Slashdot Mirror
Alternatives To Office For Mac OS X
imatt writes "From eWeek's article on MS Office Alternatives for Mac: 'Major milestones were recently announced for two Mac OS X-compatible software suites that could provide an alternative to the near-ubiquitous Microsoft Office...NeoOffice/J uses a standard Mac OS X installer, presents native Aqua menus, does not require Mac OS X users to install and use X11 software, uses Mac OS X fonts and has native printing support.' Most [options] seem to be open source, which is good for the programming community and better for the Apple user."
Now, why exactly has apple not came out with their version of office yet? Does apple not want to appeal to the office... or just to the home users with video, pictures and music?
I have NeoOffice/J installed on my PowerBook, and it works pretty well. It's a bit slow, but definitely functional, and it has loaded every Office document I have asked it to.
What do you mean?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
As a Mac user, I have to say that both Office v.X and NeoOffice/J are excellent options. Microsoft gave Office v.X the full Aqua treatment, and even made certain that the interface was more consistent with the OS X desktop than with the Windows Desktop.
That said, NeoOffice/J is my personal favorite. While it hasn't looked very "lickable" up until recently, I've found it to be far more user friendly, and overall quite stable. (With one of the best document rescue implementations I've ever seen! If something bad happens, it still usually manages to stop, save the file to disk, then dump its core. Amazing.) IMHO, I couldn't do articles without it.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
There is always the possibility that Apple will extend iWork as a replacement for AppleWorks which is a bit long in the tooth now. So thinks the AppleWorks User Group: http://www.awug.org/misc/iwork_iwug.html/
I've used Appleworks on every Mac that I've owned, never had a compatability problem yet. You can easily convert most files back and forth between Office and Appleworks, and it has just about every feature that Office does.
Now, if only someone would offer an alternative to MS Publisher, aside from Quark Xpress, which currently costs well over $1k.
Since Neo is based on OpenOffice, and I am familiar with it from my use of Linux and Windows, Neo is simply the best choice!
The only bad part; There won't be an implementation of a native version of OpenOffice 2.0 for awhile.
I'm not sure if this is because of my experience in high school, but i like the simplistic layout of MS word more than OOo 1.1 writer. I prefer the OOo 1.9 writer and 1.9 presentation layout; but don't see these coming to the Mac very soon (outside of the X11 implementation)
That link needs to have the / removed from the end. Why does this keep happening? Is it something to do with ./ or is it some way that users are posting URLs into comments?? Working link.
What is the status of OO.org on the mac platform? I have heard that the interface is not consistent with other OSX applications. But other than that, what is the stability, speed and usability like? I personally very much enjoy OO.org on Windows, though excel really is the best spreadsheet software that I have yet seen on any platform.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Well, that's an improvement, I guess. I'm a poor college student; I use Linux because I couldn't afford another Windows license when it last crashed completely, so I'll just go out and blow $700 on InDesign. No problem. I didn't really need to pay bills or rent. Or eat.
Why do people use "word processors" when all they need is a text editor?
Seriously, I haven't used a "word processor" in years, except to read stupid infected files other people send me. Spreadsheets are more handy, but Appleworks/OO.o do just fine in this area. So does my HP49G+
none of these offer complete exchange integration, so any office that runs exchange wont really benefit
I see in your comment's history that you were a /. subscriber. You're dumb enough to pay, troll and be off-topic at the same time? I LOLed!
Anonymous Coward wrote:
Seriously, I haven't used a "word processor" in years, except to read stupid infected files other people send me. Spreadsheets are more handy, but Appleworks/OO.o do just fine in this area.
Cheers,
Ehttp://eugeneciurana.com | http://ciurana.eu
Sure, thats what I do. I am the "underminer". LOL!
i am impressed. pirated adobe software is all over my campus. i dont know if there is a linux veriosn but... "$384 Adobe Creative Suite"
always mosh clockwise
NeoOffice/J runs only a little slow on my G4 Cube but fully functional and quite stable, plus I can now share documents between my Windows, Mac, Solaris, and Linux boxes with NeoOffice/J-OpenOffice.
MicroWho?
I haven't bought the Office suite from Microsoft for close to five years now with the introduction of free alternatives like Open Office.
What originally got me started was the inablity to open an old MS Works file in Office 2003, even with the proper conversion utilities installed. I was able to open the file in OO and make the necessary changes and save it in multiple formats for the future. I have recommended OO for precisely this problem to several friends and many have converted out of sheer spite for breaking compatibitlity between versions of Word.
Although MS Office is fine, I've gotten random crashes lately and the app is sluggish. Maybe it is related to Tiger issues. I have resolved all my font conflicts through FontBook.
I actually have been using TextEdit for quite a lot of writing lately. Once you get the hang of the font menu (customizible though FontBook) and set your preferences, I find it to be a really comfortable solution.
Once my drafts mature (I do a lot of rewriting), I send them over to Office (where I use EndNote), but The simplicity of TextEdit really works for me.
If I need the software, it's for a project with a professor, and that professor can use grant money to get it for me. They could get me Quark Xpress, probably. On the other hand, if I have personal projects that could be accomplished very efficiently with MSPub or equivalent, or inefficiently using HTML, I'll have to use HTML. With cascading stylesheets, that's not as troublesome as it would have been previously, but it still isn't very effective.
Here's something that I really can't do with HTML, short of changing text to images and rotating them using the GIMP: making greeting cards. Store-bought cards are gauche these days, and if I can't draw them by hand, I'm left with printing out the parts and pasting them together. Not a good solution. Using a typesetting program would allow me to accomplish my goal quickly and easily.
I think it would be relatively simple to make a dedicated typesetting program starting from OOo Writer. I'm not entirely certain, though--you'd have to implement print orientation, maybe object rotation, and set up pages to start blank, not as targets for entering text. Then text boxes and layout guides, and you're nearly done. I think. I'm not as familiar with OOo as I perhaps should be. But it's largely a user interface issue--making paper sizing and such simple and accessible.
I use Mellel, which is not open source (I don't think), but is shareware. It is pretty sleek looking, runs fast, and I haven't had a problem with it. Customer support is great.
.doc files.
It seems like the main users of Mellel are people needing multilingual support, especially for things like Hebrew (reading the other way) and Japanese, Arabic, etc. It also integrates with some of the bibliography software out there. And I'm pretty damn sure it reads in
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
Although I don't even have Windows on my PC, I could use Microsoft Office if there were a Linux version. And I mean it by comparing to OO.o, because while the former may be bigger than it in bytes, both feel heavy the same way. I mean, wouldn't switch to MS Office over LaTeX, but I wouldn't feel bad switching from Writer to Word, Calc to Excel, etc... I've had many bad experiences with Word, already seen Excel crash and I even saw Power Point going into "safe mode" once, but Open Office seems as bloated as MS'.
...except, of course, for the price.
This is where things like NeoOffice, OpenOffice, and (if you're looking at nonfree solutions) iWork come in very handy. Not everyone wants to cough up the big bucks for what to most people is a word processor that comes bundled with a spreadsheet, a presentation systyem, and an e-mail client, plus a database on Windows. Many eople (especially a significant portion of home users) just want to be able to read and write relatively simple Word and RTF documents, and if that can be done for free or at all cheaper than buying MS Office, it's a good thing for those people.
Office is pretty expensive, particularly if you only need simple functions. Why buy Photoshop when you can do what you need with Elements...or the Gimp?
"Most [options] seem to be open source, which is good for the programming community and better for the Apple user."
I can more or less see the first one... but better for the Apple user how, exactly? Does it do the job the user wants better than the closed-source option? Most reasonable people would say "no" - the job, like it or not, is to work seamlessly and transparently with MS Office. At (theoretical) best it can do this job "as good as" Office, but if you've used OpenOffice on any significant MS Office document you know that isn't the case right now.
You may feel that "open source" is a laudable goal in and of itself. I won't disagree with you, but I doubt that most users will ever really care.
#DeleteChrome
Scribus is available through fink, but if you don't know what that means, you're in for an adventure getting it installed (X11, packages, etc.). And compared even to PageMaker or Publisher, it's still quite rough around the edges, makes Quark look like a Lexus and InDesign look like a Rolls Royce.
But it'll damn sure make a greeting card, if you're patient enough.
OO.org is quite a bit better on PC (linux, windows) than macs. for whtaever reasons, it just is. there are alot of decent options, like abiword/gnumeric or KOffice (if you can like X11 and fink...) but in the whole industry there's just not much of a market for office suites. it's office or office. usually 97 versus 2000 versus XP. hopefully OO.org 2.0 will do for it what moz has done for the browser wars.
.doc's. anyways, i rarely use it in my classroom. honestly. i use keynote and abiword, as my WP needs are small. also, for alot of things I just go the html route. but that's me. anyways, office is by far the best bet on the mac. since OO.org has kinda dropped OSX from its priority OS's, don't expect much improvement in the mac situation. apple could, i imagine, have put money into OO.org, or some other suite, or developed one in house, but they really need a top tier MSOFfice, and pissing off ms ain't gonna be helpful. really, apple sales are probably 1% of microsoft's business. it isn't gonna cause billy g to lose sleep the way linux does.
i installed office X on my ibook because I had to for grad school. damn profs always wanting
apple needs office more than MS needs apple.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
For some reason I randomly remembered this really neat local business. Have you ever heard of Gwen Frostic? You might want to check out her site. I remember being impressed with the beauty and quality the first time I was presented with such a card. <shameless plug>
Although it's great to have a number of office applications, Microsoft Office is still the de facto standard whether some of us like it or not.
A lot of these Office clones seem to be fairly limited in function as compared to MS Office. For example, Apple Keynote still tends to loose a lot of formatting when importing PowerPoint documents. From Office 2004 to 2003 (on PC), however, I have yet to encounter any such problems. In the professional world, this is a fact of life everyday, and taking the risk of possible document incompatibilities is one often not taken.
At the end of the day, it is great to have alternatives. Moving away from MS Office, however, is not really feasible in the real world (well, not yet at least!)
Plus, students can get a huge discount on Office 2004 anyhow. Is free better than $100 or so? That's for you to decide.
What about RagTime ?
There always that Office Myth. I use RagTime since the early 90's. Its been out there for far over a decade and nobody seems to be aware of it.
Nice Spreadsheet, Layout and Text App.
You dont always need that dinosaur MS Office
btw: the home version is free !
I have said this before and I will keep saying it: Apple's greatest problem at the moment is the lack of an affordable full office suite ($400 is not affordable -- note you can almost buy a Mac Mini for that). People won't accept something as radically different as Pages. NeoOffice/J is the best hope they have. I can understand that Apple doesn't want to come out publicly in support of the project, because Microsoft could cut them off at the knees, and Apple is dependent on MS Office. But I hope to hell that Jobs has some people squirreled away in Infinity Drive somewhere working on this.
Office suites are big, complicated pieces of software, sort of like operating systems and browsers. Apple should do what they did with OS X (BSD/Darwin) and Safarai (Konqueror, KHTML) and use NeoOffice/J as the basis for their own suite. This Pages stuff can only be a stop-gap measure.
...can correctly open an MS Word document with two tables. :-)
I have been using my first mac (powerbook) for almost a month now, and i can say that NeoOffice/J does a much better job for a user in mac os x than the X11 version of OpenOffice.
That's Apple's fault: they are putting roadblocks in the way of people trying to do a better job with X11 integration on Macintosh. The OOo developers got so annoyed with Apple's behavior that they stopped working on Macintosh integration.
There is no technical reason why X11 couldn't be as smoothly integrated into OS X as Carbon and Cocoa are: X11 should be preinstalled and run automatically on every Macintosh, and its window management should be tightly integrated with the Macintosh desktop.
The fact that it isn't (and that X11 is dog slow on Macintosh) is Apple politics: Apple doesn't want X11 to run too well on Macintosh--they probably are afraid that if X11 becomes well enough integrated so that people can write applications with a native L&F, it would become the predominant API on OS X. To prevent that, Apple wants X11 to run just well enough so that people can use workstation applications on Macintosh if they have to, but so that X11 applications continue to look foreign and don't integrate very well.
Evolution offers Exchange integration. Of course, it's an X11 application, and Apple's X11 server sucks, so it's a pain to use under OS X.
Once Apple comes around to actually supporting X11 well, then all this software will become available for Macintosh.
Nice try with the self-modding, but unfortunately you're wrong. Java is capable of being very fast and beautiful and X11 seems to get the job done just fine for machines that use it natively.
No flame intended, but I think NeoOffice/J is utter crap. Functionality is great (if one thinks duplicating MS features and functionalities is the way to go; personally I am horrified to find the preferences in the "tools" menu, amongst 100 other usability flaws) but the user interface just is an exact copy of the Windows 95 UI. My eyes hurt when using NeoOffice/J. This just does not give me the user experience I expect as a Mac user. This combines a Windows UI with Windows usabilty. I'm not a Windows user you know, I don't want this. But I appreciate the work, and see the importance of alternatives for MS Office. NeoOffice/J is just not there yet, and I'm hoping someone can someday create an Office suite that offers more than being just an MS Office duplicate with an ugly UI.
Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
learn it, love it, live it.
music lover since 1969
is that Open Office could open a legacy MS Works document that Word 2003 will the proper file conversion utilities could not. I meant to point out that I was able to steer friends to OO through the same difficulties opening some legacy Word documents in the newer versions of Office, not MS Works. In fact, I had this problem the other day. I was charged with updating a long, tedious document in our office that was originally produced in Word 97. The damn thing would not format correctly in Office 2003, so I opened it in OO where it did and saved it. Weird, but it saved me a lot of work. :)
And actually, they did break compatibility with MS Works documents in Office XP/2003. Office 97 would open legacy MS Works documents back to version 1.0, if I am not mistaken. Even with the file conversion utilities installed in Office XP it would not open any legacy MS Works documents correctly. I have since learned it is better to save in multiple formats.
You make an excellent point that Word in Office is really more than most people need. It's just that Office is the defacto word processing standard and anyone in a professional environment would be familiar with the program. Ask anyone what you need to write a document in Windows and the instant answer would be "Office".
You are right in some sense. RedHat made a mistake by introducing LaTeX as a publishing software. It is not. LaTeX is for scientific writing (translated: it's not for idiots like you), and using it for anything else is kind of kludgy.
On the other hand, using anything else for scientific writing is unimaginable for us scientists (well, at least the mathematically minded scientists -- just in case some people define scientists differently).
Whenever I need more than TextEdit, I use Nisus Writer. You can download it from nisus.com, not sure how long their trial license lasts..
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I bought it in my windows days when Sun Java for Win32 started to rock, now on OS X, I still use it and thanks to java maybe, its one of the rare programs did not need a update etc to run on tiger.
.doc file, I knew what was coming but thank god it worked.
;) You know what I mean. Besides jokes, they now have a huge Korean company at their back, Haansoft. I wish they try "webtop" type office again some day.
It plain works.
Version 3 comes in weeks, http://www.thinkfree.com/
It passed very evil tests here, like editing a very bad formatted pro movie script. When I saw the 450 kb
Another problem with them would be? er, whitelist thinkfree if you buy/trial it. They are now Korean company
First days of Thinkfree, you could run it from IE, using JVM 1.1. No wonder we must be impressed.
Unlike some open-source office suites, NeoOffice/J users can drag and drop as well as copy and paste data to and from other applications.
... what other "open-source" "office suites" are available for OSX ?
Hmmm
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
azureus ? jedit ? java can rock if its done properly
Only once have I used Microsoft Word as anything but a viewer for files produced by someone else, and the experience was agonizing. It would have been easier for me to produce the document I finally arrived at using raw HTML and "vi", because Word has no concept of a textual object larger than a paragraph or a table cell. Everything else, chapters, lists, sections, blocks, are faked by applying styles to paragraphs and inheriting styles from one paragraph to another. Pasted text carried along with it the context of the source section, inserting paragraphs in lists resulted in the lists being split. There was absolutely no way to distinguish content and layout, I ended up spending more time reapplying layout and styles than working on the text itself.
Ever since then I have simply written content in plain text and left it to the people in Word Processing to make it fit the corporate style.
No wonder IE doesn't support CSS, nobody at Microsoft has experience with a real text processing system.
Excel, on the other hand, is a pretty decent spreadsheet. Mostly, I still just use it as a viewer... because I rarely deal with material that needs a spreadsheet to handle... but it's not because I'm actively avoiding it like I am Word.
So I simply can't understand this need for an "Office Suite" for the Mac. A good spreadsheet, yes, but OS X already comes with a better word processor than Word in TextEdit.
http://www.abisource.com/
/. discussion anyway. If you're going to do serious spreadsheet work, for example. you *will* need Excel -- it's actually really not that bad.
Completely free and open, and using native widgets and updated constantly. Granted, it's only a word processor, but that's all I've noticed being talked about in this
-o
I think these are the latest versions of OO.o and Neo for macintosh.
My test was simple. The document has no tables. It has only one font family, Times New Roman (at 11 point normal, at 12 point normal, italic, and bold, and 14 point bold). No text is in colour. There are 3 inset figures. The document is 10 pages long. I cannot supply it the document for verification, because it is contains confidential information.
I had done a lot of work on the document to get clean line/paragraph/page breaks. For example, to prevent the last line of a page being the first line of a paragraph, I would insert a page break. (I know, I know, this sort of thing is handled automatically with TeX and its variants, but I had to use MSWord for collaboration. Even my test with OO.o and Neo was just a test -- my colleagues have neither.)
I think it is common to care about precise page breaks, etc., and therefore I think a "compatible" program should obey these, at the very least. Otherwise it's impossible to actually use the document. Mail it to someone and ask a question about page 8, and they will have a different page 8.
In OO.o, the document view had the right page breaks. Further tests would be useful, but at least OO.o is worth considering for collaborative work.
In Neo, the page breaks were wrong. Thus Neo fails the test.
PS. please, let's not get into the matter of one version of MSOffice being incompatible with another. That's true but irrelevant since the granting agency to which I am sending the document has a compatible version, as do my colleagues with whom I am working on the project. And, please, let's not get into the matter that the agency should accept OO.o files. They don't, and they make the rules, not me.
Conclusion: OO.o may be worth considering for collaborative use. Neo is not.
Mellel is not shareware, it's a regular old commercial program. However, you can download a complete working demo to try it out, and it only costs $39! A bargain for a very good program. The developers and the Mellel community are very generous people who treat users with respect and provide a lot of online support.
.doc files, Mellel, which has its own file format, will only import and export .doc files, and with less success than say, OO. It's not a good choice if you must exchange files all the time with colleagues who use Word. But on its own, it's a great word processor. Nisus Writer Express is also another product worth a look. Note that Nisus is also commercial ($69).
As for
I fucking hate Slashdot these days. Did NONE of you read the article? NeoOffice/J is NOT our only hope! [Yoda]There is another.[/Yoda]
The end of the article talks about a "ThinkFree Office" that is also due out this summer, however, I don't see one single post in this thread talking about it. It's a non-free product, but why should that mean it gets any less coverage here? Every single post I've seen here defending NeoOffice/J against MS Office says something to the effect of, "it's good enough for me," or, "I pick the right tool for the job." Guess what, you might want to take a look at another option to see if IT is the right tool for the job, and good enough for you.
Quit following the goddamn zealot herd!
At my work we have a site license for Office.X so I've been able to compare Office and Neo side by side without $$ being part of the equation. My use of both consists or writing technical software manuals. These documents require the use of Table Of Contents, Index, Cross-references, screen shots with captions, and are generally in the ball park of 100 pages long. Office.X simply isn't up to the task. Maybe the PC version of Office is better, it has to be or no one would use it. Office simply can not remember formatting, styles, tables, lists, graphic positions and it often corrupts the document I am working on. NeoOffice/J is rock solid in all these areas. I have never gotten a corrupt document. It remembers things like lists, tables, graphics positions, formatting, etc... Having a Mac, I have not had a chance to play with OpenOffice 2.x, but let me say this. If OpenOffice adds support for advanced scripting (via something better than VBS, say Ruby, Python, Perl...) Microsoft will have their ass handed to them.
Other than price, I don't understand why anybody would NOT want to use Office for OS X. The OS X Office team is completely different than the Windows Office team. Anybody who has even taken a few minutes with Office on the Mac can realize it's the best office suite for any platform, period. It's got the performane and an oustanding UI to match. Not only does it beat the pants off of any open source contenders right now, but it also kicks Office for Windows butt too. It's an oustanding product all around and I for one would never want an alternative to the best.
This Account Has Been Suspended
Please contact the billing/support department as soon as possible.
Thanks Slashdot....
I have said it over and over again at various discussion about MS Office vs alternatives - for scientists, compatibility between MS Word and Endnote (a dominant citation reference manager) is the single most important reasons to stick with MS. Give me OO, Pages or any other app with built-in capabilities of Endnote, I'd drop MS Office on the spot.
No one needs office anymore. We have VIM!
Who moved my sig?
Abiword.
.doc files and Abiword opens the rest. I use NeoOffice for PowerPoint and writing my own stuff which I always print in the labs from a PDF.
I have Abiword installed alongside NeoOffice/J. TextEdit, that comes with OSX, opens most
Direct away from face when opening.
PDF export is essential.
||| I still can't believe Parkay's not butter.
I really need to be able to accurately layout mostly-text documents, send them to novice users, and have them be able to edit the text without everything exploding. At least for those other contributors, the software needs to be cheap.
.doc is NOT accurate. Office is not accurate _even with Office_ especially if the version/OS/resolution/default printer is different. All problems I have - OSX, Linux and Win are all relevant for me.
As another poster pointed out,
I welcome ANY general suggestions on this issue. I also welcome suggestions about LaTeX implementations that are as useable as "word processors" to achieve basic functionality. I don't know a lot about LaTeX, but at this moment it seems like my best hope for the way I want it.
Since PDF is the only commonly readable layout-precise format. What I really want is a reasonably priced PDF _editor_ that works like an Word Processor. Things like being able to add text and having it automatically reflow on more than a per-line basis.
What I think will most likely be my solution will be when a product like InDesign can export to PDF AND embed all it's other information, so the _same_ PDF was readable for free but editable for other people with InDesign. This would be much more reasonable if there was an inexpensive version of InDesign, even if it only let you perform basic features.
Again, any suggestions are welcomed.
My $0.02 on the original topic: MSOffice v.X is the best MSOffice I've ever seen. NeoOffice sounds like it's good but I haven't used it, Appleworks is okay if I remember, iWork seems outstanding but they don't have a spreadsheet yet. I believe it's coming.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Use open office! It has the amazing security feature of opening so slowly that by the time it loads, there is a new version available that contains any security fixes you might need.
Mac OS X can print (printable) files as PDFs natively.
How old are you?
I am 45 -an age which allows me, paradoxically, to clearly remember times where text editors other than Word existed.
Not only I accept Pages, but I welcome it.
Of course it doesn't have *all* the possibilities of Word -no single alternative ever will.
But, for people like me that need read access to a variety of word-saved documents, and after tests, clearly Pages opens complicated word docs *much better* than the free alternatives.
I know, it's sad for the open source world. I'll say more: I agree with the general feeling that, once an application's functions are well understood -and 'text processing' is clearly a well understood paradigm now- sooner or later it is to be replaced by open source developments, which is welcome. Even, very welcome in the case of Microsoft.
But for now, I definitely prefer buying Pages than getting for free applications that at best are (more or less uglily) mimicking Word.
Herve S.
Here is a small data point, for what it is worth...
Until last weekend I was running my 533 Mhz G4 tower on osx 10.2 with 128 MB ram. NeoOffice/J was entirely unusable due to slowness (and I can be a pretty patient guy).
I upgraded to osx 10.4 and 384 MB ram. Now NeoOffice is very usable and only a peg or two short of 'zippy'.
Both the ram upgrade and the os upgrade contribute to improved perfomance. I'm not sure which is the larger contributing factor. But I would guess it is the Jaguar to Tiger move (Notice how I skipped Panther (10.3) which was well reguarded for improved performance).
One already can hook an X11 app into Carbon and Cocoa pretty much the same way any other app does it: including the headers and calling the functions. Virtually nobody does, because most developers place a high value on either consistency with the platform (i.e., not X11) or consistency across platforms (i.e., not Carbon and Cocoa).
Getting back to the original point, though, few modern mainstream applications use X11 per se. They use cross-platform, high-level toolkits: GTK, Qt, Swing, wxWidgets, XUL, VCL, etc. It's a lot smarter to integrate platform-specific code once at the toolkit level (again: like so) than to force hundreds or thousands of application developers to duplicate that work (even ignoring the cost to Apple).
Between this comment and your other, I have to conclude that your conception of "look and feel" is only skin deep and that you don't understand the difference between themers illegally redistributing pixmaps and developers building applications (or toolkits) on a platform. Apple hasn't acted against the Aqua ports of wxWidgets or Tk, promotes Qt/Mac for some scenarios, and maintains Java--all of which, especially the latter two, compete with Carbon and Cocoa far more than does X11. In other words, it's XFree86, what was then de facto standard desktop implementation. Get back to me after X11R7 stabilizes.