 for software I rarely use. Just to make it perfectly clear to you, the idea of people who buy Macs being rich is a STEREOTYPE. I'm not rich, but I did get a Mac, because it is a very worthwhile expense. Every aspect of it is well designed, from the hardware to the software. Based on what I've heard from people using sub-500 MHz Macs, and from what I've seen with Panther, I fully expect this system to only improve over time. I bought a Mac because I want a high quality computer, not because I had pocket change to burn.

    I expect I'll use a word processor on my personal system four or five times a year. Therefore, spending $230 on Word would be a complete waste. I welcome a free word processor.

  16. ahh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    what a great marraige... finnally the world renouned ease of use and power of KDE Office gets the wide distribution it deserves on the market dominating OS X platform.... oh wait...

  17. Widgets need updating... by Kaypro · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This is a great milestone but...

    Trolltech needs desperately to update the OSX port of QT. The widget have a cumbersome appearance and need to be updated to Panther style. Text alignment is in need of some fixing up. This isn't a complaint... the OSX version is still in its infancy and I'm sure time will allow a more integrated look... I'm just anxious.. because QT really is a great toolkit / API.

    Good Job!

    1. Re:Widgets need updating... by be-fan · · Score: 3, Informative

      guess why Sun prefers Gnome over KDE for Solaris?
      -----------
      Actuall, according to Sun's own statements, Sun chose GNOME over KDE for a few reasons, none of them licensing related:

      1) GNOME's architecture is more traditional. It uses CORBA, for example, instead of using its own mechanism (DCOP).

      2) GNOME uses C, while KDE uses C++. It was only recently that KDE compiled with Sun's Forte C++ compiler. If the KDE libraries were compiled with GCC, then you couldn't use Sun's pro-leve development tools to build apps, because those use Forte. Sun developers were also much more comfortable with C rather than KDE's C++.

      3) GNOME didn't have an HIG when Sun came onboard, so Sun had a major hand in building GNOME 2.x's UI. Meanwhile, KDE was pretty well-solidified by the time Sun came along.

      Never have they said that licensing had anything to do with the choice. Indeed, no commercial developer has ever said they chose GTK/GNOME over Qt/KDE because of licensing issues.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  18. Re:The plot thickens... by Andy_R · · Score: 3, Informative

    Snub the mac??!?!? Office for OSX has a better feature list than the PC version.

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  19. Re:I'm ignorant... by sugar+and+acid · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yes there is an openoffice port for OS X, well sort off. As other people has said there is only a X11 dependent version of version 1.03. There is no plan to port version 1.1, instead they are working to get the necessary hooks into version 2.0 port for a native port, maybe by 2005 -2006. Till then it's a long wait.

    Now that porting KDE apps is seemingly straight forward it may be easier for the OS X porters to piggy back on the KDE intergration effort so things will shift along a bit faster.

  20. Re:I'm ignorant... by Alex+Reynolds · · Score: 4, Informative

    According to the developer list, most of the bugs have been worked out and OO team are fairly close to finishing an installer for 1.1 for OS X. I wouldn't be surprised at a release next week for the SF expo.

    -Alex

  21. "The dot" is dot.kde.org news site by infolib · · Score: 4, Informative

    Michael wrote: There's also a story on the dot.

    He really should have linked to the story on dot.kde.org

    "The dot" is "news for KDE-freaks - stuff that matters" so to speak. Hop on over, it's a nice place :-)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
  22. Twirl this by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If MS loses the Mac marketplace, they lose a tiny percentage of their cash flow. I often wonder why they even bother. Makes them look less monopolistic?

    If the Mac platform loses MS Office, they lose any chance of selling systems where reliable interoperability is an issue. By which I mean, where people need to be able open and edit Office files natively, without getting the formatting all munged up by import/export filters. This means no more workplace Macs (except maybe the art department) and no Macs purchased by people who need to take their work home. The pundits says this would probably mean the end of the Mac, and I don't see any flaw in their logic.

    And yeah, you'll have reliable interoperability when all those PCs get Windows and Office overwritten by Linux, KDE, and KOffice. Which would be a nice change but one I'm not holding my breath for.

    1. Re:Twirl this by madmancarman · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Why have crappy MS software for the Mac when it doesn't gain them any noticable marketshare?

      Because, as the parent pointed out, NOT having crappy MS software will LOSE them noticeable marketshare. That's one of the evils of an illegal monopoly in the software industry.

      Before Steve Jobs returned to Apple, Netscape was the default web browser for Mac OS installations. In the findings against Microsoft in their antitrust case, it's mentioned that Bill Gates threatened then-CEO Gil Amelio with cancelling MS Office for Macintosh:

      349. A few days after the exchange with Waldman, Gates informed those Microsoft executives most closely involved in the negotiations with Apple that the discussions "have not been going well at all." One of the several reasons for this, Gates wrote, was that "Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install." Gates then reported that he had already called Apple's CEO (who at the time was Gil Amelio) to ask "how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office . . . ."

      So, until there's office software out there that's used at anywhere near the frequency MS Office is used, Apple can't afford to dabble seriously in the office suite market for fear of losing their PC compatibility. After all, Microsoft cancelled Internet Explorer for Macintosh before Safari was even at 1.0. I'm surprised they haven't blown up over Keynote. The only thing that's saving Apple at this point is that Appleworks (aka Clarisworks) still sucks.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
  23. Nice effort, but . . . by droleary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . the hard part is over . . .

    Not by a long shot. It's hard to say this without sounding like a troll, but what most open source developers just don't get is that the hard part isn't the coding, but putting on the polish so that the app is useful to someone else. Looking at the screenshot, I can pretty much tell you that no Mac user is going to be comfortable using what clearly is not a well-designed Mac app. The fake widgets are out of place. The nested tab views (or two rows of tabs, depending on how you see it) is a terrible interface error straight out of Windows. I imagine trying to use this thing would show it to be even more clunky than the X11 version, where a user would more understand what they're getting into.

    Apple gave a very public lesson on the proper way to port OSS when they did Safari. This port clearly took nothing from that lesson. I don't really want to come down on the developers who got it working, because I know the kinds of efforts involved, but I have to say that if anyone thinks this will be of real help to the average Mac user, they are very much mistaken.

  24. Re:Fuck Apple in the mouth by Rimbo · · Score: 4, Interesting
    How is it a company with 3% market share can get 80% of the fucking press?


    Because they're more interesting. They've had a hell of a year.

    Besides, Microsoft has been sitting on their laurels. Groklaw has an interesting bit where PJ notes that Investor's Business Daily made up their "Top Ten Tech Stories of the Year" list without mentioning Microsoft a single time in any context. This isn't because the "regular" PC world is losing relevance, but more just that there isn't much going on in the "regular" PC world.

    But... that's what happens when one company is in charge of most of what people do: Nothing. Why should they do anything? They've got 80% of the world using their stuff.
  25. Re:I'm ignorant... by con · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, of course you can. What makes you think that OpenOffice.org does not have a macro language with a complex object model available behind it ?
    Not sure, well check out the complete (if somewhat involved) developers guide at OpenOffice.org API project.

  26. Have you tried NeoOffice? by VValdo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since partially completed ports apparently count, I recommend checking out the developer Aqua release of OpenOffice.org, Neoffice. Downloads of a test binary have been here for awhile.

    Moreover, just yesterday, lead developer Dan Williams posted this state-of-the-port message on what still needs to be done to have a complete port of OO.o in Aqua:

    All in all, these aren't problems that require all that much technical expertise, just a lot of trial and error, and a bunch of debugging. A lot of the issues that we have had for a long time, like the widgets and menus and the event loop, are actually solved; we simply need to convert our old hacks over to the new frameworks or clean up the code as it is. We can of course do this, but as always it requires more manpower.

    So? Volunteers?

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  27. Re:OpenOffice.org (Aqua State Of The Port) by VValdo · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not holding my breath.

    You might not need to. See The State of the Aqua Port 2004 message from developer Dan Williams.

    W

    --
    -------------------
    This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  28. Where can I donate? by Gryphon · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Where can I donate specifically to the team of programmers working to bring KOffice up to finished, final release quality on OS X?

    I would gladly pay to encourage their efforts.

  29. Re:Close, but not perfect by falcon5768 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    thats cause unless its the 12 inch model which doesnt have it, the backlite keyboard is standard.

    and available software is NOT an issue unless you use AutoCAD, cause just about every other package out there, there is a version for the mac, unless its a very propitary. that plus TONS of unix software kills that argument. Of and did I mention VPC5 whihc works great for your few windows programs. My girlfriends dad even runs OS 2 warp software on his mac with no problems.

    and I wont go into the nature of prossesors cause to this day PC users cant get it into their heads that prossesor speeds mean absolutly NOTHING if your computer cant give it info fast enough.

    I could go on but as someone who works in a IT enviroment and repairs computers and intigrates them into networks for a living, i would chose a Mac over a PC ANY DAY on our network.

    and given the fact that we have 800 macs and only 200 PC's on our network because maintaining them is cheaper (our mac budget is 5,000 our PC budget 15,000 and this is including computer purchasing since our PC side has to replace its Dells almost every year because they had catostrophic failures due to continuous use)

    Trust me Macs might cost more on the onset but you look in any major IT industry newspaper and they all say that in the long run you spend more maintaining a PC.

    --

    "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

  30. Re:The plot thickens... by cbreaker · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yea, all ten of you Hebrew-speaking Macintosh users should boycot this blasphemy!

    --
    - It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
  31. Re:Opportunity (Greetings from 1996) by dustpuppy_de · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I doubt this will happen. Mac OS, formerly System 7, goes back to the days of the Lisa... that is a lot of code that Apple has tried and invested in, why would they throw it out? I expect a major updating of the Mac OS, splitting it to 2(Client / Server) OSes that all use a similar GUI.

    I just don't see Jobs throwing out Mac OS, and moving to NextStep (or BeOS, which is just as possible an alternative). It wouldn't make a lot of sense.