Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple

Overly Critical Guy writes to mention that more documents in the Iowa antitrust case have come out. This time, it's revealed that Microsoft considered dumping the Mac Office Suite entirely in a move to harm Apple. "The email complains at poor sales of Office, which it attributes to a lack of focus on making such sales among reps at that time. It describes dumping development of the product as: 'The strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately.' The document also confirms that Microsoft at the time saw Office for the Mac as a chance to test new features in the product before they appeared in Windows, 'because it is so much less critical to our business than Windows.'"

479 comments

  1. Nature of the beast.... by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with this is that if nothing else, Microsoft is good at making money and the Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable, with Office as one of their biggest revenue generators. On the other hand, that has never hurt Microsoft when they felt that losses in revenue in one area would be made up for in another area if they cancelled development for a competing platform. Just look to the cancellation of Halo development for Macintosh and Linux after they bought Bungie.

    However, it is an unfortunate reality of the software business, no matter how the consumer may benefit. When it comes down to it, companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money. Just look to insurance companies, right? They are not in business to provide health care insurance or to cover your medical bills. They are however in business to make money. Don't ever mistake the two or conflate their motives.

    That is not to say that there are not companies that have motivations that are geared towards the consumers of their products. On the contrary, I feel that Apple has done a pretty good job over the years of balancing ethical behavior with making great products that will keep their customers happy, but even they have, on occasion screwed up, sometimes spectacularly.

    I guess the most impressive thing to me about this is the continued flood of documents that have come out of the anti-trust trial that was dumped after the current POTUS entered the White House. These documents show an amazing culture of not just intense competition, but also one of dishonesty, dishonor and patently illegal behavior. I remember the case being dropped, but how could it have gone so wrong and how much more is there to find?

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Nature of the beast.... by zappepcs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait a damned minute. MS does NOT have a patent on illegal behavior.....

      Oh wait, you said 'patently'

      Never mind

    2. Re:Nature of the beast.... by truthsearch · · Score: 4, Insightful

      companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money.

      But I think the big question is: did Microsoft consider dropping it merely because it wasn't generating enough revenue, or mostly because they wanted to hurt Apple. If the "Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable" as you say, then there seems little reason to drop the product except the hurt Apple. If they're willing to lose profit with the intent of hurting Apple it's possible grounds for a suit by stockholders as it's likely not in the best interests of corporate profits. Plus it would be clear they were intent on hurting a competing platform even if it cost them more money to do so.

    3. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 1

      The problem with this is that if nothing else, Microsoft is good at making money and the Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable, with Office as one of their biggest revenue generators.

      Thats true today 2007, not when the memo was written in 1997.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    4. Re:Nature of the beast.... by GregPK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Think of what would have happened had microsoft cut funding for the mac office? Most likely Apple would have made thier own version of office probably heavily embracing Wordperfect. Thus, creating an entire market outside of MSFT control and what if Wordperfect got a good foothold in the mac side then you'd see many clients having to support it on the PC side as well thus increasing the market on PC side. Thats the side that was thought out in the boardroom, coffeetable discussions that we never hear about. The idea of cutting off mac. Was simply at the time an idea. It only got as far as slow updates to mac office. But look at the upside. The last version of macoffice is pretty much similar to the current version of office. So you get the new ideas, new features, ahead of the PC guys. So I think Microsoft played thier cards quite well for the time. Otherwise they would have assured the destruction of one of thier own core markets.

    5. Re:Nature of the beast.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer" a customer is only important if they make you money. Charity cases, or very marginalised businesses, are not important. In reality a profit-seeking company balances the needs of the customer against the company's need for the customer. If MS no longer needs the Mac customers then they will no longer care what the Mac customers want.

      This is nothing new. Almost 10 years ago MS was going to completely step away and that would have killed Apple, but they didn't: http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101970818 ,00.html . In many ways, MS has given Apple ten years to get its shit together from a MS perspective (ie. be a worthwhile platform for MS to support) but has this really happened?

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    6. Re:Nature of the beast.... by powerlord · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also, if they were trying to hurt Apple for the benefit of their Desktop OS, for which they are convicted monopolists, that might be a bit troubling to the DoJ (assuming it grows a pair), as well as their EU equivalent agencies.

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    7. Re:Nature of the beast.... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Informative

      In many ways, MS has given Apple ten years to get its shit together from a MS perspective (ie. be a worthwhile platform for MS to support) but has this really happened?

      The reality of that little ten year waiting period descended from MS being caught red-handed with their hand in the Quicktime cookie jar codebase. The outcome of that was that MS agreed to a public endorsement of the Macintosh platform, a $150 million dollar investment in Apple (non-voting stock), an agreement to continue producing Office for the Mac and to share certain codebases. It will be interesting to see what Apple got out of the codebase sharing agreement in the next month or two...

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    8. Re:Nature of the beast.... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they're willing to lose profit with the intent of hurting Apple it's possible grounds for a suit by stockholders as it's likely not in the best interests of corporate profits.

      The only people it might not be in the best interest of would be day traders, and even they will benefit if they sell short. See, if Microsoft could crush Apple, then they would have an even stronger hold on the market, an even stronger monopoly position, and they would get even more for their bribe money to whoever received it that immediately pulled the DOJ dogs off of Microsoft after they had been convicted of abusing their monopoly position.

      Well, and it wouldn't be in the interest of Apple users either, but by then they would have lost their voices entirely so they would be quite irrelevant :)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:Nature of the beast.... by sangreal66 · · Score: 1

      Just look to the cancellation of Halo development for Macintosh and Linux after they bought Bungie. Halo development for Macintosh was not canceled when Microsoft bought Bungie. Halo was released for the Mac in December, 2003. I don't believe a Linux version was ever being developed by Bungie.
    10. Re:Nature of the beast.... by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Office for Mac wasn't making that much money at the time because the version of it that was out pretty much sucked. For the first time ever, Word for Mac was not the best selling word processor for Mac - NissusWriter had overtaken it.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    11. Re:Nature of the beast.... by BWJones · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Halo development for Macintosh was not canceled when Microsoft bought Bungie.

      Yes, it was.

      Halo was released for the Mac in December, 2003.

      True, and in fact, I worked as an alpha and beta tester for the company that did the port (look for my name in the credits). The important thing to note is that MS *did* cancel all development for the platform and decided at a later date to allow the existing code to be brought to the Macintosh through a third party developer who did all the work required.

      I don't believe a Linux version was ever being developed by Bungie.

      To my peripheral knowledge, there were active efforts at Bungie to bring a number of their titles to Linux and Halo was one of them.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    12. Re:Nature of the beast.... by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Yeah... that's what would have happened...

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    13. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS has given Apple ten years to get its shit together from a MS perspective (ie. be a worthwhile platform for MS to support) but has this really happened?

      If the Mac group is profitable (and it apparently is) then the answer is yes. (From any reasonable perspective, anyway. I know the neo-capitalist position is that even if it's profitable, it's not worth doing unless it makes the day traders propping up the holy stock market into millionaires tomorrow.)

    14. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Monkelectric · · Score: 0, Redundant

      I hate MS, I own a MAC, I helped found a linux distribution. Mac software cannot be nearly as profitable as PC software for simple economic reasons. Assume the dev costs are the same for Office for Mac and Office for Windows (in fact they are probably much higher for mac -- but assume with me). Development is a fixed cost. Curiously enough, software has almost zero marginal cost (it doesn't cost very much to make x+1 units, if you're already making x units). Point being, at what 6 or 7% of the marketshare -- Mac software incurs the SAME expenses as word but has an order of magnitude less avenues for sales. It *HAS* to be less profitable.

      --

      Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

    15. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Troll

      did Microsoft consider dropping it merely because it wasn't generating enough revenue, or mostly because they wanted to hurt Apple.

      So what? Is any company required to support their competitors? No...

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    16. Re:Nature of the beast.... by rthille · · Score: 1

      You may be correct, but you are completely ignoring marketing costs and competition issues.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    17. Re:Nature of the beast.... by terrymr · · Score: 1

      No - but generally business decisions should be geared toward producing a better product than your competition rather than looking for ways to eliminate the competition so you can sell your product no matter how bad it is.

    18. Re:Nature of the beast.... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      In many ways, MS has given Apple ten years to get its shit together from a MS perspective (ie. be a worthwhile platform for MS to support) but has this really happened?

      Worthwhile from which point of view? From the standpoint of a monopoly that wants to maintain that monopoly at any cost? Maybe not, since no matter what kind of profits they making selling Office, Apple is still a potential threat to Windows. However, if Office for OSX was made by an independent developer with no interest in seeing Apple fail, would it be worthwhile to continue developing for the platform? Why wouldn't it be? It's profitable.

    19. Re:Nature of the beast.... by gerrysteele · · Score: 1
      > efforts at Bungie to bring a number of their titles to Linux and Halo was one of them

      I didn't care about this story till you just said that.

    20. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. I don't think 'selling their product no matter how bad it is' would have been an issue had the product been DISCONTINUED.

    21. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait. You're going to call Microsoft evil because, in several documents recently released, someone who works there thought about doing something that would be bad for the marketplace, and Microsoft decided not to do it? The fact of the matter is, of all the documents to come out in the past 5-6 months in which an employee suggested something bad, in none of those examples did the company ever follow that suggestion. Of course at least one person is going to have the idea that you can slow Mac growth by dropping Office support. Who cares. What's important is that Microsoft didn't drop Office support, and in fact is blazing forward on new versions.

    22. Re:Nature of the beast.... by zachmagaw · · Score: 0

      MSFT lawyer: you cannot prove that this email was written by a msft employee... the security holes in our software are well documented...

    23. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh my God. Reading your email. Made my head hurt. Your use. Of sentence fragments was very jarring. Other than that your point was reasonable so in the future you can strengthen your point by improving your grammar.

    24. Re:Nature of the beast.... by wellingj · · Score: 1

      I concure. If only Bungie had thrown Halo at Linux gaming we would see a little different environment.
      But the got bought so that's to bad. Kindof ironic that the only game I do play these days is Halo 1 and 2
      and I don't own any Windows computers.....MS should just fold up shop as a operating system maker and just
      make games an applications, they'd make more money with less headachs. all of this was offtopic...mod me now!

    25. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      No - but generally business decisions should be geared toward producing a better product than your competition rather than looking for ways to eliminate the competition so you can sell your product no matter how bad it is.

      Are you suggesting that Open Office is a better product than MS Office? That it is more functional? That it has tighter code that performs faster smother and more efficiently than MS Office code? I think virtually everyone except the most delusional Zealots disagree with you.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    26. Re:Nature of the beast.... by anzev · · Score: 1

      If only somebody would actually read the original document. Microsoft never intended to really drop the product. They themselves said it was a (refering to the Mac Office 97 called into question here), is a *good* product. Blatantly taking something out of context does harm for the poster, the community...

      The reason, as stated in the mail, is that Apple was unresponsive in regards to getting the Office ready for shipping and MS decided to "trheaten" them by pulling out.

      I know this is /., but please, read TFA and the links inside.

    27. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Halo development for Macintosh was not canceled when Microsoft bought Bungie.

      Yes, it was.

      -------------

      Wow, I guess there's no reason to backup assertions like that with proof when you claim to be a retinal neurophysiologist!

    28. Re:Nature of the beast.... by TClevenger · · Score: 1

      Like a vastly expanded WINE implementation integrated into the OS perhaps?

    29. Re:Nature of the beast.... by drsmithy · · Score: 5, Informative

      The reality of that little ten year waiting period descended from MS being caught red-handed with their hand in the Quicktime cookie jar codebase.

      Of course, the frequently unreported facts accompanying this assertion is that said code actually came to Microsoft from Intel, after Intel acquired it from another company that had previously worked on porting Quicktime to Windows for Apple.

    30. Re:Nature of the beast.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think this problem is symbolic of much larger one in which entire industries are out to "hurt" their competitors, but also their very customers. Look at the way the computer industry, the telecom industry and the entertainment/industrial complex has worked to limit our choices, roll back our access to new technologies, and lock us in to carefully controlled uses of their products. Equipment is hamstrung, demand is ignored, products are made less friendly to the user but more friendly to the profit margins. While trumpeting technological advances, they ship products that don't work or don't work well. There is outright hostility to those of us who are the ones pumping money into these industries. The entire model of supply and demand/free market is turned on its head and WE become the consumables.

      I don't want to make too big a jump here for those of you who are happy as clams as long as you can go to the best buy and get a 52" something that sets you back a month's pay, just to find that it can't do the things you really want it to do because those features are "just around the corner". The next release, the coming upgrade, THAT's the one you really want. But this fundamental change in the flow of power from the consumer to industry is being mirrored in the realm of public life. Politics are no longer about us. Elections are held but voters are optional. With all the things happening in the world, all the stories that could be told, every single media outlet has the same half-dozen stories on the front page. I used to wonder why some insignificant event would suddenly show up as the most important story in every single newspaper and news show. Now it becomes clear: as long as there's something to show us, it doesn't matter if it's the things that matter. As long as we watch. As long as we consume, as long as we pay, and most important, as long as we get up to go to work tomorrow so we can keep making those credit card payments.

      I'm sorry that I'm making these big jumps from this rather unsurprising story about one company doing something to hurt another. The thing is: I just don't believe it. Microsoft, Apple, how different are they really? Smart people have epic battles in these pages arguing the benefits of one platform over another as if it somehow matters, or if one will somehow defeat the other. To them, it's all good as long as we keep upgrading, keep paying, keep working. We have become the consumables.

      Now go read another story and let me finish my drink in peace. Tomorrow's another working day.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    31. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Creepy · · Score: 1

      well that was obvious - Halo 2 isn't even out yet on Windows (still XBox only), and will require Vista when it is released, even though XBox is essentially a DX 8 API (so basically they rewrote the graphics driver to DX10 just to force users to upgrade to Vista).

      Halo on Mac was actually outsourced to MacSoft and ported by Westlake after Microsoft killed every version except XBox (and delayed working on the PC version until after the XBox version was finished, iirc). Peter Tamte of MacSoft worked for Bungie (and Apple) and so had an "in" for obtaining the mac port rights.

      Microsoft does what's best for Microsoft - they have total hardware and software control of XBox, so they write their A list games that appeal to console and PC players for that platform first. They then release to PC 2 years later and only then allow ports off of that PC code for any other platform, which, if some porting house like MacSoft or Aspyr takes it, is several months later. I think they'd even allow it to be ported to Linux if enough money was given, but past attempts at making profitable ports for linux have failed (see Loki Games).

    32. Re:Nature of the beast.... by sqlrob · · Score: 1

      MS was going to discontinue Windows?

    33. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - but generally business decisions should be geared toward producing a better product than your competition rather than looking for ways to eliminate the competition so you can sell your product no matter how bad it is. Are you suggesting that Open Office is a better product than MS Office? That it is more functional? That it has tighter code that performs faster smother and more efficiently than MS Office code? I think virtually everyone except the most delusional Zealots disagree with you.

      Where the hell was Open Office ever mentioned? MS Office has loads of competition besides OO.org including Mac produced software. WTF?!
    34. Re:Nature of the beast.... by renegadesx · · Score: 2

      No but it wont be too long before they do, also that hour they may also register "legal but low" "illegal and low" and "just outright pissing people off" business practices next day they may register a patent for making money

      --
      Make SELinux enforcing again!
    35. Re:Nature of the beast.... by DeadboltX · · Score: 1

      "To my peripheral knowledge, there were active efforts at Bungie to bring a number of their titles to Linux and Halo was one of them."

      So then, it looks like it is your unbased claim against mine.

    36. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      You seem to be forgetting that for years before the settlement both Microsoft and Intel had been working together on Video for Windows.

      Microsoft and Intel hooked up back in the days before QuickTime for Windows was released. Their goal was to make VfW the equal in performance to QuickTime on MacOS (MacOS was just called Macintosh System 7 back then). After QuickTime for Windows was released, this partnership changed it's focus, to one-up Apple's Windows product. They toiled away for years but were always one step behind.

      Microsoft AND Intel then hired the third party that Apple had contracted the initial QuickTime for Windows development to. The third party still had access to all the code that they wrote for Apple. Microsoft AND Intel managers explicitly told the developer to reuse that code in their contracted update to Video for Windows. And the developer, seeing all the money being waved under it's nose, did just that.

      This explicit direction to the third party is why Microsoft saw the writing on the wall in the QuickTime lawsuit and did such a public about-face.

      Ultimately, Microsoft has made a profit, even given the "undisclosed" settlement that was paid to Apple at the same time (by all reasonable accounts this settlement extended to 7 figures). Microsoft bought Apple stock shortly before it skyrocketed in value, and sold it all off for over 20 times the price originally paid. Microsoft's Mac division has always turned a profit, even in the darkest days of the "shared code" nightmare known as Word 6, so they've made money simply selling their software too. Mac users are notoriously better about paying for their software than Windows users.

    37. Re:Nature of the beast.... by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 1

      Heck, I like Open Office because it's LESS functional than MS Office. Haven't people been screaming "bloatware" on MS Office for years?

      I don't know about more efficient, but OO is certiainly more logically organized than MS Office. It's bugged me for years that if you want to change the page format (or layout, if you please) in Word, it's under the "File" menu. In OO Writer, it's under the "Format" menu. Which makes more sense to you?

      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    38. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      MS Office has loads of competition besides OO.org including Mac produced software. WTF?!

      Spoke like a true Zealot, since in a factual way it isn't so.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    39. Re:Nature of the beast.... by bogjobber · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That reaction is even more ridiculous when you consider that Microsoft didn't drop support for Apple. Apparently "Microsoft once considered doing something that might've been bad, but decided against it" is now news.

    40. Re:Nature of the beast.... by icensnow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unless you assume that Office for Mac and Office for Windows have no code in common, you cannot assume that the development cost is higher. Microsoft has, presumably, an absolute priority and mandate to make Office for Windows. The development cost for Mac is a marginal cost -- to port it and to make the more Mac-like user interface, not the entire development. While those costs are certainly significant, it's a very strange accounting to assume that the development costs are the same.

    41. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Cheech+Wizard · · Score: 1

      "Apple charges double for everything it sells."

      Can you cite an example?

    42. Re:Nature of the beast.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
      Worthwhile from a Microsoft point of view of course.

      About the only reason Bill sucked up to Steve ten years ago was to help deflect a lot of DOJ anti-trust heat. MS knows now that DOJ has rubber teeth and can be ignored.

      Remember, not all profitable business is worth chasing. MS can't, and wont, chase small opportunities. It takes the same effort for MS to develop and market a product that sells to Windows (90+% market share) as it does to develop and market to Mac (5% or so). They'd probably make far more money with the same amount of investment by expending it elsewhere.

      --
      Engineering is the art of compromise.
    43. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, a seven figure sum doesnt sound so bad if those allegations are correct. I've used video for windows in a couple projects, and the fact that it was relatively simple to use, coupled with its inclusion with the windows operating system always made it seem good, despite some of it's shortcomings. It's fast and it works well with avi files (an odd aspect of this actually, VFW.h is really best used as an avi player, wtf does quicktime have to do with avi??). knowing microsoft, it seems like outsourced projects are the only ones that worked. If they can pay less than 10,000,000 for their quicktime clone, then it's got to be a no-brainer.

    44. Re:Nature of the beast.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      About the only reason Bill sucked up to Steve ten years ago was to help deflect a lot of DOJ anti-trust heat.

      How could that have helped, when Microsoft were charged with monopolising a market Apple had(/has) no presence in ?

    45. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think a convicted monopolist considering dropping support to kill off a competitor is news?

    46. Re:Nature of the beast.... by eclectic4 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "I hate MS, I own a MAC, I helped found a linux distribution."

      You own a Mac and still use all caps to describe it? Let me see your secret Apple Owner's card... I thought so...

      The dev costs for Office for Mac is far less when a great deal of the code already existed for the Windows version. So, your analogy fails, sorry. And remember, profitable means that it's making them money. Period. Whether it's making as much as some other part of their company is largely irrelevant.

      --

      "The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
    47. Re:Nature of the beast.... by falconwolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mac software incurs the SAME expenses as word but has an order of magnitude less avenues for sales. It *HAS* to be less profitable.

      Actually the nature of the beast is that the efforts of making a Mac version of software can help the Windows version thus save some money. As TFA says Mac users were to be the guinea pig. Any mistakes made would be in Mac software and the Windows developers could learn from the mistakes the Mac unit made thus lowering costs for the Windows version as well as avoiding lost sales for the Windows unit because Windows users decided to forgo the mistakes by not upgrading. As long as you're willing to loose some in a small or less profitable unit it can help avoid mistakes in bigger units. That's the smart thing to do.

      Falcon
    48. Re:Nature of the beast.... by vought · · Score: 1

      I can assure you that none of what you speculate would have come to pass.

      In 1997, Steve Jobs was burying the body of OpenDoc behind AC5, next to Newton. There was nothing to make a homebuilt "Mac Office" suite out of - AppleWorks was a very lightweight suite that couldn't hold a candle to Office, and leveraging any Office products from NextStep/OPENSTEP was still at least three years off.

      Microsoft certainly held the future of Apple in it's hands with Office - and arguably, still does. Maybe it won't be so in another ten years - but first, OO will have to get some polish and usability.

    49. Re:Nature of the beast.... by vought · · Score: 1

      Parent is 100% correct.

      Office for Mac was on the chopping block...but so was Microsoft's credibility during a time when the DOJ was sniffing VERY hard around the Redmond campus. To "make nice" with a competitor they'd pretty much stolen code from was a strategic move that may very well have staved off more serious antitrust penalties - especially when Mac Office is taken into account.

      Apple didn't so much hold the lawsuit over Microsoft's head as Microsoft calculated that fighting the QuickTime suit would have reversed the disdain Apple earned with the "look and feel" suit. Essentially, Microsoft would have validated the air of mistrust created by the antitrust suit by fighting Apple's QuickTime suit and losing or settling. So they chose to bury a settlement and to keep Apple running - in equal measures with symbolism and investment.

    50. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      go to the best buy and get a 52" something that sets you back a month's pay, just to find that it can't do the things you really want it to do because those features are "just around the corner". Err, I'd rather not. I have a 52" DLP samsung that supports 1080p on analog, HD15 and HDMI. Does it support HDCP? Who cares? I'll buy an illegal HDCP -> HDMI brick if i need it. I went with samsung for the 1080p support... Sony omitted it at the time as there "was no encryption scheme supporting 1080p."

      Politics are no longer about us. Elections are held but voters are optional. Would you care to ellaborate on this? The opposition party seems to have gained control of the legislature via election.

      As long as we consume, as long as we pay, and most important, as long as we get up to go to work tomorrow so we can keep making those credit card payments. Do you compulsively spend?

      Now go read another story and let me finish my drink in peace. Tomorrow's another working day. So, you're busy. Who isn't?

      Quit being such a fucking cynic.
    51. Re:Nature of the beast.... by darkonc · · Score: 1
      It really had nothing to do with MS Office for the Mac. Remember that this was back when MS was trying to 'cut of Netscape's air supply'. MS wanted something that they could hold to Apple's throat to get them to drop Netscape in favor of IE -- and they got a patent license and some cheap shares to boot out of the threat.

      (( Then, once netscape was effectively dead, Microsoft killed support for IE on the Mac, and forced Apple to develop Safari)).

      Killing Office for the Mac would have cost Microsoft millions of dollars -- and that's profig, not income. The thing is that it would have hurt Apple even more, and -- given that they had spent over a billion dollars trying to kill Netscape, tossing a few hundred million more trashing their Mac Office market was quite believable to Apple's executives... Evidence of that is that, shortly thereafter, Jobs bit his tongue and went on stage at macworld to eat crow and play nice with Microsoft in front of a shocked and disgusted crowd of Mac lovers.

      --
      Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
    52. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      "Apple charges double for everything it sells."

      Huh? You're a loony.

      "And Apple users are already used to mac software having fewer features than most comparable windows software."

      I stand corrected. You're stoned out of your damn mind. Software for the Mac is the reason I don't use Linux, or Windows. Even the Mac shareware stuff is superior in almost every way to what's available on other platforms.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    53. Re:Nature of the beast.... by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      You've drank the evil coolaid!

      It's really not as bad as you say.

      The phenomenon you point to is real. Especially in the tech world, moreso in the computing world, and most of all in the world of video games.

      *However*, while you may feel this pull, not everyone does in the world. How many people do you know who are happy with an outdated Windows? And how long have they been using it? Furthermore, how many people do you know who are happy with an older car? Or, for that matter, an older TV, or older sound system? Sometimes, our perspective may paint the world as dimmer than it actually is.

      Did you know, for example, that most American's have minimal credit card debt? .

      Just because there are excellent negative examples out there doesn't make them the norm. Not everyone lives at the tech forefront.

      Rather, the issue is that the media/advertising/corporate drones out there needs to make it look like this is as the case. "Everyone" has credit card debt, and "everyone" has the latest X-station-360-ii console, and "everyone" has the latest Toyota/Lexus, because that's an effective marketing talent. Luckily, there are quite a few companies who actually, for the most part, try to respect their customers, and generally act quite reasonably. Like, Costco. Or T-Mobile. How about Newegg? Or Dreamhost (who plays nice with even very, very loud critics). Even in the utility industry, I've found WideOpenWest, a cable company, to be more than reasonable. Hell, Nintendo and Apple, both the subject of much (deserved) criticism are generally quite a bit more human friendly than Sony and Microsoft, neither of whom I've ever heard of being more generous than "fair", and whom are often considered quite dastardly.

      And don't knock elections. Yes, your vote doesn't matter in the US Presidential election. Get over it. However, have you ever voted in a local election? Are you aware of just how much power the local authorities have over your life? And for that matter, consider the House; most electoral districtions are smaller than you think.

      The media/corporate/advertising "vision" of our society is pretty dismissal, but surprisingly, they're often wrong. The vast majority of Americans don't really fit into that fold. Consider DRM/P2P. Literally _most_ Americans who use the internet pirate music. It's not just that most Americans, if they really understood it, wouldn't reject DRM. It's that it hasn't really touched them much yet, because they're still watching SD DVDs on their 27" CRTs, even if they've got a gigantic LCD in their living room, and they used to download music off of Napster, and now download it off LimeWire. They simply don't know about it; the entire view of the tech sector, that Patents/Copyright are king, and you should be buying the next-best thing. Most people don't even understand the advertising, and haven't really been pulled in by it, because they are too busy focusing on things they actually enjoy. Those of us in or near the tech industry see it in a slightly different way, and as a result, I believe, get too dismissal of a picure.

      This isn't to say there aren't real problems in the world; but if you think you're the only person that cares about Peace, Global Warming, and a variety of other topics, you're quite wrong. A large number of wealthy, powerful, and famous people worldwide also share your concern; no matter which angle you pick (pro-Fossil Fuels, pro-Environmentalism, pro-Jihad, anti-terrorist, pro-drug, anti-drug, pro-space, anti-space).

      Just because the debate doesn't manage to win out over Anna Nicole Smith doesn't mean that it isn't going on, and doesn't mean that it is inaccessible. It just means that the people who control your media would rather sell you something with bling than focus on the serious, and unmarketable.

      Figure out a way to make a buck advocating carbon dioxide sequestering, and you, too could make an Oscar Nominated film. ;-)

      *shrug*. It ain't all rosy, but try and perk up :)

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    54. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      said code actually came to Microsoft from Intel, after Intel acquired it from another company that had previously worked on porting Quicktime to Windows for Apple.

      So what? It doesn't matter who the fence was - Microsoft knowingly infringed upon trade secrets.

      Or do you actually believe Microsoft thought it had the right to use that code?

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    55. Re:Nature of the beast.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      So what? It doesn't matter who the fence was - Microsoft knowingly infringed upon trade secrets.

      So if you buy stolen goods, even though you thought they were completely legitimate, you'd be happy to take the punishment for their theft ?

      Or do you actually believe Microsoft thought it had the right to use that code?

      No. I am, however, prepared to consider the possibility they didn't know they had been sold a product that had some illegally obtained code in it.

    56. Re:Nature of the beast.... by tpgp · · Score: 1

      So if you buy stolen goods, even though you thought they were completely legitimate, you'd be happy to take the punishment for their theft ?

      Why did MS accept the punishment, when Intel could take them blame (after all, Intel must have provided them some assurance for MS to believe it was "compleley legitimate").

      I'm sorry - you can blindly trust MS all you like, but the overwhelming evidence here is that they acted illegally, got busted & accepted the punishment.

      --
      My pics.
    57. Re:Nature of the beast.... by markiv34 · · Score: 0

      You are right in saying that killing office for the mac would have cost Micro$oft millions even billions perhaps. But if Micro$oft was really interested in making big buck they would have made an office suite for Linux too, but they haven't. Instead of trying to conquer the OS market Micro$oft should make sure that their office suite is the most wanted app be it on Linux, windows or the mac. Hell, they could make their office suite compatible only with Novell's SLED, many of the linux users (specially the corporates) would choose to switch to SLED in order to use MS Office. Linux users would welcome a decent office suite from any company, most of the supporters of open source movement are open minded.

      --
      No Black or White only shades of Gray
    58. Re:Nature of the beast.... by CokoBWare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The same could be said of Apple in relation to iTunes and Windows Vista... Apple had AMPLE time to review and build in a fix for iTunes so that it wouldn't nuke iPods when used with Windows Vista, but it didn't. It said "we're still working on it", creating FUD with Windows Vista, and basically doing what Microsoft is accused of saying in a document (not like it actually did anything at all with Mac Office). I'm not defending anyone... just trying to put things back into perspective.

    59. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      No. I am, however, prepared to consider the possibility they didn't know they had been sold a product that had some illegally obtained code in it.

      Are you that stupid? That naive? That lacking in knowledge of the ways of the world?

      If MS 'bought' code from intel that intel had no rights to sell, Apple would have gone after intel, not MS.

      I find the thought of Shills unlikely, so have to conclude that you're unbelievably stupid.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    60. Re:Nature of the beast.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      If MS 'bought' code from intel that intel had no rights to sell, Apple would have gone after intel, not MS.

      They did. Apple's lawsuit targeted the third party (can't remember the name, it was way too long ago).

    61. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "On the other hand, that has never hurt Microsoft when they felt that losses in revenue in one area would be made up for in another area if they cancelled development for a competing platform. Just look to the cancellation of Halo development for Macintosh and Linux after they bought Bungie."

      Apple have done exactly the same thing. The Logic DAW for example was originally written and marketed by eMagic, and was by far the most popular program of its type on both Windows and the Mac (it was originally written for the Atari ST). Apple bought eMagic in July 2002, and by September of the same year, announced that the Windows version would no longer be developed, even though it sold more copies than the Mac one (it held a commanding position in the Windows mind-range DAW market).

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    62. Re:Nature of the beast.... by mandie · · Score: 2, Informative

      MacOffice, at least as of 2001, cost MS far less to produce than the main Windows version.

      I was a MacBU intern (ah, the red-headed stepchildren...) in summer 2001. Yes, they really had considered calling it "Office X," but wisely tried saying it out loud before committing themselves. We swore Apple was using us for their OS X beta testing. I saw it core dump more those three months than I have in the four years I've owned an iBook, so they've sorted lots of stuff out since then.

      There were as many test engineers for WinWord as there were for all of MacOffice, and I think the ratios for developers and program managers were similar.

      MacBU cost MS $50 million a year (150 employees, all the advertising and production costs), and brought in well over $100 million, in the same year that MS was poised to spend $500 million on advertising for Windows XP. So it was/is tiny in comparison with the rest of the company, but quite profitable.

      We re-used a fair amount of code from WinOffice, and focused heavily on ensuring compatability with it. Just about all new feature development was in WinOffice. Though there were a few things that were cooler in MacOffice (and MS probably was using it to test out features before putting them in the "real" version).

      There was a sense that our continued existence was mostly to keep MS out of hot water, but most of my co-workers were genuinely enthusiastic about Macs, even if they weren't when they first got to MS. Imagine, a little corner of MS that produces Mac fans...

      --
      Grüß Gott aus Bayern!
    63. Re:Nature of the beast.... by suv4x4 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      they are convicted monopolists

      Jesus... so this is the level of the discussion we're having here.

      They may have done lots of illegal things but the mere situation of monopoly by naturally developed market share isn't one.

    64. Re:Nature of the beast.... by WWWWolf · · Score: 1

      To my peripheral knowledge, there were active efforts at Bungie to bring a number of their titles to Linux and Halo was one of them.

      I'm not so sure of Bungie's own involvement in the matter, but they did let Loki to port Myth II: Soulblighter to Linux, and allowed it to run (along with Win/Mac versions) on Bungie.net.

    65. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      They did. Apple's lawsuit targeted the third party

      Rustle up a link.

      If MS are as blameless as you say, Apple shouldn't have been able to get the concessions they did.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    66. Re:Nature of the beast.... by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      Eh, a linux port of halo/halo 2 would be pretty much as irrelivent to linux gaming as every other major port has been, the only reason that game did any well is that it was far and away the best *console* shooter, the pc/mac releases were pretty much met with a resounding "Meh".

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    67. Re:Nature of the beast.... by nichrome · · Score: 1

      Did someone say "RedBox"?

      --
      --You think you've found my weakness, but I have more.--
    68. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Woolfie · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, I feel that Apple has done a pretty good job over the years of balancing ethical behavior with making great products that will keep their customers happy, but even they have, on occasion screwed up, sometimes spectacularly. Apple bougth Logic Audio a couple of years ago (a music production software suite, which was available for PC and Apple). The first thing they did was cancel development for PCs. So I can't see any difference in the behaviour of these companies. Yes, you are right, it is the nature of the beast. Also Apple's.
    69. Re:Nature of the beast.... by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      Apple had AMPLE time to review and build in a fix for iTunes so that it wouldn't nuke iPods when used with Windows Vista

      Not exactly true. They could have fixed iTunes for a beta build of Vista. But with Vista going through constant changes it didn't necessarily make sense to change iTunes only to have to change it again. If the beta period only involved superficial changes then you'd be right.

    70. Re:Nature of the beast.... by LKM · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if you only look at one factor and ignore everything else that influences the end result, you can "prove" anything quite simply.

    71. Re:Nature of the beast.... by synthespian · · Score: 0, Troll

      Microsoft's market share did not develop naturally. Everyone knows that. This story was but another chapter on how Microsoft is willing to play dirty to hurt the competition. For instace, during the mid-90s, they were hell-bent on breaking just about every standard they could. Hence Google's "don't be evil."

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    72. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Poltras · · Score: 2, Funny

      MS does NOT have a patent on illegal behavior..... Prior art?
    73. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should consider being a revolutionary.

    74. Re:Nature of the beast.... by malexgreen · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think at the time (1997) MS Office for the Mac was unprofitable, and probably was the major motivation for possibly discontinuing support for Office on the Mac. I think it was mostly because of the low market share of Macs back then. But I think over time after the development of Office X and MacOSX it has become more profitable because it had features that the MS version of Office didn't have. However, MS may decide to kill MS Office on the Mac for the same reason they killed IE on the Mac: Apple's development of a competing product, i.e., iWork.

    75. Re:Nature of the beast.... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      You are behind the curve. I am most certainly a revolutionary, as is anyone who downloads a bittorrent or inserts an "illegal" mod on their Playstation.

      Remember, much of the heavy lifting in any revolution is done, not by people with the purest motivations, but by those whose general dissatisfaction or simple desire leads them to break the rules.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    76. Re:Nature of the beast.... by GregPK · · Score: 1

      Really?? Think about it. Look on wikipedia and you see. The last version of wordperfect for Mac was made in 1997 with 3.5e oddly enough the same time the last version was made for Dos. Corel realised it and they knew. If Microsoft hadn't continued making it for Mac. Corel would have moved in and built up a strong alliance with Mac users quickly as a replacement. Lawyers, Schools, Art shops, Kinkos, and many other copy shops around the country were already pretty heavy on Mac side using it to make a large number of comercial products. Microsoft would have lost a lot to an emerging market of customers that just found something else nearly as good if not better. Wordperfect was definatly better than Word at the time. The advantage Microsoft had was Office and easy integration of products in one package that no one else had. Corel came out with a package a little later than them. But it was too late; The Microsoft Marketing machine had momentum especially with thier giveaway of Office 2000 Premium to the RSP(Retail Sales People). This is really what changed the market for them.

    77. Re:Nature of the beast.... by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Worthwhile from a Microsoft point of view of course.

      Exactly me point: the only reason it wouldn't be worth it is if the company developing it were a corrupt monopolistic company trying to stifle all competition (illegally). So, yes, perhaps from Microsoft's point of view, it's not "worthwhile".

    78. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Edoko · · Score: 1

      Microsoft needs Apple if only to maintain the fiction that it is not a monopoly.

    79. Re:Nature of the beast.... by bursch-X · · Score: 1

      MS may decide to kill MS Office on the Mac for the same reason they killed IE on the Mac: Apple's development of a competing product, i.e., iWork.

      That's nonsense, IE on the Mac was a free product. Microsoft bled money giving it to Mac users, the only benefit was they could go on and break even more Web standards without too meany people noticing it. Funny enough IE Mac was one of the more standard compliant browsers in its time...

      Anyway since iWork doesn't even have a spreadsheet application and the Office compatibility is lacking at best I don't see how it could really hur MS Office sales. At leas at its current state.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    80. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that has never hurt Microsoft when they felt that losses in revenue in one area would be made up for in another area if they cancelled development for a competing platform. Just look to the cancellation of Halo development for Macintosh and Linux after they bought Bungie...

      On the contrary, I feel that Apple has done a pretty good job over the years of balancing ethical behavior with making great products that will keep their customers happy

      Just look to the cancellation of Final Cut for Windows after they bought it from Macromedia. Just look at the cancellation of Logic for Windows after they bought it from Emagic.
    81. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1

      Well said!

    82. Re:Nature of the beast.... by powerlord · · Score: 1

      My use of the phrase "they are convicted monopolists" was meant as a phrase saying "they have been established as a company that is a monopoly in a court of law".

      There is nothing wrong with a company having a Monopoly, there is however a certain set of rules that companies which have been established to be a monopoly must abide by.

      I wasn't trying to imply anything wrong with them being a monopoly, but rather with the fact that since they are an established monopoly, they have to play by certain rules, which they may be flaunting (or being viewed as flaunting).

      --
      This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    83. Re:Nature of the beast.... by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      Windows Vista... Apple had AMPLE time to review and build in a fix for iTunes so that it wouldn't nuke iPods when used with Windows Vista, but it didn't.


      So you really think MS did not deliberately break something in Vista to make Apple look bad reagarding iTunes?

      WTF, 100ds if not 1000ds of old MS applications run under Vista just as they did under WinXP ... why the heck should iTunes or anything connected via USB not work under Vista just like before?

      It's MS that broke it, get it please. When something such simple as a program that browses a store and downloads files and copies the files via USB to a USB hard disk (with build in MP3 player) breaks, then it breaks because the programmer of Vista want's it to break.

      Get a clue please.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    84. Re:Nature of the beast.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Rustle up a link.

      Here.

      If MS are as blameless as you say, Apple shouldn't have been able to get the concessions they did.

      I never said Microsoft were "blameless", I said they may not be quite the villian you would like them to be.

    85. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1
      The link you provided did nothing to back up your assertion.

      If you don't recall - you said MS unwittingly bought stolen goods, from (presumably) Canyon, the 'fence' was Intel and MS were the poor unwitting buyer of what they believed to be completely legitimate.

      Just to refresh your memory, you said:

      So if you buy stolen goods, even though you thought they were completely legitimate, you'd be happy to take the punishment for their theft ?
      You fucking retarded little monkey.
      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
    86. Re:Nature of the beast.... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The link you provided did nothing to back up your assertion.

      On the contrary:

      Apple Computer v. San Francisco Canyon Co.", filed on December 6, 1994, alleged that the San Francisco Canyon Company used some of the code developed under contract to Apple, in their additions to Video for Windows.

      (The suit was _later_ expanded to include Intel and Microsoft.)

      If you don't recall - you said MS unwittingly bought stolen goods, from (presumably) Canyon, the 'fence' was Intel and MS were the poor unwitting buyer of what they believed to be completely legitimate.

      I said nothing of the sort. I said they *may have* been sold infringing code and used it without being aware of its legal standing, based on my recollection of a *10 year old* court case.

      This was in response to your implication that Microsoft - and only Microsoft - had engaged in some sort of industrial espionage against Apple.

      Clearly, my recollection was more accurate, even with its flaws.

      Just to refresh your memory, you said:

      Your deceptive and selective quoting does not change what actually happened. I made that comment in response to one of yours, as an _analogy_ to a possible scenario, not an assertion of actual events (since, at the time, I was working with decade-old memories).

      You fucking retarded little monkey.

      How unsurprising that a biased, dishonest, deceitful individual like you ultimately resorts to the ad hominem. Still, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

    87. Re:Nature of the beast.... by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1
      I said nothing of the sort. I said they *may have* been sold infringing code and used it without being aware of its legal standing,

      Incorrect. You said

      So if you buy stolen goods, even though you thought they were completely legitimate, you'd be happy to take the punishment for their theft ?
      No "*may have*" in that assertion at all. To me, it read like you believe MS was a blameless third party.

      How unsurprising that a biased, dishonest, deceitful individual like you ultimately resorts to the ad hominem. Still, if it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.

      How unsurprising that a little one-eyed MS fanboy would accuse me of an ad hominem attack, while using one themselves in the same sentence.
      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  2. And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by StCredZero · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Really, is there anyone who has used Office on the Mac and knows anything about Micro$haft who hasn't thought this?

    1. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by random0xff · · Score: 1

      What about Apple? You think they had thought this, and do you think they have a Word/Excel/Access replacement or are they happy with the Open Office programs?

    2. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by Coryoth · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Really, is there anyone who has used Office on the Mac and knows anything about Micro$haft who hasn't thought this? I thought of a 5 step plan for Microsoft to crush and virtually eliminate Apple as a Desktop platform (Note, this plan would likely (1) be far to expensive to be worthwhile unless Apple somehow became a huge threat; (2) fall afoul of anti-trust legislation and be stopped before it really ever got started):
      1. Cancel Office for the Mac and cease support and updates for exisiting versions
      2. Buy Adobe
      3. Cancel all Adobe products for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions
      4. Buy DigiDesign
      5. Cancel ProTools for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions

      Technically MS has just enouigh of a war chest to manage those purchases, but of course there is no way they would fork over that much cash, nor be allowed to.
    3. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by Raffaello · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. Cancel Office for the Mac and cease support and updates for exisiting versions

      Apple has thought of this. That's why Apple is in the middle of developing an Office replacement. Pages, Keynote, and the soon be released excel compatible spreadsheet app.

      2. Buy Adobe
      3. Cancel all Adobe products for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions


      This merger/aquisition would never be approved since MS is already a convicted monopolist. Even if approved, Apple has Aperture (high end) and iPhoto (low end) ready for precisely this contingency.

      4. Buy DigiDesign
      5. Cancel ProTools for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions


      Even if this one were approved, Apple already has Logic Pro, Soundtrack Pro, and Garage Band , for this market.

      Apple has thought of your "5 step plan" and have been taking steps to counter it for years.

    4. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by sr180 · · Score: 1

      # Cancel Office for the Mac and cease support and updates for exisiting versions

      Its much easier than this. They can use their normal tactics, embrace and extend. Simple make sure that office for mac doesnt correctly read and write the office for windows file formats. Little formatting bugs, problems including pictures, Office for the Mac quickly becomes known as being ineffective, and Macs gain a reputation for being incompatible with windows PC's.

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    5. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      I honestly tried using Pages for a couple of days, and it doesn't come close to being a Word replacement. It's a pagesetting and layout tool more than a word processor -- think of it as "Indesign Lite".

    6. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by SpacePirate20X6 · · Score: 1

      This merger/aquisition would never be approved since MS is already a convicted monopolist. Even if approved, Apple has Aperture (high end) and iPhoto (low end) ready for precisely this contingency. Except these programs aren't designed for compositing. Nor do they do vector graphics, layers, animations, etc. Adobe is much more than just Photoshop. 5. Cancel ProTools for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions Wait, isn't the current version of ProTools already like four years old?! ;)

    7. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by iluvcapra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even if this one were approved, Apple already has Logic Pro, Soundtrack Pro, and Garage Band , for this market.

      Hello, I am a sound designer and an occasional beta-tester for Digidesign.

      Digidesign has a very love-hate relationship with the Mac platform, I have observed. They started with it and used Apple's great MIDI and audio support to make their product awesome (and vice versus). They do also, however, have a PC version (that I've never seen used in the wild), are owned by Avid (which has gone seriously pro-PC in the last 5 years), and Digi is constantly chasing the Mac's hardware platform (the PCI Express transition has been painful for a lot of people, the Intel transition less so.)

      Digi would have a ton of trouble dragging their userbase to PCs. We Pro Tools users don't use them, we hate them culturally, all of our jigs and tools are Mac-centric, and frankly we'd have nothing to gain by the move (since we all own $3000 workstations anyways, cost isn't an issue), thus we would oppose it fiercely, from a marketing point of view.

      That said, Apple's line of audio software is nowhere near where is needs to be in terms of workflow and interoperability to work for music and post-production sound. We have a joke that you need to have a Ph.D. in order to understand Logic (it's the Linux of DAWs, powerful but unfriendly), and Soundtrack Pro doesn't do 5.1 and doesn't use dedicated hardware for DSP or IO. Neither have good Avid interoperation, which is still the industry standard, and the interoperability standard (OMF and AAF) is controlled by Digidesign and Microsoft, and tends to be a moving target.

      IMHO, If Pro Tools users lost the Mac, it wouldn't cause a migration to the PC in professional recording, it would cause a huge fragmentation of platforms in professional recording. Pro Music people would probably go to Logic or Nuendo on Mac, post would probably switch to Nuendo, or someone enterprising developer will write a Post-Centric DAW (they've existed in the past, but it's a small market, so the economics have to be just so). Also, Pro Tools has a huge installed base in amateur music and home recording, and these people would stay on Mac, either switching to GarageBand, or switching to OSS like Ardour or Jokosher. This would have the unwelcome (to MS) side effect of spurring their development. All of this fragmentation would also cause the development of stronger interoperability standards, which MS wouldn't want, either.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
    8. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by 7Prime · · Score: 4, Interesting

      4. Buy DigiDesign
      5. Cancel ProTools for the Mac and cease support and updates for existing versions

      This is quite silly. Apple is already at war with Avid (DigiDesign) on two fronts, and currently winning. In the video end of things, the entire industry is quickly switching to FCP, away from Avid. If they have not already overtaken Avid, they will very soon. Secondly, ProTools is in trouble, and not just from Apple, but from MOTU (Mark of the Unicorn), as Digital Performer is very quickly becoming the industry standard for many audio applications. Logic (Apple's multi-track editor) is also doing very well. Throw in the fact that Cubase is trouncing ProTools on the Windows end of things, and you have a very bad situation for DigiDesign. It probably still has the largest install base, but that is rapidly diminishing. They used to own a majority of the multi-track install base, and now they're lucky if their a simple plurality.

      Bottom line is, Avid got caught sitting on their asses. They got fat and happy being the industry standard in two markets, and failed to notice that other developers were actually doing their homework. Both Avid Video and ProTools are vastly inferior to their Apple and MOTU counterparts. I used to be an avid ProTools user (no pun intended), until I got my hands on Digital Performer, and now I haven't even touched the damn thing in months. The multimedia audio industry (ie: film composition/sound effects) will laugh in your face if you say that your primary multi-track software is ProTools, and developers of softsynths and audio suite plugins are dropping ProTool support like flies.

      Microsoft's aquisition of Avid would simply make matters worse, as they have a history of alienating creative fields. Instead of hurting Apple, it would just confirm everyone's suspicion that Avid is failing, and would send the last remaining ProTools and Avid users crying for DP5 or Logic, and FCP.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    9. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by mbradshawlong · · Score: 1

      make sure that office for mac doesnt correctly read and write the office for windows file formats. Little formatting bugs, problems including pictures, Office for the Mac quickly becomes known as being ineffective, and Macs gain a reputation for being incompatible with windows PC's. I work in an office with both Macs and PCs, and this is definitely already true. Mac Word (X, Word 2004, etc) is terrible in how it displays PC Word documents (Word 2000, XP 2003, etc), and vice versa PC Word displays Mac Word files poorly. This is somewhat do to the inherent differences in the platforms, but also due to some specific Word issues. Adobe product files don't have as starkly different issues if opened on the other platform.
    10. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, these are not adequate replacements for their counterparts.

      Especially regarding Adobe. Now that Adobe has acquired Macromedia, Apple would need to create (COMPARABLE) replacements for not only Photoshop (something I am doubtful anyone can actually do, or we would have seen one by now) but for Illustrator, Dreamweaver, Flash, and even Director and Fireworks/Imageready.

      This doesn't even begin to deal with the fact that Pages (although I prefer it's interface and usability to that of Word) simply doesn't do a good job at exporting to .rtf or .doc formats (absolutely no WYSIWYG factor here!), and therefore isn't a viable replacement.

      Audio (Logic and Soundtrack are good products) and video (FinalCut blows Premier and competing products away) they seem to have good competing products for, but aside from this, Apple really doesn't have a leg to stand on. This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that Apple would still have to deal with some exceptional cases of brand-fanaticism in the cases of the audio-engineers and graphics/video pros who they have come to depend on over the years to buy Mac.

      More and more I'm beginning to think that the "brands" I've come to depend on in my work (Adobe, Macromedia, etc...) are not the safe haven of security I thought they were. They could simply be used as a bargaining chip or hurt-tool someday and then I'm left having to pay the outrageous sums for all my software again (or switching platforms and having to buy it all again anyway).

      I'm beginning to think that the only modicum of security comes from Linux and open-source projects these days. Perhaps it's time for me to "bite the bullet" and stop using my Linux-box as just a LAMP server.

    11. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      This merger/aquisition would never be approved since MS is already a convicted monopolist. Even if approved, Apple has Aperture (high end) and iPhoto (low end) ready for precisely this contingency.

      Purely out of interest, it'd be really curious to see how long does Apple last if Adobe would stop Photoshop for Mac. Never mind all the rest, just Photoshop.

      I don't think Aperture which can't even display a histogram properly will be deemed an appropriate replacement. What about the designers using it. I use Photoshop for years and years, and maybe edited photos in it only few times (all the rest - original designs, is Aperture even capable of this?).

      It's a nice brain teaser to mix and match products like this, but in the end Apple Mac, like Windows itself, is nothing without their software vendors, Microsoft's Mac Office in that number.

    12. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Protools has always been behind logic and DP a compositional tool. For recording and mixing, it is by far number one. I would debate that over time PT is making bigger strides in the market as a compositional tool then either of those 2 programs are making as recording and mixing platform. PS.. I'm not a PT fanatic, but just calling it as I see it.

    13. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by 7Prime · · Score: 1

      I dunno, man. DPs suround sound capabilities are light years ahead of anything else, and this was big news a few years back, there were studios switching in droves just for that reason alone.

      Now, I'll admit, DPs interface isn't exactly very friendly towards audio recording, but I hear of more studios switching to it than away from it. I haven't really seen PT make much of any strides towards anything, at all, as of late. In someways, it's too bad, because I really like ProTools' audio recording/editing interface, it's a lot more intuitive than DPs. DP really suffers from being way too GUI happy, to the point of being highly unintuitive. MOTUs refusal to build any contextual menus (right mouse button) into the interface really pisses me off too, even Apple laid that one to rest years ago.

      Still, from a funcionality perspective, there's no question that DP can do much more than PT, and I'm talking about audio, not just the midi side of things. And I have seen little to no change in PT for quite a few years now. I don't have DP5 yet, but I'm hoping they've cleared up some of their UI clunkiness.

      --
      Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
    14. Re:And we are supposed to be...Surprised? by jafac · · Score: 1

      What do you mean; this merger would never be approved.

      Under Bush's FTC? You've got to be joking. Hell, they'd probably give Microsoft an interest-free government loan to make it happen.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  3. Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ever there were an appropriate place for the "duh" tag, this article is it.

  4. Harm Apple? by basic0 · · Score: 5, Funny

    If they really wanted to harm Apple and it's users, they'd port Clippy to Office:Mac and enable it by default.

    1. Re:Harm Apple? by necro81 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, they did have something similar - a little animated assistant named Max. It looked like a Macintosh Plus with Mickey Mouse feet. Instead of snide facial expressions (a la Clippy), it would be stupid expressions on the animated Mac's screen, with the disk slot for a mouth. If you didn't ask it a question for a while, it would start doing attention-getting things like transforming itself (Rubik's cube style) or rocking back and forth on its feet. The best was that when you finally told the little shit to go away, it would have a waving hand flash on its screen.

      I swear that in the animation of the waving hand Icould see it giving me the finger.

    2. Re:Harm Apple? by bzlman · · Score: 1

      Oh, they certainly did port clippy to mac, and this amusing video accurately portrays how much fun that was.

    3. Re:Harm Apple? by Graff · · Score: 1

      You mean the character that Microsoft ripped off from Berke Breathed in "Bloom County"?

      http://toastytech.com/guis/banana.html

      I'm very surprised that Berke Breathed never nailed Microsoft to the wall for copyright infringement, Max was such a rip-off of the Banana Jr.

  5. That's why kids... by Yuioup · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's why kids... we have Open Source projects like Linux and Open Office.

    Y

    1. Re:That's why kids... by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't. OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice. For example, Impress (the OOo Powerpoint) sucks ass in terms of speed. OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.

      So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:That's why kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which also happens to suck cocks. To put it bluntly. In a manner of speaking.

    3. Re:That's why kids... by truthsearch · · Score: 1

      I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.

      Ok, I've worked with both for years and know it's a viable replacement, at least for Word and Excel.

      OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms

      I use NeoOffice on the Mac, which supports native fonts, and have no problems at all. And I trade documents and spreadsheets mostly with Windows users.

      the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.

      On the Mac Microsoft Office is no faster than NeoOffice. Both sets of software are big and slow.

    4. Re:That's why kids... by antirelic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didnt realise MS office was the symbol of efficiency and effectiveness. To say that OO sucks because you dont like a few pieces of its "package" is like me saying the same for M$ office. I think only a retard would use MS Access database. That doesnt mean that it "sucks", thats just my opinion. Open Office is FREE, uses OPEN STANDARDS that dont LOCK YOU IN just in case your favorite vendor decides to DROP SUPPORT for your Operating system just to be a dickhead. Perhaps you missed the whole point of TFA and should read it again and then maybe you'll understand why people say OO is better than MS Office....

      --
      20th century Marxism is not progress...
    5. Re:That's why kids... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Informative

      Or, relevant to the topic of Macintoshes, NeoOffice. I'm not in any way associated with the project, but I always like to bring it into discussions of Macs and office suites. They're doing a great job porting OpenOffice to OSX, a job that the OpenOffice people seem unwilling to do, and I hope they get the suppor they need.

    6. Re:That's why kids... by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      I find Writer to infinitely superior to MS Word, but Calc is a little lacking compared to Excel. Impress is on par with Powerpoint. I prefer OO over MSO simply for Writer, since documents and spreadsheets are 90% of the 'office' files I deal with, and I can cope with the shortcomings of Calc.

    7. Re:That's why kids... by solitas · · Score: 1

      I still find Appleworks v6.2.2 suits most of my needs - it runs fine on OS 10.4.7 (and the installer CD has the windows version on it too).

      Still runs, still enough features, you have to really try to abuse it HARD to make it crash.

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    8. Re:That's why kids... by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.

      On the Mac Microsoft Office is no faster than NeoOffice. Both sets of software are big and slow. But only one is a Universal app...
    9. Re:That's why kids... by mollymoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

      Who sayd MS is pulling the plug on Mac Office? If you read TFA, you'd note the memo in question was a decade old.

      I think the only reason they keep Mac Office going now is to keep the monopoly-abuse people happy. Perhaps Microsoft trying to gain standardisation for .doc is a prelude to ditching Mac Office. If Office uses an 'open' format it's no longer a monopoly, so they can ditch Mac Office and have half a chance of winning an anti-trust case. After Windows, Office is the cash-cow for Microsoft. Being forced to open up Office would be devastating to Microsoft's bottom line. Selling it on a platform (any platform) other than Windows is the best insurance against that.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    10. Re:That's why kids... by AusIV · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Personally, I think OpenOffice is good enough to replace MS Office for 90% of users. I find it to be faster and more stable than MS Office, though I must admit the last version of MS office I used before switching to OpenOffice was Office XP.

      If MS dropped Mac Office support, Apple would likely do everything they could to maintain their ground, and rather than reinvent the wheel, it would make sense to throw their support to OpenOffice development. It could quickly become superior to MS Office across the board, and it could probably do it before the last version of Mac Office becomes antiquated.

      That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple did reinvent the wheel rather than support an office suite that would benefit Linux, their main competitor in the not-windows category.

    11. Re:That's why kids... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "That's why kids... we have Open Source projects like Linux and Open Office."

      If the goal of either of those apps was to rid ourselves of Microsoft dependence, they'd both be a lot friendlier to the end user.

    12. Re:That's why kids... by peacefinder · · Score: 1

      OOo is not as good as MS Office. Sure, I'll buy that.

      But for 80% of what 80% of Windows users do with text documents and spreadsheets, it's good enough.

      Letters, term papers, resumés... OOo is good enough for all of that. It doesn't need to be a feature-complete replacement; to be competitive, OOo only needs to be good enough to make up for the price difference. And at the light-duty end of the office suite market, it's there.

      --
      With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
    13. Re:That's why kids... by 5ynic · · Score: 1

      This is kinda the whole point here. We're not talking efficiency and effectiveness. We're talking about the kind of deep and pervasive "lock in" that you get once you've spent some time in companies where the MS Office suite is a standard. I'm a freelance technical writer, and there is simply NO WAY I can leave word behind, much as I would want to. Examples of why I'm locked in include: 3rd party products I have to use because they're company standard, which rely on the (latest version of the) MS Word API to get the job done; the requirement that has built up in many companies (through history, not individual poor decisions necessarily) to push parts of the office suite (Word in particular) into areas it should never have gone (publishing large books and manuals, for example, for which, in a sane world, most of us would be using Framemaker or similar). Nevertheless, that is the real world in which many of us operate. Yes, OO is better than MS Office - doesn't mean it can do what I need. Yes, it is reprehensible (but neither surprising, nor uniquely microshaft) that a company with so complete a monopoly at both the OS level and office productivity suite level should even consider throwing its weight around in that sort of calculatedly evil way. My feeling is that the really important projects over the next coupla years to free us from the encroaching tyranny are the inheritors of Wine &Co - if we can get to the point where I can sidestep Vista and everything it entails, but keep all the work I've done in the MS environment, then me (and hundreds of thousands like me, perhaps millions) will have a real choice.

      --
      ceci n'est pas un sig
    14. Re:That's why kids... by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Ok, I've worked with both for years and know it's a viable replacement, at least for Word and Excel.

      For most things I use word or excel for it would be, but it loads slower. Alot slower.

      I use office 2000 at work. I tried installing open office to see if I could use that instead but removed it because it took too long to open. I know I could use whatever feature it is to keep it running, but it still wasn't as quick as loading the MS variety. Even on my fairly nippy laptop I am using now I know MS Office loads a lot quicker.

      If someone could sort that out I would use it any day as most of offices features I simply don't need as a web developer.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    15. Re:That's why kids... by RogerWilco · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If I compare the current Open Office with MS Office, I find that Impress, Writer and Calc are sufficiently good to replace the MS offerings. I still prefer WordPerfect as a document editor, but find Impress and Calc adequate to replace PowerPoint and Excell anc certainly much better as Presentations or Quatro Pro.

      BUT, this is irrelevant.

      The major selling point of MS Office is: Outlook + Exchange.

      I have used Novell Groupwise on Linux and it can't hold a canlde to it. I do not know about Lotus Notes, but seem to hear similar signals. And Exchange tying in to more and more, like blackberries, getting even harder to beat.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    16. Re:That's why kids... by iPaul · · Score: 1

      He wasn't saying it sucked, just that it wasn't great, but in fact will be great in the near future. I used to use it work quite a bit because I spent most of my time in Linux and didn't want to reboot. However, I would get expense worksheets (from Sun!) that were Excel workbooks. I would get formatted, macro-filled workbooks for timesheets. Forms, policies and procedures that were done in Word documents. Most importantly, Visio diagrams. So, no, OOO is not ready to bump Office out of most corporate settings. Now, if everyone in that office used OOO, it would be fine.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    17. Re:That's why kids... by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      Most MS Office users could switch to Open Office immediately and suffer no more loss to productivity than you would normally expect when changing applications for any purpose. I don't have MS Office installed on any PCs at home, Open Office is more than enough for my needs. At work I have Open Office installed on pretty much everything, and while I usually power up Word, ironically, I use Open Office mostly to open Word documents that Word won't open, for whatever reason.

    18. Re:That's why kids... by BlueStraggler · · Score: 1

      Letters, term papers, resumés... OOo is good enough for all of that.

      Anyone who thinks *any* office suite is "good enough" for writing letters must write some seriously nasty letters.

    19. Re:That's why kids... by EonBlueTooL · · Score: 1

      I've used both. I currently use OOo because its free and i dont have a copy of office yet. Using both there is one major issue. Compatibility. You simply cant save a file as .doc or open up a .doc file and expect any of the higher level functions (eg columns/tables etc etc) to look or react the same in the opposing program. Tables are also very badly implemented but as long as you arnt going back and forth its not a big deal. Indentations and a few other things are also somewhat annoying... Took me long enough to figure out some of words intricacies for indenting the second line without indenting the first among other things. Theyre both fine in a homogenous environment, but in a mixed environment OOo sucks. (speaking for OOo word and OOo excel only)

    20. Re:That's why kids... by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      I'm just starting out as a sort-of tech writer (lucky break, not entirely qualified), what should I be using to write manuals? I'm using Word at the moment, but my boss has ok'd any software purchases that will be more suited for the job and I'd rather sort that out before I get locked in.

    21. Re:That's why kids... by 5ynic · · Score: 1
      Best Solution IMHO: Madcap Flare: http://www.madcapsoftware.com/products/flare/home. aspx Native XML, publishes to all formats that matter (including Microsoft Word), good learning curve, totally future-proof. One month free trial to get you started. Personally, I would do everything in my power to sell my boss on this product.

      Probably second best: AuthorIT http://www.authorit.com/ clunky interface, steeper learning curve, but a bit cheaper, and does everything you'll need , most of it very well (again, publishes to all formats that matter).

      The real advantage of these products is their "single sourcing" capability - i.e. with only a little effort invested upfront, they allow you write your content once, then publish it to Word, PDF, HTML etc very quickly and easily, and allow you vary which bits of content go into which formats too.

      Good luck :)

      --
      ceci n'est pas un sig
    22. Re:That's why kids... by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      Calc is a little lacking compared to Excel

      For me, Calc is completely unusable compared to Excel, because just about the only thing I use spreadsheets for is making graphs and the charting functionality of Calc sucks.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    23. Re:That's why kids... by frogstar_robot · · Score: 1

      NeoOffice isn't a Universal but neooffice.org supplies both PPC and Intel builds. No big deal.

    24. Re:That's why kids... by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      The major selling point of MS Office is: Outlook + Exchange.

      No, it's not, because every Exchange CAL includes an Outlook license. You don't need Office to get Outlook, if you have Exchange.

      (This has been true since at least Exchange 2000.)

    25. Re:That's why kids... by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      Brilliant, thanks!

    26. Re:That's why kids... by Niten · · Score: 1

      They're doing a great job porting OpenOffice to OSX, a job that the OpenOffice people seem unwilling to do, and I hope they get the suppor they need.

      And the way to ensure they get that support is to go to NeoOffice.org and make a donation. I did two weeks ago, and I encourage everyone else interested in ensuring the continued development of this crucial OS X office suite to do the same. Yes, I'm talking to you!

    27. Re:That's why kids... by ArmorFiend · · Score: 1

      Not in our household. Master's Degrees and our Jobs both are perfectly happy with OO.o. Periodically my wife breaks in with "I couldn't find Export to PDF in MS Word today. Why?". Because its not there to screw you over, honey. "Aaah".

    28. Re:That's why kids... by nukem996 · · Score: 1

      Personally I think that for the vast majority of people OpenOffice is a fine replacement for MS Office, but I do agree that there are some special cases where MS Office is better. Most people are just typing up word docs, small spread sheets, or a small power point not anything big and complex.

    29. Re:That's why kids... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.

      I've worked with M$ Office, Corel WordPerfect, and Staroffice/OpenOffice.org, and I disagree with you.

      > OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice.

      It doesn't have to be as good as Office. It just has to be OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.

      Font management is a laughably minor problem, especially if you're contemplating a corporate rollout where there's a dedicated IT department to deal with software installations. You're right about the codebase being large, object-oriented, and slow, but in days where the latest version of Windows requires a dedicated GPU and 1GB of RAM, that type of thing just isn't important anymore. Fwiw, I'm running OpenOffice.org on a Sun with an UltraSparc IIi and 512MB RAM, and while it's a little slow to start up, after that speed's not really an issue. It runs pretty much perfectly on my laptop with an AMD Sempron and 512MB RAM. That laptop cost $500 two years ago.

      > So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

      Well, OOo support on OS X is actually quite bad right now. It won't run without an X server and has some major UI integration problems. The OOo devs don't seem to care about this, either, since their primary supported platforms are Linux, Solaris, and Windows. A few devs got so fed up about this that they forked the code into NeoOffice, and that has native widgets but is still glitchy all over the place. If all of a sudden Apple had a ton of devs join OOo to work on Mac OS X support, all that could probably change pretty quickly, though.

      > So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

      OOo already has replaced M$ Office for 30% of very large enterprises, though they're running either Windows or Linux. And while OOo certainly isn't ready for non-beta use on OS X right now, Mac users could use the iWork suite (is that what Apple calls it?) or could use WINE (which is somewhat supported on OS X now) to run the Windoze version of the suite.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    30. Re:That's why kids... by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.

      I've worked with M$ Office, Corel WordPerfect, and Staroffice/OpenOffice.org, and I disagree with you.

      > OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice.

      It doesn't have to be as good as Office. It just has to be less than $300 worse than M$ Office. That said, I personally find OOo to be better than Office for what I want in an office suite. For instance, autocompletion rocks.

      > OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms, and quite frankly, the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.

      Font management is a laughably minor problem, especially if you're contemplating a corporate rollout where there's a dedicated IT department to deal with software installations. You're right about the codebase being large, object-oriented, and slow, but in days where the latest version of Windows requires a dedicated GPU and 1GB of RAM, that type of thing just isn't important anymore. Fwiw, I'm running OpenOffice.org on a Sun with an UltraSparc IIi and 512MB RAM, and while it's a little slow to start up, after that speed's not really an issue. It runs pretty much perfectly on my laptop with an AMD Sempron and 512MB RAM. That laptop cost $500 two years ago.

      > So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

      Well, OOo support on OS X is actually quite bad right now. It won't run without an X server and has some major UI integration problems. The OOo devs don't seem to care about this, either, since their primary supported platforms are Linux, Solaris, and Windows. A few devs got so fed up about this that they forked the code into NeoOffice, and that has native widgets but is still glitchy all over the place. If all of a sudden Apple had a ton of devs join OOo to work on Mac OS X support, all that could probably change pretty quickly, though.

      > So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

      OOo already has replaced M$ Office for 30% of very large enterprises, though they're running either Windows or Linux. And while OOo certainly isn't ready for non-beta use on OS X right now, Mac users could use the iWork suite (is that what Apple calls it?) or could use WINE (which is somewhat supported on OS X now) to run the Windoze version of the suite.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
    31. Re:That's why kids... by miro+f · · Score: 1

      *looks around*

      me?

      but I don't even own a mac!

      awwwww =(

      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    32. Re:That's why kids... by mgblst · · Score: 1

      If Apple had any sense, they would be piling money into Open Office, and seeing it become the default standard. If they are worried about the Microsoft agreement made a few years ago, they should do it on the sly. They could even get programmers to maintain an internal version, ready for the day when Microsoft pulls Office.

      It is a bad situation for Apple to be in, relying so heavily on another company.

    33. Re:That's why kids... by textureglitch · · Score: 1

      So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet

      You're absolutely right. I agree 100%.
      And that's exactly why governments entities and educational institutions in Texas, Massachusetts, Israel, India, Singapore, Germany, France, Brazil, China, Macedonia, Denmark, and from the opendocument fellowship *deep breath*. Australia, Austria, Belgium, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario, Croatia, Czech Republic, EU bodies, Hong Kong, Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, UK, and from the USA: Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada and New York... are NOT all switching or planning to switch to OpenOffice.

      Oh wait. They are!

      --
      Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity. -Isaac Asimov
    34. Re:That's why kids... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 1

      On the Mac especially, OO.o isn't a viable replacement unless you use NeoOffice/J. And even then it's very un-Mac-like

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    35. Re:That's why kids... by synthespian · · Score: 1

      What kind of users do you imagine when you say that? I imagine you imagine students, or housewifes. I imagine Joe Blow, that has a report to present on Monday. His whole firm works with Microsoft. He needs garanteed interoperability with Microsoft Office and their formats (because that's what is expected of him and that what everybody uses). The best way to do that, of course, is using Microsoft Office. He needs the browser, e-mail, PowerPoint, Word and Excel. Let's face it, Microsoft developed the killer app for most business users.

      OpenOffice.org still has stupid little buges everywhere. Just recently, I was using it for some interest rates calculations, and instead of obtaining an answer, I keot getting "?#NAME" in the cell. WTF.

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
    36. Re:That's why kids... by demallien2 · · Score: 1

      I'll second that. I downloaded NeoOffice about 6 months back, and had sent off a donation within an hour or so of using it. I don't have MS Office on my Mac, and I've never noticed the "lack"...

    37. Re:That's why kids... by ccp · · Score: 1

      OOo is *almost* there, but not enough there that it can take on MSOffice. ... OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms


      As opposed to MS office's, which works in exactly ONE plataform?

      Cheers,
      CC
    38. Re:That's why kids... by Prophet+of+Nixon · · Score: 1

      Huh, I'll have to mess with the charting stuff (I rarely, if ever make them). I'm sure that even if its acceptable (to me) its not going to be as robust... after all, with a little VBA you can modify Excel's charting to do all kinds of things (control charts, etc). I'm actually not certain if Calc supports any kind of scripting to add functions. In any case, Excel is probably the hardest battle open source software will ever have to fight, as it is the best of all MS products.

    39. Re:That's why kids... by AusIV · · Score: 1
      I didn't say OOo was for everyone, I said it was sufficient for the majority of the users. Students, house wives, and Joe Blow who has a report to present on Monday can use OpenOffice without a hitch. There's no reason they should be dropping hundreds of dollars on an office suite that has more features which they're never going to use. As far as businesses go, if they used OpenOffice across the board, never trying to use MS Office formats, everything would flow more smoothly than trying to have an Open Office suite with closed documents.

      If what you need is strong MS Office compatibility, you need MS Office. If you need a standalone office suite, OOo works fine in most cases. People seem to think the quality of an office suite is indicated by its compatibility with MS Office, rather than it's feature set. OpenOffice, along with ODF provide a usable office suite. If you're intending to use OpenOffice with MS documents, which are a closed, obscure format, you're lucky OpenOffice does as well as it does.

      And that "?#NAME" thing, that generally means you botched your formula. Same thing happens in Excel. A valid criticism may be that it didn't support a function you were trying to use, but simply saying it says "?#NAME" and never figuring out why makes me think it was a user error.

    40. Re:That's why kids... by AusIV · · Score: 1

      Theyre both fine in a homogenous environment, but in a mixed environment OOo sucks.

      Last I checked, OOo does better with MS Office documents than MS Office does with OOo documents*. Your statement is true only if MS Office is treated as the standard (which it usually is).

      *I know MS has released an ODF to MS Office plugin, but I have no idea how usable it is.

    41. Re:That's why kids... by IntergalacticWalrus · · Score: 1

      Funny how you claim that OpenOffice Impress is slower than PowerPoint. I used to think the same, but last week I had this PPT that used a fancy background that rendered very... slowly... in PowerPoint 2003. Then I decided to try viewing it in OpenOffice, and to my surprise the pages rendered near-instantly.

      What I hate the most about OpenOffice Impress is that using the mouse wheel over the main view doesn't switch pages, it only scrolls the view itself which is pointless because the page is usually automatically sized to fit the view area. That alone drives me nuts and makes me prefer PowerPoint.

  6. I can't imagine by JustNiz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Why anyone smart enough to buy a Mac and avoid Windows would then want to buy Office, especially when they can download OpenOffice for free.

    1. Re:I can't imagine by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      especially when they can download OpenOffice for free.

      When you're on a Mac, you'll want to make it NeoOffice/J. :)
    2. Re:I can't imagine by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Two reasons. First, it's Office. I needed Office in school, so I used Office. Now that I don't need to do that kind of stuff on my laptop/home computer I wouldn't buy Office.

      Second, Office for Mac is really very nice. I have Office 2004 on my Mac (version 11). I've got to say that I like it's interface WAY better than the Windows versions of Office I've used (up to XP, I haven't had much chance with 2k3 or the newest one). It's really a very nice program. If it wasn't from Microsoft, I think it would still sell very well.

      I've also heard of them using the Mac version to "test" things. I think the UI that I like so much (the floating pallets on the right side) was probably a part of the precursor to the ribbon they've been touting so much.

      The Windows version may have gotten complacent, but the guys in the Mac Business Unit are good at what they do.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:I can't imagine by agiduda · · Score: 2

      Pivot tables in OpenOffice are not quite there yet.

      --
      How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.
      -Benjamin Disraeli
    4. Re:I can't imagine by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      My school bought Office for the Macs they have. I bet their thought processes were "Oh, Office. We should buy that because it is a stable of computing." or something.

    5. Re:I can't imagine by claygGone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Open Office is not natively supported without the use of X11. For most people this is a deal breaker. Most people I know who have Mac's don't have the skill's to install it. For them it is worth it to shell out the money for Office. I wish they did....but they don't.

    6. Re:I can't imagine by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Troll

      Two reasons. First, it's Office. I needed Office in school, so I used Office. Now that I don't need to do that kind of stuff on my laptop/home computer I wouldn't buy Office.

      I'm sorry, but this level of handwaving won't fly here. "It's Office"? Whoopdeeshit. Name one thing it does that OO.o doesn't that will matter to the average user. Hello? Beuller? Beuller? There's no such thing.

      I use OO.o every day, to interoperate with Word and Excel. So far I have had zero problems, except that copying and pasting from OO.o into Dreamweaver results in some spurious HTML crap for which I blame OO.o (a fucking DOCTYPE actually makes it in there!) but that's pretty minimal, frankly. And 99% of users will never do that, nor have the opportunity to because they don't own Dreamweaver.

      Second, Office for Mac is really very nice.

      Is it nice enough for the average user to pay for when they can get OO.o for free? If they actually knew about it, that is? The answer, of course, is no. Most people will never notice a difference, really, between two versions of Office, and one version of Office and a copy of OO.o.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:I can't imagine by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      There is an almost-finished Carbon port of OpenOffice, that will be migrate to Cocoa when it is done. It was demonstrated at FOSDEM and apparently is very fast.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:I can't imagine by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      My reason was: it was 1999, and I knew nothing other than Star Office (and it was not very good) and I needed Word to send my resume to stupid recruiters. Somehow they found text documents to hard to deal with. Dummies! I didn't see Clippy, but they had a little animated Mac along with the other characters for the help/annoyance feature.

      Other than patching, I would never upgrade from the original Office v.X, especially now that the ODF is beginning to gain traction in the marketplace. Proprietary doc formats should all go away. Next time I go job searching I'll spend extra time "educating" the recruiters on the need for them to support open docs.

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    9. Re:I can't imagine by 64nDh1 · · Score: 1

      Please, for the love of god give me a better way than Entourage with Mac:Office to connect to my work e-mail account on an Exchange server? I've tried plug-ins for Apple Mail, similarly for Eudora, Thunderbird extensions, Mulberry (an IMAP client), I considered running a separate machine with Evolution on a Linux distro. But I've never got support for shared calendars and public folder access from home working with anything other than Entourage - which to me is a piece of shit for a litany of reasons. For all the rest that I can think of, I could easily live with NeoOffice/J.

      I truly hope I'm ignorant of a real solution to this. If not, I still need the whole suite for that one program, its clusterfuck of an interface, its shoddy database management (why, if it's comparable to IMAP, does it need to create a 3GB database on my harddrive?), and its randomly attributed shortcut keys.

    10. Re:I can't imagine by toriver · · Score: 1

      But that's the point of NeoOffice: It's OpenOffice ported to native APIs. No more ugly non-anti-aliased fonts of the X11 version.

    11. Re:I can't imagine by falmon · · Score: 1

      I have to back him up here: Office for the Mac is an excellent product. It's got a good Mac-like feel, runs fast and performs solidly. I have been continually surprised by it. Being an MS product the price is (of course) very high but it is leagues ahead of the alternatives. I do not have any objection to using OpenOffice, but on the Mac it still runs in X11, which for me is an instant deal-breaker. My attempts to use NeoOffice were met with too many bugs/crashes for me to get too far into. And as for "most people won't notice the difference" - OpenOffice is an excellent product, but particularly on the Mac that simply isn't true at this stage. On Windows, perhaps.

    12. Re:I can't imagine by nine-times · · Score: 1

      First of all, forget OpenOffice for the Mac. The OpenOffice port, requiring X11, is not something most tech-savvy people want to run, let alone standard users. At the very least, you're talking about NeoOffice. Now, for all the great work done by the NeoOffice people, they don't get the level of help and support that OpenOffice has, let alone the sort of funding that Microsoft has. NeoOffice is making good progress, but it's still far from perfect.

      Even ignoring all that, it can be hard to avoid MS Office. OpenOffice doesn't always have all the features you might need. Exchange connectivity, for example. Also, OpenOffice still has its problems. It loads slowly, for example, and doesn't always read/write Word documents perfectly. Now, of course, that last one can't be blamed on OpenOffice developers, but it's true none the less.

      I'm not trying to badmouth OpenOffice, and I am, in fact, very glad for the work done by the OpenOffice/NeoOffice communities. However, I can't pretend that there are no good reasons to choose Microsoft Office for OSX.

    13. Re:I can't imagine by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I do not have any objection to using OpenOffice, but on the Mac it still runs in X11, which for me is an instant deal-breaker.

      "I do not have any objection, but here is my objection, which is a dealbreaker, but I won't tell you why."

      And as for "most people won't notice the difference" - OpenOffice is an excellent product, but particularly on the Mac that simply isn't true at this stage. On Windows, perhaps.

      I don't think you are listening. Based on the utter breakdown of logic in your comment I'm not sure you are capable, but I'm going to try again.

      Most people use maybe 1% of the features in MS Word. In fact the majority of them don't even need to ever open a menu to do what they do, although many of them will because they are too stupid to mouse over the icons at the top of the window to see what they do (even though tooltips have popped up on them while they were woolgathering in the past.)

      As a result, most people would never feel a lack in OO.o. This is what I mean by never notice the difference.

      Sure, they might notice that the app didn't look like the rest of their apps. But would they notice any other differences? Even apps that all use the same API on OSX can behave VERY differently from one another because so many choices are left up to the programmer. Programmers are generally in favor of this, but I think it is a disservice to the user. Mind you, it's no more a disservice than when Microsoft does it.

      Once upon a time Apple had strong human interface guidelines. Apple itself followed them and expected others to do so. Today, Apple has apparently forgotten everything it ever knew about interface design and consistency. They don't follow their own guidelines. They don't follow very simple rules about interfaces - the dock is the prime example of a poorly designed interface.

      Most users use an office suite to do very simple, stupid things. They don't need Office. OO.o is, frankly, overkill for them. Most people never even use a spreadsheet. They'd be served fine with just Abiword.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    14. Re:I can't imagine by profplump · · Score: 1

      This isn't related to OO.o vs. MS Office, but with respect to your copy-and-paste problems:

      copying and pasting from OO.o into Dreamweaver results in some spurious HTML crap for which I blame OO.o (a fucking DOCTYPE actually makes it in there!)

      I'm that guessing OO.o exports, in addition to plain and formatted text, an HTML clipboard element when copying. While most programs will ignore this, Dreamweaver knows how to read HTML and it might prefer that over the plain/formatted text version. If Dreamweaver doesn't provide an option to paste the formatted text (IIRC switching to design mode before pasting might be that option) it would be pretty trivial to write a program/AppleScript that dropped to HTML version of the clipboard (which could be linked to a hotkey), forcing OO.o to use one of the text versions. Obviously it would be best if you could choose what goes to the clipboard and what you take from it, but until there's a standard OS interface for that you're unlikely to see it in either Dreamweaver or OO.o.

    15. Re:I can't imagine by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Office for mac does not obey any of the mac UI conventions. It looks like ass, it looks like a windows program. What's worse is that it spew umpteen windows on the screen for no good reason at all.

      All and all a sucky program. I am just glad I wasn't suckered into paying for it.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    16. Re:I can't imagine by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      IIRC switching to design mode before pasting might be that option

      No no, you're going to love this. I paste formatted text from OO.o into dreamweaver, right? If I paste it into design view, which is the "WYSIWYG" view (in quotes since I know there's no such thing in HTML-land) then I do get (badly) formatted text, but I also get the DOCTYPE inserted into my document wherever I pasted it. If I paste it in code view, then I just get the unformatted text in the code.

      In any case, snippets of actual HTML do not include DOCTYPEs unless you're getting the first line of the document. The formatting is dependent on the DOCTYPE I plug the content into, NOT where it came from, so there is no need for me to have a DOCTYPE... It's just not actually useful to anyone.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    17. Re:I can't imagine by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1

      They don't follow very simple rules about interfaces - the dock is the prime example of a poorly designed interface.


      Out of curiosity...what about the Dock do you find to be an example of a poorly designed interface?
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    18. Re:I can't imagine by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Out of curiosity...what about the Dock do you find to be an example of a poorly designed interface?

      The most important issue is that the dock changes size, and its contents move. This happens every time you minimize a window or launch an application that is not glued (whatever the terminology is) to your dock. It doesn't change size until it has to (unless you have zooming turned on, but that's not what I'm talking about here) but things do MOVE. This eliminates the ability to use muscle memory. The brain has to be involved every time you click on anything in the dock.

      Another issue is that icons appear behind the dock. I used to have a much larger dock because I have a fairly large apple display (19"?) and I had room for it. But what would happen is that icons would appear behind the dock and there was nothing to click on. In order to get them out from under it, I would lasso them AND another icon, and drag the other icon.

      The sad thing is that the original Dock from NeXTStep had none of these problems. It had a fixed layout and grew from one end, so that the things at the top of the Dock always stayed put. THAT Dock also allowed you to have "drawers", sub-docks that folded out horizontally from your vertical system Dock, but they elected to remove that functionality from OSX. So what I'm saying here is that they had it right in NeXTStep, which ran smoothly on a low-end (~25MHz) 680x0 processor (I believe 020, 030, and 040 processors were used in various NeXT workstations?) but they fucked it up for OSX, which runs like shit on a machine an order of magnitude more powerful in every way, for example a 350MHz G3 with a 3d graphics accelerator and a gigabyte of memory. But this last paragraph isn't an additional indictment against the dock (Except for the drawer issue) but against Apple.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:I can't imagine by falmon · · Score: 1

      Well, thanks for the insults & venom, much appreciated :)

      I agree that most people use very few of the features in Office. But I don't think it's reasonable to say "few people will notice the difference" and expect people to interpret your comment in that way. Looking unlike most other Mac applications, and having to launch inside the X11 environment, puts lay people off. One of the prime reasons I have a Mac is due to the aesthetic of the OS and applications; something which breaks that isn't going to immediately recommend itself to me.

      As for my "not having an objection to OpenOffice" - that was intended to convey that I am not an MS fanboy by nature and simply presenting an opinion having tried both. You seem intelligent enough to realise what I meant, so I presume that you deliberately misconstrued me.

    20. Re:I can't imagine by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Well, thanks for the insults & venom, much appreciated :)

      I always have more where that came from, for those who would respond to some comment I didn't write, but what they believe I wrote.

      I agree that most people use very few of the features in Office. But I don't think it's reasonable to say "few people will notice the difference" and expect people to interpret your comment in that way.

      If you want me to try to figure out what meaning of a word you're intending when you don't make it clear, maybe you could extend me the same courtesy when I say "few people will notice the difference". But you opened up your conversation by not doing that. I don't understand why you should expect me to treat you by a different standard than that with which you treat with me.

      Looking unlike most other Mac applications, and having to launch inside the X11 environment, puts lay people off.

      99% of OSX users don't know what an X11 is, they probably think it's some kind of fighter plane and want to know what it has to do with their computer.

      Looking unlike Mac applications, is that such a big deal? It certainly wouldn't be the only thing.

      As for my "not having an objection to OpenOffice" - that was intended to convey that I am not an MS fanboy by nature and simply presenting an opinion having tried both. You seem intelligent enough to realise what I meant, so I presume that you deliberately misconstrued me.

      Not being a M$ fanboy doesn't mean you don't have some other preconceived notion of why OO.o is bad.

      I am intelligent enough to speculate as to what you meant, but what you said was contradictory and I like to point that out. You are clearly a hypocrite anyway in that you expect me to inspect your comments for all possible meanings rather than the one closest to what you actually said, but do not want to do the same for me, which might have avoided this entire conversation in the first place.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:I can't imagine by tb3 · · Score: 1

      Here's a hint: use any editor that edits and saves as RTF. Save your resumé, then change the file extension from .RTF to .DOC. MS Word will open it transparently. I've been doing this for years.

      --

      www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

    22. Re:I can't imagine by falmon · · Score: 1

      It seems a bit generous to call this a conversation, but avoiding it sounds good to me. I am interested in what you think, but simply getting a stream of derision in every response is a waste of time for both of us.

    23. Re:I can't imagine by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why anyone smart enough to buy a Mac and avoid Windows would then want to buy Office, especially when they can download OpenOffice for free.

      Because then they'd have to use OpenOffice.

    24. Re:I can't imagine by bob65 · · Score: 1

      I use OO.o every day, to interoperate with Word and Excel. So far I have had zero problems, except that copying and pasting from OO.o into Dreamweaver results in some spurious HTML crap for which I blame OO.o (a fucking DOCTYPE actually makes it in there!) but that's pretty minimal, frankly. And 99% of users will never do that, nor have the opportunity to because they don't own Dreamweaver.

      What magical version of OpenOffice.org are you using? I'll name one thing it can't do that MS Office can - open and format *.doc documents properly. I'd really like to use OpenOffice.org, but people send me .doc files. I need to open and edit them. I can't do that with OpenOffice.org, unless I plan on spending 25 minutes guessing and fixing the formatting.

      So, I continue using MS Office 2000. Why? Because it meets all my needs, I have a copy of it already anyways, it's stable (for what I use it for), it loads much faster and takes up less memory than OpenOffice.org, and I'm familiar with it. I know where menu items are, I know how to create auto-sorted and auto-updated bibliographies and references, I know how to format headers/footers for page numbers and dates etc. And that's all I need to do - if it isn't broke, why fix it?

    25. Re:I can't imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Office on MAC is buggy, slow and bloated. Everytime ive opened it on a macbook its lagged the whole comp down.

    26. Re:I can't imagine by xXenXx · · Score: 0

      I would imagine he's using one of the more recent iterations, what version of OOo were you using?

    27. Re:I can't imagine by dr.badass · · Score: 3, Informative

      It had a fixed layout and grew from one end, so that the things at the top of the Dock always stayed put.

      defaults write com.apple.dock pinning end
      or
      defaults write com.apple.dock pinning start

      --
      Don't become a regular here -- you will become retarded.
    28. Re:I can't imagine by mr_lizard13 · · Score: 1

      I can imagine why. I'm one of those people. I have installed on this Mac NeoOffice, OpenOffice.org, and Microsoft Office:Mac 2004. I have followed the development of Office:Mac 2008 via the MSDN Mac Blog and various other sites and I'm looking forward to its release. I fully intend to purchase it when it comes out later this year. Why? Because I prefer it. Just looking at Office:Mac 2004, it looks more Mac-native than other office suites I've tried. I find it more responsive. I like using it. I still fire up NeoOffice from time to time, for light database work, but I don't like its word processor and I don't like its spreadsheet application. OpenOffice.org bugs me slightly, I just feel awkward using it. It is because I'm used to MS Office? Maybe. But I don't like its dependence on X11 and I don't like the fact that the title of the software is a web address. What's wrong with 'OpenOffice'? Do we need '.org' at the end? My car isn't a Ford.com, my cereal of choice isn't Kellogs.com... It's possible to buy a Mac and still use, and like using, Microsoft software. I use MSN Messenger to keep in touch with faraway friends. I know I could use Adium, and I did for awhile. But I didn't like the interface. iChat AV looks nice but none of my friends are on AIM and only a few have Macs. It's not because I'm not smart that I use MS software on my Mac. I genuinely prefer it, I think it's polished to a high standard compared to the free alternatives and I'm awaiting Office:Mac 2008 with intent.

      --
      "We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
    29. Re:I can't imagine by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      Beacuse MSO the defacto standard.

      OO, is not.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    30. Re:I can't imagine by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Open Office is not natively supported without the use of X11.

      Shows what you know. OpenOffice on Mac OS X == NeoOffice/J. You only use the X11 version if you want a world of pain.
    31. Re:I can't imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NeoOffice is kind of funny. It's a native intel OSX app, but it's actually noticeably slower on intel macs than Microsoft's PPC-only Office. That's right - Excel, Word, and the rest actually start up and operate faster when running through binary Rosetta emulation than NeoOffice can with native code.

      Is the Open Office code that bad? Or is this peculiar to NeoOffice?

    32. Re:I can't imagine by oatworm · · Score: 1

      I don't know why I feel compelled to step into this, but I will.

      First, some background:
      I have a Mac, though, for various reasons, it's been semi-retired. I've used both MS Office (v.X, I believe - not the current one, but the first one for OS X) and NeoOffice. In fact, I did substantial coursework using OpenOffice for X11, then switched to NeoOffice when I learned about that. Here's what I can tell you based on this admittedly anecdotal experience:

      1. OO.o, either in X11 form or NeoOffice form, was definitely slower on my computer than MS Office. Since I was running OS 10.3 on a G3/333 iMac with 160 MB of RAM, I noticed any speed differences very acutely. They were both slow but, on that computer, what wasn't? However, when you move elements around in PowerPoint and they barely hose your computer and, in contrast, you move them around in NeoOffice and you have to wait five minutes for your computer to finish paging before your mouse does what it's supposed to do, guess what product is going to get preferred?
      2. Font support is better on NeoOffice than it is on OO.o. So is printer support. More importantly, so is clipboard support - I don't know if they fixed the X11 clipboard limitation in 10.4, but at least in 10.3 (unless there's some manual setting to change, which wouldn't surprise me) there was a 64kB size limitation to what you could put into the clipboard. This proves to be exceptionally obnoxious when you're copying and pasting flowcharts into a document. This is what motivated me to find NeoOffice in the first place. For this reason, and this reason alone, OO.o on X11 was a deal-breaker for me. Throw in lousy font support and sketchy printer support and it made it so much easier. This may have been fixed, though - I haven't checked on that side in a while.
      3. NeoOffice just looks bad compared to MS Office. I'm sorry, but MS Office looks gorgeous, and, when you have a Mac, looks count. To MS's credit, they do a wonderful job of making that software look like it belongs on a Mac. OO.o has, thus far, done a wonderful job of making their software look like it belongs on a Linux workstation (not in a good way), no matter what platform it's on. That barely flies in the Windows world and doesn't fly at all on a Mac.
      4. There were little idiosyncrasies with NeoOffice that just bugged me - hitting ENTER in Calc would go to the beginning of the next row, whereas Excel drops you down one element, layout of the menus, odd formatting issues with sections, etc. I seem to remember charts being pretty poor, too - I had an easier time getting AppleWorks 5 to generate the graphs I wanted than NeoOffice and, well, let's just say AppleWorks is not a "power tool" by any stretch of the imagination.

      I do think OpenOffice and its derivatives have a place. I do think they can fill some needs for some Mac users. It filled a need for me - I needed an office suite to make some documentation in that was light on my wallet and I wanted something useful so I could finally ditch the pirated version of Office I had on my machine. However, for most Mac users, spending some money on something that looks good and works reasonably well is going to be preferred over something that's free (in any sense), looks bad, and runs worse. I mean, that's why we get Macs in the first place, right?

      Of course, what do I run now? Ubuntu Dapper Drake with OpenOffice 2 on it... but it actually looks like it belongs there! That's probably because it does.

    33. Re:I can't imagine by rizzo320 · · Score: 1

      I considered running a separate machine with Evolution on a Linux distro.


      There's actually a port of Novel Evolution out there for Mac OS X 10.4 http://forge.novell.com/modules/xfcontent/download s.php/evolution/builds/Evolution%202.6%20for%20Mac %20OS%20X%20/. However, the Exchange connector is broken, and though a few message boards said it was supposed to be fixed, it hasn't been updated since August 2006.

      If more people showed interest perhaps we could get better support/development from Novell on the Mac version of Evolution.
    34. Re:I can't imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What magical version of OpenOffice.org are you using? I'll name one thing it can't do that MS Office can - open and format *.doc documents properly.

      What magical version of Word do you use? Our users are constantly sending us files they can't open despite being sent "a Word doc". It was usually created in a different version of Word than we run (2003). Word is notorious for its lack of cross version compatibility OpenOffice has always been able to at least open and convert them.

    35. Re:I can't imagine by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      it is a stable of computing
      Sometimes it's the little mistakes that make the best jokes.
    36. Re:I can't imagine by eck011219 · · Score: 1
      Look, I don't know what kind of emotional investment you have in hating Office on the Mac, but lighten up, please. These people have stated that it works well for them. What is it to you?

      I haven't used Office on the Mac. I can tell you that Office 2007 on PC is a very pleasant improvement (still imperfect in many ways, but a hell of a lot better than Office 2003) as far as interface goes. I haven't had enough time to test reliably for stability. But I have tried more than my share of OpenOffice ports for the Mac, and the ones I tried were all (X11 or not) buggy and crash-prone. I, like many Mac users, have not had a seamless transition to X11-based apps. There's often a bunch of tweaking that has to happen -- something most geeks find irritating and most average joes find completely overwhelming. And I think in this Slashdot environment, it is sufficient to say that X11 on the Mac is a dealbreaker and most people with Macs and X11 experience would understand, if not agree.

      I don't think you are listening. Based on the utter breakdown of logic in your comment I'm not sure you are capable, but I'm going to try again.
      Hm. Since we're playing blockquote-and-pithy-translation, how about this: "You didn't respond submissively to my rapier wit, so I shall insult your intelligence and pretend to enlighten you." Please.

      I hope, as another person here has stated, that it gets better for Mac users -- they could use a good open source, free office suite. I'm a graphic designer, so I tend toward hammering Quark or InDesign inappropriately into service as a word processor anyway. But I can certainly see the dearth of good office suite alternatives for the average Mac user. Get off your high horse, please. It's a tool. These people have real experience with using Office for the Mac, and have been genuinely pleased with the results and displeased with the open source options. They stated this here for our common edification. And you were a dick to them for it. Come on.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    37. Re:I can't imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. NeoOffice/J feels wrong. It's slow and its ugly. The X11 version is probably faster, but is a 3rd-class citizen at best, being X11.
      That's why I switched from M$ Office to LaTeX documents (written in TextMate). Not for everyone, but the documents look excellent; what's more, I'll be able to read them 10, 20, or 50 years from now.

    38. Re:I can't imagine by zsau · · Score: 1

      The issue isn't whether it can be changed; of course it can.[*] The issue is how it's set up by default.

      [*] Though for some things requires the source code, but that's not really harder than what you're suggesting.

      --
      Look out!
    39. Re:I can't imagine by rjcarr · · Score: 1

      You do know that office is a PowerPC app, right?

    40. Re:I can't imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Entourage

    41. Re:I can't imagine by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

      Here's a hint: use any editor that edits and saves as RTF. Save your resumé, then change the file extension from .RTF to .DOC. MS Word will open it transparently. I've been doing this for years.

      M$ will fix that eventually.

      --
      Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    42. Re:I can't imagine by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "Why anyone smart enough to buy a Mac and avoid Windows would then want to buy Office, especially when they can download OpenOffice for free."

      Because "nearly as good but free" is seen by many, many people as synonyms for "crap they have to give away because nobody is stupid enough to pay for it". The free software movement fails to understand that most Western adult humans have been taught by experience to treat things which either claim to be "free" or are much cheaper than well known equivalents with suspicion because they've learned there's usually a catch: get three free books by agreeing to buy one a month for eternity; get a free frozen lasagne if you buy two others; get a free cup worth $1 by providing proof that they've bought $700 worth of goods from a company; get a free toy worth 15c by paying $3 for child's meal which would cost under $2 if they bought the food that's in the box from the same vendor as separate items; buy a cola that's much cheaper than Coke or Pepsi, and use it for cleaning coins because it's too horrid to drink; etc., etc., etc.

      There was an experiment performed a few years back where several people stood in busy commercial areas with trays full of bank notes and a sign saying "Free Money: take as much as you want", and nobody showed any interest because someone actually giving away free money for the sake of it is completely outside of their experience. This same mentality is at work with free (as in beer) software: how, both the public and corporate bods ask themselves, can Microsoft continue to charge lots of money for operating systems and other software if there are free items that people claim are either nearly as good, or in some cases better? If that was really true, then everyone would be using them, and Bill Gates wouldn't still be the richest man in the world, so it's obvious that they can't actually be as good as what Microsoft are selling, irrespective of what the neighbour's kid says.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    43. Re:I can't imagine by AntiDragon · · Score: 1

      Just for your information:

      Too lazy to look up the specifics, but OpenOffice.org is called that because a company owns the rights to the name "OpenOffice" (sans ".org"). I believe the project was originally using OpenOffice and adopted the ".org" part of the current website name to avoid a lawsuit.

      Personally, I've migrated to OO.o (or NeoOffice) on all my PCs and Macs, with the exception of my work PC (which I have no choice in). I've yet to find anything that caused me significant delay that I could have done quicker in Office.

      I will acknowledge that I've had to spend a good deal of time on and off in the help files to find my way around, and that well formatted documents and simple formula spreadsheets is about the limit of my requirements.

      --
      "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
    44. Re:I can't imagine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His points are quite clear to the rest of us. As is the obvious attempt on your part to troll him. I suspect they are clear to you too, but you trolled anyway.

      You have mental problems. Get help.

    45. Re:I can't imagine by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. I have three questions:

      1. Precisely what does this do?
      2. How do I undo it?
      3. How did you find out about it?

      I typed it into a terminal and got not error, but nothing happened, either. I assume a reboot is required...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. Wow. by igotmybfg · · Score: 2

    Why wouldn't they want to harm Apple? They're competitors! Why is this news?

    1. Re:Wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It illustrates a concept of balance. The free market is great, but when a monopoly forms anywhere, it needs to be kicked in the nuts until insensate, and put down as quickly as possible. Concentrations of power are *NEVER* good in either political or business circles.

      Seriously, can anything Microsoft builds *really* be considerd "the better mouse trap?"

    2. Re:Wow. by cowscows · · Score: 1

      It's news because it's more evidence of the monopoly abuse that MS was obviously guilty of. Although the current administration in the US has basically given MS a free pass, Europe is at least trying to hold them accountable for the damage they've done to the computing industry. Even with all the evidence against them, MS continues to whine and appeal and pretend like they're victims in all of this. Every time some more solid info comes out proving their intentions, their complaining becomes more tiresome, and they lose a little momentum.

      While I don't expect or even want MS to completely die out, just about everyone except their shareholders (and maybe MSCE's doing tech support) stand to benefit from a more diverse computing environment. Having one company dominating the OS and office software markets so heavily is not ideal for the industry or consumers.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:Wow. by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that it's imperative that Microsoft be forced to provide a product which you consider substandard?

      I don't know that you paid attention to the logical conclusions of your own statements, and in any case, this was a possible course of action which they didn't even take. I've seen some crazily ridiculous MS bashing here on Slashdot, but to start a circle jerk over an action they rejected 10 years ago is a new low.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    4. Re:Wow. by igotmybfg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Disclaimer: I'm not trying to be argumentative, and I'm no Microsoft fanboy (I've been running Linux at home for about 6 years now).

      I don't understand how your point is relevant. If you were in business, would you want to help your competitor? What we are talking about is Microsoft withdrawing a product from the marketplace. How does withdrawing a product from the marketplace constitute monopoly abuse?

    5. Re:Wow. by cowscows · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if they want to help a competitor once they're declared a monopoly. Here's my (admittedly amateur)understanding of it. When the government said MS was a monopoly, they're basically saying that the owned the office software market. The office software market is important enough to the functioning of our economy/government/etc. that a monopoly company in it needs to be controlled by government regulation.

      The decisions that MS could make in regards to Office can have effects well beyond the office software market. The power to use one product to kill a non-competing product in a different market is generally considered to be against the best interests of the public at large. And so the government takes steps to stop that. The government's preferred way of stopping things is by making them illegal.

      Boiled down: MS could use their monopoly control over the office software market to kill competitors in the operating system market. Just like how they used their monopoly control in the operating system market to kill their competitors in the web browser market. The specifics of how they could be done (forced bundling vs. withdrawing product support) vary, but the applicable laws are in place to prevent the same thing.

      Once MS became a "convicted" monopoly, what they wanted didn't really matter in some cases. That's why they fought so hard in the courts against even being considered a monopoly by the government.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    6. Re:Wow. by EvanED · · Score: 1

      It's news because it's more evidence of the monopoly abuse that MS was obviously guilty of.

      Um, not really. Perhaps you didn't notice, but they didn't actually do it.

    7. Re:Wow. by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if they want to help a competitor once they're declared a monopoly. Here's my (admittedly amateur)understanding of it. When the government said MS was a monopoly, they're basically saying that the owned the office software market. The office software market is important enough to the functioning of our economy/government/etc. that a monopoly company in it needs to be controlled by government regulation.

      Microsoft were never even found to be a monopoly in the "Office software" market, let alone found to have abused such a position.

      Furthermore, in the market they *were* found to be a monopoly in - desktop OSes for x86-based computers - Apple wasn't a competitor, so no matter what happened to Apple it would have had _zero_ bearing on Microsoft's monopoly position (from a legal sense).

    8. Re:Wow. by cowscows · · Score: 1

      They were never found to have a monopoly in the office software market because they didn't really use it to kill any competitors. Had they gone through with this idea to kill Apple with it, then maybe that would've been an issue. I'm not aware of the specifics as to how the legal standing of MS's monopoly was stated, but I think it's possible to make a reasonable argument that had MS actually dropped Mac Office that it could have been a deathblow to Apple.

      There are really only three personal computer operating systems that have any sort of competitiveness, it would've been a bad thing had Microsoft used Office to kill one of them. And it's a move that they never would've seriously considered were it not for their market dominance with both Office and Windows. Because they never actually went through it, it's not that surprising that the conclusions that the government ended up with didn't touch on this specific issue.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    9. Re:Wow. by cowscows · · Score: 1

      Meh, you know what I mean. They were using their marketshare to exert unfair influence. Who knows what sorts of concessions they got out of Apple by threatening them with office.

      It's sort of a like having a character witness. Talking about doing bad stuff might not be illegal, but when you get caught doing similar wrong things, other things that indicate the kind of person/company that you are can either help or hurt you.

      There is plenty of evidence that MS did bad stuff, and they also considered doing other bad things. I'm not suggesting we lock Bill Gates up for and idea that bounced around his company's email servers, knowing that they considered such stuff makes me feel far less sympathetic to them as they whine about how unfairly the EU is treating them with fines and such.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    10. Re:Wow. by 5ynic · · Score: 1

      Errr.... Because business isn't black and white? Because there are hosts of "win-win" scenarios, like, using the cross-platform possibilities to grow the office user base for all concerned. Isn't it better to figure out ways to work where both companies, and the consumers, all win? That's one of the reasons MS is derided and hated - they rarely try to think in this way. Co-opting, standardising, and co-operating can be one of the quickest ways to grow business - plus, it wins you friends.

      --
      ceci n'est pas un sig
    11. Re:Wow. by jay2003 · · Score: 1

      How does withdrawing a product from the marketplace constitute monopoly abuse?

      It's monopoly maintenance. Monopolists are forbidden from making decisions with non-monopoly products that have the purpose of maintaining the monopoly on another product. Pulling a product, in this case Office, from the Mac platform with the intention of helping preserve the Windows monopoly is not a lawful action under US anti-trust laws.

  8. uhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    no, thats not really the _why_

  9. Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dropping MS office for the Mac could hurt MS Office for the PC long term - Why?

    Apple might consider including OpenOffice.Org then advertising it:

    Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac,
    PC: and I'm a PC
    PC: So what is that your doing
    Mac: Oh, just some office stuff, you know, spreadsheets, documents, presentations
    PC: I can do those too
    Mac: Yeah, but I don't use your monopoly expensive as shit software, I use this free one which is actually better. It doesnt try to format shit I don't want. Oh, and it's free and works on a PC too. You should try it.
    PC: Hey you're right! This OpenOffice.org is the shnizzer! All the PC users should download it from www.openoffice.org right now!

    1. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Mac: So what is it that you're doing?
      PC: Oh, you know, playing video games.
      Mac: Obviously activity a "square" would pursue.

    2. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      Including OpenOffice would do more to hurt Apple than Microsoft's cancelling of MS Office. OpenOffice on Mac sucks, sucks real bad.

    3. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by toriver · · Score: 0

      Well, since the first commandment reads "Thou shalt hold no games before World of Warcraft", and World of Warcraft runs on MacOS X, the Mac is served in that regard.

      And video games run on games consoles. You know, the ones where you don't have to fiddle with driver updates or PixelShader versions. PCs are good for life-consuming MMOs, anti-social strategy games and headache-inducing FPSes.

      (All of which, coincidentally, are genres present on Macintosh.)

    4. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by lazarusdishwasher · · Score: 1

      Didn't they use KHTML for the basis of safari after Microsoft stopped development of ie for the mac? Would OpenOffice be any harder?

    5. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea yea yea. I don't give a crap, I was doing it for the lulz.

    6. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by Foerstner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac...

      PC: and I'm a PC.

      PC2: and I'm another PC

      PC3: and I'm another PC ... (Repeat 17 more times)

      Mac: So what are you guys working on?

      PC: We're working on this year's budget. We need the numbers for your department.

      Mac: Okay, send it over.

      (Pause)

      Mac: Here you go.

      (Pause)

      PC 6: What's wrong with this file?

      PC 11: I don't know, it's formatted all wrong.

      PC 8: I'll bet it's Mac's fault. Hey, Mac?

      Mac: It looks fine to me...

      PC 3: Mac, look, you're a cool guy and we really like you, but you can't just go off and mess up a document like that!

      Mac: But...but...it looks fine in OO.o!

      PC 19: Oh oh oh? Listen, I don't have time to play games, I need your numbers in that file without any screwing around!

      --
      The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
    7. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac
      PC: and I'm a PC
      PC: So what is that your doing?
      Mac: Oh, just some office stuff, you know, spreadsheets, documents, presentations...
      PC: (pulls out gun and points at Mac) BLAM!

    8. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac,
      PC: and I'm a PC
      Mac: So what is that your doing
      PC: Oh, just some copy editing stuff
      Mac: I can do those too
      PC: Yeah, but Writer's copy editing abilities are vastly inferior and a decade behind Word's
      Mac: Hmm, yeah, I guess you're right! Wow, I bet the increased productivity of Word 2002's track changes feature alone over OO.org's equivalent is worth the price of MS Office for editors! I'll go out and buy it!

    9. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why... why Apple would do that? If they can take some distribution, modify it enough and sell it to their customers as the Coolest Office suite... and they will pay more than what they already pay for MS Office?

    10. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by maxume · · Score: 1

      I would go further and say that at ~1% the price of a cheap employee, as long as it is a little better than OO.o, Word makes sense for pretty much anybody getting paid to use it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    11. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Then the PC user figures out which obscure file format he needs to amend to his document, and voila, it opens. I can't count how many times a week I have to add .doc or .pdf to a file at work before my stupid pc realizes what it is.

    12. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by tokul · · Score: 1

      Your commercial script was edited in Microsoft Word. You forgot to mention that all pcs are in other room and mac is not allowed to enter that room, because the guy from obscurity department is blocking the door.

      other version

    13. Re:Dropping MS office for the Mac could.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mac: Hi, I'm a Mac...

      PC: and I'm a PC.

      PC shoots Mac.

      PC shoots self.

      The End.
      (Good riddance!)

  10. Who is surprised? Really? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Tell me it ain't so Stevie!

    (Ducking out to dodge the thrown chair )

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Who is surprised? Really? by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Can't think out any new joke? Just throw in one about a chair.

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
    2. Re:Who is surprised? Really? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      Jeez, I know Microsoft makes Jobs mad, but why is he starting to act like Balmer?

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  11. Where are the documents? by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    Microsoft removed the coart case documents after it was settled.
    I'm just wondering if anyone has posted them back up again.

    1. Re:Where are the documents? by seandiggity · · Score: 1

      I believe The Register had a story about a good-sized chunk of those documents surfacing as torrents a week or so ago. The Internet Archive deleted a lot of it (nice "archive"). I'm on the run so I'm not gonna search for the story, but you can probably find it quickly (if not just do a torrent search for the documents).

      --
      Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
    2. Re:Where are the documents? by smitty97 · · Score: 1

      these are the documents i immediately thought about:
      http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
      see items 345 to 350

      --
      mod me funny
  12. Timeline 1997 by dafz1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    February 7, 1997 - Steve Jobs returns to Apple

    June 27, 1997 - Bill Gates sends email explaining threats made to Apple of pulling the plug on Office for Mac.

    August 6, 1997 - Apple and Microsoft announce $150 investment of Microsoft in Apple.

    What happened between June 27 and August 6?

    1. Re:Timeline 1997 by vivaoporto · · Score: 1

      Hey man, $150! Now I know why Steve was using that new turtleneck back them. All bought with MS money :D

    2. Re:Timeline 1997 by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 1

      4th of July?

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    3. Re:Timeline 1997 by LaminatorX · · Score: 1

      Settlement of legal disputes, including some cross-licensing of IP, and IE is blessed as the default browser in Mac OS installs.

    4. Re:Timeline 1997 by B3ryllium · · Score: 5, Funny

      Probably a whole lot of BJs.

    5. Re:Timeline 1997 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MS didn't dump $150[,000,000] in a hole, they bought shares which means that by making Office for Mac (and helping Apple succeed) they might actually make more money than by hurting Apple.

    6. Re:Timeline 1997 by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      What happened between June 27 and August 6?

      MS settled the patent infringement lawsuit Apple was about to win and included in that bargain was a guarantee to continue Office for the Mac for several years, the purchase of non-voting stock, and Apple gaining perpetual rights to the Windows APIs of the time. Of course as this reveals the threat to cancel Office for the Mac was probably illegal in the first place, so they just opened themselves up to more litigation, but MS's modus operandi for a long time has been to blatantly break the law and worry about settling lawsuits long after the damage to the market has been done.

    7. Re:Timeline 1997 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Redmond has some pretty strong shielding. It took a while for the RDS to penetrate.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:Timeline 1997 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blowjobs. Good ones.

    9. Re:Timeline 1997 by postmortem · · Score: 2, Funny

      ... hence the Steve Jobs middle nickname "Blow"

    10. Re:Timeline 1997 by BWJones · · Score: 1

      What happened between June 27 and August 6?

      See my post here. In essence, MS got caught stealing code from Quicktime.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    11. Re:Timeline 1997 by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

      Lawsuits can easily be dragged out for five to ten years with appeals and such. By then the damage has hopefully been done. It's a common abuse of the law everyone knows about but nothing is being done to correct. Remember the antitrust convinction with Microsoft? That died of old age. They've got an army of bored lawyers that live to play this game.

    12. Re:Timeline 1997 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that was the month they wrote the IEMac design docs, bringing about the destruction of the internet and the worm eating Apple from the inside out. At least until the contract expired and they went on Safari.

      But seriously IEMac4 sucked.

      But seriously IEMac5 was ahead of its time.

      It's strange, Tantek and Jimmy are the only men at Microsoft besides Bill Gates that I'd like to shake hands with, then punch in the mouth. Thanks guys. ;-)

      (Yes, you'd better believe I still have to test my designs with it...)

    13. Re:Timeline 1997 by rossz · · Score: 1

      A reach-around?

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    14. Re:Timeline 1997 by Animats · · Score: 1

      That's the famous Apple-Microsoft deal.

      1997 was the year that Jobs sucked up to Gates on the big screen at MacWorld. That was when Gates' face appeared on the big screen, reminiscent of the Apple "1984" video. A 5-year deal was announced under which Microsoft would continue to support Office on the Mac, and Apple would settle patent and antitrust claims with Microsoft.

    15. Re:Timeline 1997 by zigziggityzoo · · Score: 1

      What happened between June and August? I would assume it had something to do with the patents that both Microsoft and Apple had that would effectively shut each other down. Don't forget: They also agreed not to sue each other based on existing patents up to that point.

      --
      Zing!
    16. Re:Timeline 1997 by Pandare · · Score: 0

      Natalie Portman and hot grits?

    17. Re:Timeline 1997 by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      What happened between June 27 and August 6?

      If we knew, then this wouldn't be funny:
      1. Steve Jobs returns to Apple
      2. Bill Gates sends email explaining threats made to Apple of pulling the plug on Office for Mac.
      3. ...
      4. Apple and Microsoft announce $150 investment of Microsoft in Apple.
      5. Profit!

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    18. Re:Timeline 1997 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Profit?

  13. Email Communications by Swanktastic · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of course they found emails saying this. It's blatantly obvious to any armchair strategist. The only way you wouldn't find an email somewhere in the MS vault saying something anti-competitive is if the entire organization had been coached not to use this type of language. In fact, this is how corporate America operates today. Employees at market leader companies are specifically taught not to use phrases like crush, damage, etc when refering to the competition in electronic communications. It's perfectly fine to advocate these types of tactics in verbal communications, though.

    Everyone these days knows enough not to say anything incriminating in emails, but rather to save it for face-to-face meetings.

    1. Re:Email Communications by PsychicX · · Score: 5, Informative
      The thing is, the e-mail doesn't say what the (quite obviously biased) macworld claims it says. That's the beauty of selective quoting. Reading the rest of the message gives a somewhat different perspective.

      The pace of our discussions with Apple as well as their recent unsatisfactory response have certainly frustrated a tot of people at Microsoft. The threat to Cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bar9aining pointwe have, as doing so wil do a great deal of harm to Apple immedIately. I also believe that Apple is taking this threat pretty seriously, and at least someone there seems to want to move forward (when I discussed the Issue wfth Jim Gable, an Apple marketing VPwho visited MS today, he seemed very cortcamed aboutgetting more details on our specificobjections to their latest proposal; also, we received mail today from Apple's evangelism group asking for details on the Office Early Mopter Program, saying that exec mgmt had instructed them to get these detaIls (participating in this program was one of the minor issues in the discussions)). Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, though, I believe weshould ship Mac Office 97 Furfhermore, I believe we need to decide this immediately - our indecision so far has caused quite a bit of harm, and this will become farworse very shortly, as we are not only close to shipping code externally, but need to finally start press and customer communications, especially with MacWorld a month away.
      Later on in the email, we see some perspective on what exactly the "testing features" were:

      Because Mac Office Is so much less critical to our business than windows, we have the flexibility to test out new things in the product and in its marketing before we try them~onWindows. Setup-less install, for example, is one thing we'll do on the Mac first.

      The point being that the picture is more complicated. The full email describes in some detail why Mac Office should continue to be supported, despite its low profitability at the time. The linked Macworld article hides all of that and pretends that this was an attack on Apple. It wasn't. This is why you should always try to go to the original source, not someone else's agenda based report of it.
    2. Re:Email Communications by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 2, Funny

      re:"It's blatantly obvious to any armchair strategist."

      Wait wait wait - is THAT what Steve Balmer is calling himself these days? It now - all - makes - SENSE!

      *fling*

      Owch!

    3. Re:Email Communications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fail to see what extra context the full quote gives. It still says the same thing, that Microsoft was using the threat of canceling Office to hurt Apple during negotiations with them--they pulled the same shit with OEMs in the 90s by threatening to raise Windows licensing fees if OEMs didn't stop shipping competing products pre-installed.

      You also don't shed any more light on the feature-testing than we already gleamed from the summary.

    4. Re:Email Communications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, so you're saying the issue was really Apple being unreasonable with Microsoft and that Microsoft was working hard on finding a solution? And you back this up fairly well with the full email? Please stop posting rational theories with strong evidence to back them up. This is /. where we prefer to simply use emotional outrage against a successful company to form our opinions about technology.

    5. Re:Email Communications by Deviate_X · · Score: 1

      I actually found the email to be very positive about Apple and the Mac, from bill gates no less, its shocking to see how easily people can be manipulated into thinking the reverse. I believe yours in the only comment, out of hundreds to actually state the contradiction.

    6. Re:Email Communications by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Setup-less install, for example, is one thing we'll do on the Mac first.
       
      Wow, so do you think, 9 years later, that we might get this anytime soon?

    7. Re:Email Communications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Wow, so do you think, 9 years later, that we might get this anytime soon?


      Mac versions of Office can be installed by dragging and dropping into the Applications folder.

  14. I AM SHOCKED! by Supreme+Dragon · · Score: 0, Troll

    I never would have thought a company with such high integrity would want to do that.

    1. Re:I AM SHOCKED! by Drantin · · Score: 1

      The phrase should be: "I am SHOCKED! Shocked that monopolistic practices are going on in this establishment!"

      --
      Actio personalis moritur cum persona. (Dead men don't sue)
    2. Re:I AM SHOCKED! by Supreme+Dragon · · Score: 1

      It was supposed to be a score:5 funny sarcastic comment, but I guess i messed it up. Mod me down score:-5 not funny.

  15. Apple commercials by phasm42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple creates commercials that portray the Mac as a jeans-clad hipster and a Windows PCs as a balding lame-o in a suit. They believe it will harm Microsoft. News at 11.

    --
    "No one likes working in a hamster wheel, and your shop smells of cedar shavings from here." - TaleSpinner
    1. Re:Apple commercials by Khomar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem here is not just that Microsoft was talking about doing something to hurt the market share of another company, but rather that the method they were looking to use was of a monopolistic nature. By cutting out Microsoft Office from Apple, they would hurt the Microsoft Office division but would help the Microsoft Windows division. Basically, by a single company owning the overwhelmingly dominant office suite and operating system, they had the ability to destroy competition. Consider, for example, that Microsoft was divided into two (or more) distinctive companies: one that developed the operating system and related development tools and one that developed Microsoft Office products. In this scenario, Microsoft Office would continue to support Apple due to the revenue stream. The Microsoft Windows company would be required to compete on an equal footing against the Mac OS and any other operating system.

      This is not to say that this is complete monopoly. Linux does not have Microsoft Office, but they are able to compete with Open Office. However, it is an example of how Microsoft's position in multiple sectors can be combined to give them an unfair advantage. It is almost like the phone company also owning the electricity companies. "Sure you can use our competitor's phone service, but then you won't get any power." Some choice. (Of course, phone companies are their own form of evil monopoly, but that is another story.)

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    2. Re:Apple commercials by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      By cutting out Microsoft Office from Apple, they would hurt the Microsoft Office division

      Would they? I mean sure, X sales is more than X-1 sales; in that sense they are hurt. I didn't read the article, but if I'm reading it correctly the summary indicates that they are fairly disappointed with the sales of the Mac version of Office anyway. It could be that they actually would be better off if they didn't have to pay developers to maintain and support that version for whatever disappointing sales numbers they're getting. Would that be monopolistic behavior, or good business sense?

      Even if they are making some money, it might not be a good return on investment for the investment of developer and support resources that, possibly, could be better placed somewhere else.

    3. Re:Apple commercials by bogjobber · · Score: 1
      The problem here is not just that Microsoft was talking about doing something to hurt the market share of another company, but rather that the method they were looking to use was of a monopolistic nature.

      How the hell is this a problem? Nothing ever happened. If you could look inside any large corporation (including Apple) you would find that they have considered making terribly illegal decisions. A lot of corporations actually *do* very bad things. There's no need to rip on Microsoft for considering something that may have been illegal when they actually *did* other things that were illegal. Considering a crime is not the same as committing a crime. This is a ridiculous argument.

    4. Re:Apple commercials by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A Mac commercial doesn't hurt Windows users. Cutting off Mac Office would serve to hurt Mac Office users--Microsoft's own customers.

      --
      "Sufferin' succotash."
    5. Re:Apple commercials by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 1

      A Mac commercial doesn't hurt Windows users.

      Uh oh, the GP obviously needed to use the sarcasm tag for those to thick in the audience to pick up on it.

      --
      There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
  16. Entourage problems already have hurt by mekkab · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Given the flakiness of connecting Entourage to an Exchange server, where I could get all my e-mails but not send anything (?!) I just stopped trying.

    Having half-working software is far worse than none at all.

    --
    In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
    1. Re:Entourage problems already have hurt by MonkeyBoy · · Score: 1

      If you can get your admins to enable IMAP on the Exchange server, Entourage will work great with it.

      The nasty WebDAV "Exchange mode" in Entourage is a whole other animal though. I connected both Outlook 2003 & Entourage 2004 to the same mailbox, both running junk email filters, and damn near every message that was moved into the junk email folder was duplicated. One would catch spam and move the message, but wouldn't didn't update the server before the other client found it, so the net result was two junk emails created for each incoming source message (at least for the ones they both recognized as junk email).

      Switched Entourage to use IMAP mode instead, voila, problem completely went away.

      Getting LDAP (directory) lookups working is atypical obtuse LDAP-ese, but unless your admins are buffoons they should know what query to put into Entourage. Without LDAP you can't resolve names to addresses off the Global Address List, though obviously if you know their email address you can still send mail to people.

      --

      Moof!

  17. Logic (software) by Peter+Trepan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple did the same thing when it bought Emagic, cancelling development of the Logic digital audio workstation for Windows. This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me want to switch to Linux's free alternatives, even when they're less user-friendly.

    --

    Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.

    1. Re:Logic (software) by cowscows · · Score: 1

      It's not really the same thing, because Apple wasn't using one product(Logic)to try and kill an only tangentially related competitor's project. Whether Apple was just trying to sell more macs or avoid having to maintain multiple versions of the software (it was probably a mix of both factors), I don't think you can reasonably argue that Apple stopped developing Logic for windows in order to drive Windows under.

      If the Mac version of Office ceased to exist, it would have a significant effect on the viability of Mac OS X. Apple would have to very quickly establish a legitimate contender in a market in which they currently have no real presence, in order to keep the entire mac platform healthy. Tough to do when you're going against a monopoly product that totally dominates the market. The situation is less dire now as there are some reasonably well developed alternatives (There have been consistent rumors that Apple might even keeps one under development just in case it becomes necessary), but a few years back, during Apple's rougher days, it's not unreasonable to think that it would've killed Apple.

      But still, your point about open source software being less susceptible to similar issues is valid.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:Logic (software) by MSFanBoi2 · · Score: 1

      Actually there are quite a few products that Apple has purchased over the years that ran under Windows (and SOLD BETTER than the Mac versions) that they killed off once they sucked the company into the Apple fold. Of course, it being Apple we don't hear anything about them any more...

    3. Re:Logic (software) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...one example being when they bought Nothing Real to get hold of Shake. After buying the company, they canned the Windows version, increased the price of the Linux version and halved the price of the Mac version. MS / Apple - they're all as bad as each other, just MS gets in the news when it does it, Apple seems to get away with it.

    4. Re:Logic (software) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really the same thing, because Apple wasn't using one product(Logic)to try and kill an only tangentially related competitor's project. Whether Apple was just trying to sell more macs or avoid having to maintain multiple versions of the software (it was probably a mix of both factors), I don't think you can reasonably argue that Apple stopped developing Logic for windows in order to drive Windows under.

      I don't think you give Apple enough credit. A big part of the Mac 'brand' is about being for "creative" people. Especially five years ago, that was key to its niche market. So they bought one of the premier pro sequencer/daw software packages - probably considered at the time to be better than its main competitors Cubase or Cakewalk - and made it a Mac exclusive. How is that not an attempt to bolster Mac's "creative" reputation while simultaneously torpedoing Windows'?

    5. Re:Logic (software) by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that they didn't want to do both of those things. But trying to solidify that niche market is hardly the same situation that would've occured had Mac Office been taken away. There's a good chance that Apple would not have survived at that point. There's not much of anything that Apple could do to kill Windows.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  18. Way old news by Dekortage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's been rumored for years that Microsoft was going to dump the Mac version of office. When MS bought out Connectix, thus acquiring the Virtual PC line of products, I remember seeing alleged quotes from Bill Gates that MS was going to stop Mac Office development and just ship VPC with a Windows version of Office.

    Ironically, Microsoft Excel was released for the Mac in 1985 and didn't arrive on Windows until 1987, while PowerPoint was first released on the Mac in 1987 and not released for Windows until 1990. (Admittedly, PPT was originally developed by another company and then purchased by MS.)

    --
    $nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
    1. Re:Way old news by countSudoku() · · Score: 1

      True, all true. Back when I was an Apple IT employee (90-93) we started migrating the internal mail system from the god-awful Apple-Link (AKA Crapple-Link) to the distributed mail systems running on our own hardware. The better one was a product call QuickMail, and the other was Microsoft Mail (before it was re-engineered as Exchange). I've never admined an Exchange server, but MSmail was a giant pain in the ass to take care of, so most of the engineering dept went with the easier to manage, and more reliable QuickMail. I think I even have my QM client install floppy. Good times!

      --
      This is the NSA, we're gonna geet U h@x0r5! Also, what is a h@x0r5?
    2. Re:Way old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Exchange isn't a re-engineered version of Microsoft Mail, it's a whole other animal.

      Microsoft Mail used a wholly file-based system, where there was no central database keeping track of every email. Each person's mailbox was essentially a lightly-encrypted flat file "database" sitting in it's own unique directory on a file server. When you sent an email to another user, your client software wrote a lightly-encrpted file in a particular subfolder of the user's directory, and that user's client software then merged your email into their user's mailbox. There was no software running on the server at all, at least none that did anything worth a damn - the server was just a big dumb file server for client software pull & push from.

      Exchange is one of the results of Microsoft buying FoxPro and (I swear) one other database I can't remember. The official replacement for the products Microsoft acquired is Access (AKA Microsoft Jet), but a sister project was Exchange's database. Exchange's database engine has grown tremendously from these simple underpinnings, but originally - it was just a whole-new product sitting on top of a database engine they bought from another company. I would be really surprised if any shared code exists between Microsoft Mail & Exchange in any place other than the Microsoft Mail interoperability plug-in for Exchange.

      On a related note, a guy I know once wrote a tool to decrypt & unobfuscate his mailbox after his mailbox's flat-file database killed itself. Upon discussing his situation and solution with the corporate office, they goggled that he could do such a thing. Corporate parent called Microsoft and bitched about how easy it was to get access to any user's mailbox. Microsoft then called the guy, threatened him with millions of dollars in financial damage if he ever let anyone see his source, and required him to transmit, & sign over rights to, all his source to Microsoft.

      Microsoft then used his source to create the Inbox Repair Tool. I'm not 100% sure, but last I heard portions his code still existed in the PST-based Repair Tool that Microsoft includes with every copy of Office.

  19. Correction:Timeline 1997 by dafz1 · · Score: 2

    August 6, 1997 - Apple and Microsoft announce $150MIL investment of Microsoft in Apple.

  20. The Headline by Psionicist · · Score: 0

    Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple

    The headline states this as it's something bad. Seriously, wtf? Microsoft has done lots of stupid/"evil" things, but this is not one of them. This is real free market competition without government intervention. I fail to see the problem. Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them? I think not. They are free to do as they please, and in this case they are, as there's no force whatsoever involved.

    If, however, Microsoft tried to abuse some laws for their own gain, that would be evil.

    1. Re:The Headline by pla · · Score: 4, Funny

      Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them?

      Yes, damnit!

      And unless I can have Clippy offering helpful advice as I slave away at my Timex Sinclair 1000, I plan to sue Microsoft for anticompetitive behavior.

      Damn that Bill Gates and his 640KB of RAM... Just because I only have 2KB, he thinks he can just ignore 0.00026% of the home market?

    2. Re:The Headline by cowscows · · Score: 1

      There are, in fact, laws to prevent monopoly companies from using a monopoly in one product (office) to damage competing products (Mac OS) in a different market.

      For better or worse, the USA is not an entirely free market. There are many rules and regulations that companies need to follow. Believe it or not, but at some level the government is supposed to support the general well being of its citizens, and not value capitalism, corporations, and some dedication to a "free market" over all other concerns. There is ample evidence that having a single company have monopoly control, particularly in a market as significant as computer operating ,or office software, or telephone service, or oil production...it's bad for consumers. And the majority of citizens in this country are consumers.

      So to sum it all up, Microsoft was labeled as a monopoly by the government, and as such can be held to a number of laws that might not be applicable to other companies. I'm no expert on anti-trust litigation, but there are many examples of actions that MS took that were of questionable legality, and had they decided to cancel Mac office in an effort to kill Apple, that would hopefully raise some red flags.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    3. Re:The Headline by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

      Well, the problem here is that Microsoft is doing this in an attempt to stop Apple from being a player in the enterprise market, not because of a lack of demand for Office on the Macintosh platform. If the market was truly dictating what Microsoft does, then they'd dump their horrible Virtual PC line of crap.

    4. Re:The Headline by nine-times · · Score: 1

      I fail to see the problem. Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them? I think not.

      What do you mean by "benefit"? See, you might have a point if MS Office for Mac was simply "not profitable", and so Microsoft didn't want to operate at a loss. However, if it's a profitable business, then the product is most certainly "benefitting" them. On the other hand, if the product was very profitable, then Microsoft Office would also be failing to lock consumers in to Windows, and therefore could be detrimental to the MS monopoly. Therefore, dropping the profitable product in order to destroy Apple would be almost a textbook example, AFIAK (IANAL), of monopolistic abuse.

      I would call that a problem. Wouldn't you?

    5. Re:The Headline by slackmaster2000 · · Score: 1

      Well, it might be a tad more complicated than that.

      First, we're all aware that there is some discussion about Microsoft using its position in the marketplace to lock people into Microsoft Windows. There might have been a lawsuit or two somewhere in the world :) They are certainly not uncomfortable using tactics that have been deemed unlawful (or at least they weren't uncomfortable in the past).

      Second, Microsoft Office is and for some time has been the default Office suite. "Everybody" uses it.

      What they've got here is an opportunity to potentially bolster their already dominant position on top of the *OS* market by dropping support for their *Office Suite* product on the competition's operating system. By dropping support for the Macintosh version of MS Office, they are putting Macintosh and its customers in a position that is worse than if Microsoft had never developed a version of Office for the Mac. In other words, they created an overwhelming need (real or perceived) for their product, offered it on multiple platforms, and then considered dropping the alternate platform after the software was well-established on that platform.

      Could that be considered anti-competitive? Well, I think it can be argued strongly in both directions. Assuming that Office for Mac is a profitable product, and that pulling support for it would not only damage Macintosh but also the consumer (not only because existing Mac owners would be "stuck" without Office, but assuming that some choose to use a PC instead, it also harms consumers down the road by lessening the competition between platforms overall), I think that the argument is a little bit in favor of the anti-competitive side.

      Now, if some government was to force Microsoft to develop a version of Office for some non-Windows platform for which a version did not already exist, then I would agree with your argument whole-heartedly.

    6. Re:The Headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Incorrect. This is exactly the definition of antitrust! If M$ was simply a software company they wouldn't care about hurting Apple... they'd want to embrace Apple just as much as any OS manufacturer that would run their crappy office suite. But since they're an OS company in direct competition witth Apple using the office suite as a weapon against Apple is anticompetitive and is EXACTLY the reason why M$ should have been broken up.

    7. Re:The Headline by fisher182 · · Score: 1

      Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them?

      as soon as i'm not forced to use office (well word) by my english prof, i could give a damn what microsoft does with office. it's garbage.

    8. Re:The Headline by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      The problem is there are other costs there than just distributing the product. There might be some development costs, right? There might be some other costs relating to securing legal rights, packaging, trademark and copyright issues and the whole raft of things that you have to consider when you're not just operating out of a basement.

      I highly doubt that Mac Office is very profitable, if it is profitable at all. More than likely it is operating at a loss for compatibility sake alone. It is (or was, as this issue is 10 years old) something that the benefits to Microsoft were tenuous at best. You have lock-in and domination of the office suite space vs. the costs to develop, maintain and ship the product.

    9. Re:The Headline by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "Should Microsoft be _forced_ to sell a product that doesn't benefit them?"

      Yes they should be forced. For the same reason someone can be forced to do community service work or forced to pay a fine.

      Microsoft was forced to continue to offer Office for Mac because of the way a law suit was settled. They got caught using some stuff from Apple without paying for it and as a result were forced to do quite a few things.

    10. Re:The Headline by iPaul · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you, I'm not sure what your remedy is. How much could you penalize Microsoft financially? If you made them come out with an office suite, under court supervision, could it possibly suck? (Would they just pour strawberry jam in the box and ship it?) From most of the postings I've read it seems like a lot of people confuse a free market with an absence of ethics and laws. While I don't think /. readers are *exactly* representative of the general population, I suspect a lot of Americans even more unaware that monopolies break capitalism. They just view Microsoft as being sucessful or even what a PC "is" in a sense.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    11. Re:The Headline by et764 · · Score: 1

      Just because I only have 2KB, he thinks he can just ignore 0.00026% of the home market?

      I was going to tell you that 0.00026% is probably a rather optimistic estimate of the Sinclair's market share, but it actually might be reasonable. There are roughly 300 million people in the US, and 0.00026% of that is 780. Granted, not all people in the US are computer users, but I'm sure if we include the rest of the world we can find 300 million computer users. So, 780 Sinclairs means about 15 or 16 per state... which still seems a bit high. And, this whole comment is full of invalid assumptions, so you should probably just go ahead and ignore me...

    12. Re:The Headline by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Why do you doubt it's profitable? Apple has a relatively small market-share, yes, but that's still an awful lot of computers, and I would say that most Mac users have a copy of Office. There are lots of other companies who make money developing Mac software, probably making fewer sales of the product per Mac sold.

  21. Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Where can I buy Apple's Final Cut Pro 5, for Windows?

    Oh.

    Maybe because if FC Pro 5 was available on Windows people would have less incentive to go to the Mac?

    1. Re:Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows is not a serious platform for digital video editing.

    2. Re:Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? by eln · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The Mac is not a serious platform for office productivity.

    3. Re:Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? by toriver · · Score: 1

      You know, you would have a point if there ever WAS a Final Cut Pro for Windows that Apple could threaten to pull. But hey look there isn't. Meanwhile, Office for Mac started at the same time as the Windows version - earlier if you look at the Mac-debuting Excel spreadsheet.

      Thanks for pointing out the lack of a movie editing application for Windows that can match Final Cut Pro, though. Microsoft's Movie Maker doesn't even reach iMovie levels.

    4. Re:Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      How much of that is due to a catch 22 of no one making software (e.g. Final Cut) for it?

    5. Re:Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC cause I modded.
      1) Logic was an awesome sound editing program that Apple bought. Not soon after, the PC version was axed. I guess that one was ok to pull, eh?
      2) Sony bought Sonicfoundry's Vegas editing suite. It's a most excellent product that would compete with FCP, and Sony putting their logo on it strangely hasn't hurt it.
      Funkdancer.

    6. Re:Final Cut Pro 5 for Windows? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC cause I modded.
      1) Logic was an awesome sound editing program that Apple bought. Not soon after, the PC version was axed. I guess that one was ok to pull, eh?


      Logic is one of several sound editing programs for Windows. Mac Office doesn't have a real competitor.

      2) Sony bought Sonicfoundry's Vegas editing suite. It's a most excellent product that would compete with FCP, and Sony putting their logo on it strangely hasn't hurt it.

      If you like stagnant software that hasn't really changed in 3 years, then yes, Vegas Video is great. I bet you like Soundforge a lot too!

  22. Not a monopoly? by iPaul · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is exactly the kind of anti-competative behavior that monopolies engage in.

    --
    Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    1. Re:Not a monopoly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I think your mistaking the term monopoly with money making organisation. It's apple's fault for relying on it's competitor for a very important piece of software. People wouldn't blink an eye if MS never had office on a mac- why in hell should they be required to support a competitor's OS.

    2. Re:Not a monopoly? by iPaul · · Score: 1

      You're right. If there had never been Office for the Mac, then there would be no abuse of monopoly power. However, Microsoft has such a large share of the office market that they can harm competitors in unrelated markets (i.e. operating systems) by discontinuing the product. That's the possible monopoly abuse. It would be like Ford having a 95% market share in road tires and deciding not to supply road tires to other manufacturers of cars. If you built boats - you would not be harmed by Ford's decision, but all the other car manufacturers would.

      I'm actually a very free-market person, however, when too much of a market is concentrated in the hands of too few organizaitons you move away from free-market capitalism toward oligopolies and monopolies. The more producers of a product, and the less market share each producer has, the closer you are to efficient, free markets. Should we penalize a company for being successful? No, but we should also not put ourselves in a position where one company gets to use their power in one market to dictate winners and loosers in other markets.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    3. Re:Not a monopoly? by coleridge78 · · Score: 1

      And that's something that the Communist psuedo-Libertarians never have quite worked out for themselves. (Probably because to be a truly dedicated Libertarian requires logical development stunted at a fifth grade level.)

      When one person (or a soviet, or a board of directors) controls an industry it's bad news. For some reason they only think it's bad news if the person doing this has a government badge on. I'm not quite sure how they manage to resolve this in their heads. Central planning is central planning.

  23. MS Office on Intel Mac by andrewa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    To be honest, I use my MS OFfice installation on my Parallels instance, as it's much faster and usable than the Mac Office 2004. I'm planning to give Office 2008 (which should be universal) a bit of a look, and approach that with an open mind, but for now I'm happier with using the Windows version under my VM.

    --
    :(){ :|:& };:
    1. Re:MS Office on Intel Mac by pilotfactory · · Score: 1

      If you're using Parallels, you have an intel Mac. Mac Office 2004 however, is NOT an X86 app - it's a PPC one. No wonder it's slow when you have to run it with PPC emulation (Rosetta).

      Next time please make sure you've read the release notes first.

  24. mod trolls down by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

    Whatever moron modded this up, please stop. This factually incorrect troll has been circulating way to long, fooling the gullible.

  25. Yes, it would hurt by chrysalis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ouch!

    Yes, it would definitely hurt Apple sales.

    Of course, there is software like NeoOffice, Pages and Keynote.
    But people *want* MS Office, and in corporate environments, people *need* MS Office.

    The OSX Version of MS Office is still not 100% compatible with the Windows version, but it's still better than NeoOffice.

    And "MS Office runs on OSX" is a strong selling point. People familiar with Windows and Office are thinking "cool, Office runs on OSX, I won't feel lost if I ever switch to OSX".

    --
    {{.sig}}
    1. Re:Yes, it would hurt by Utopia · · Score: 1

      Don't think you read the article. The email was dated ten years ago in 1997

    2. Re:Yes, it would hurt by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      Of course, there is software like NeoOffice, Pages and Keynote.
      But people *want* MS Office, and in corporate environments, people *need* MS Office.

      The OSX Version of MS Office is still not 100% compatible with the Windows version, but it's still better than NeoOffice.
      You obviously have not kept up with the news. NeoOffice 2.1 will be available as a free download to the public as of March 27th. It has full Aqua integration, Office 2007 format compatibility, Excel macro compatibility and is available as either a PPC or Intel binary for OS X.

      Now let's compare that with MS Office 2004 and Office 2008. Office 2004 does not have Office 2007 format compatibility. It is PPC only and Office 2008 is over a year away and will drop Excel VBA macro compatibility.

      I would choose either NeoOffice or the upcoming Aqua Open Office release over either Office 2004 or Office 2008.

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    3. Re:Yes, it would hurt by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      That is indeed excellent news... but from my experience with the applications that are currently available, I completely agree with the grandparent poster: Microsoft Office for Mac is far more compatible with Microsoft Office for Windows than OpenOffice or NeoOffice is. I hope NeoOffice improves, but I'd be shocked if the new version is compatible enough that I don't still need Microsoft Office.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Yes, it would hurt by Pecisk · · Score: 1

      Better than NeoOffice? Are you freakin kidding me? That stock of garbage which costs aproximetly *twice* as Office for Windows? Which is unstable as hell?

      NeoOffice has it's quirks, for sure, as it is brand new software, but it is moving forward so fast that it will be favorite office app for most Mac users in one, two years time. I would even suggest Apple to finance NeoOffice development, because it could be quite important for their business.

      --
      user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
  26. fuddy duddy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since it is hard to accuse MAC types as FUD spreaders, I will just call them fuddy duddy's

  27. IT would help Apple office suite sales by chipperdog · · Score: 1

    It would simply give apple one less competitor for appleworks and iWork
    Also give Apple ports of OOo higher popularity...

    1. Re:IT would help Apple office suite sales by Sam+Ritchie · · Score: 1

      Appleworks has not been in active development for many years, and is reportedly never going to be released as a universal binary - expect it to be quietly EOL'd within a year or two. iWork doesn't contain a spreadsheet application (yet), so it's not able to fill the void at this stage.

      It's probably worth noting that even if Apple had a full-featured Office suite, they would be unlikely to make a great deal of money out of it; it would exist purely to help sell Macs. I have no doubt they would much prefer to see MS Office supported on the Mac indefinitely rather than having to worry about building their own.

      --
      This sig is false.
  28. Re:APPLE IS SHIT by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

    This should have been modded 'Flamebait'.

  29. Microsoft borrowed my Pavement CD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and they never gave it back.

  30. Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X ceases by maynard · · Score: 1

    Where I work, a University lab, we are migrating from Linux on the desktop to MacOS X. This is principally due to MS Office support; users want it. Badly. If Microsoft kills Office for Mac I predict a wholesale dumping of OS X and a migration back to Linux. Nobody here wants to run Windows, except for a small number of administrators and fiscal professionals who are accustom to MS software. That would really throw a wrench in our plans. We're basing the whole migration on the presumption of Office 2008 for Intel Macs.

    Office support is critical for a large number of professionals. Drop it and IMO the Mac will die. Quickly.

  31. Still a monopoly by JiveBay · · Score: 1

    By keeping Office on the Mac, they kept their monopoly in the Word Processor/Spreadsheet dept. Otherwise Apple would of just created their own or helped work on a Open Source one. I didn't think Macs were much of a threat in 97, sure they dominated graphic design but thats about it.

  32. No Surprise by calstars · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This shouldn't be surprising to anyone who follows Microsoft and Apple. Of course MS 'considered' it; not to do so would show a remarkable lack of long-term strategy thought at high levels of the company. Unless they actually do remove Office for the Mac, there's no story here.

  33. Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    am I not surprised? This kind of nasty planning is hardly out of Microsoft's character.

    Then again, I wouldn't really be surprised to hear of _any_ buissness trying to undercut it's competitors...

  34. Please do, and soon! by 644bd346996 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The day that Office for Mac gets killed will be the day that iWork gets released as a complete, full-featured, Office-killer suite. We know that Apple has a spreadsheet app waiting to be released. It is inconceivable that they would not have the rest of the suite at least in closed beta. I, for one, would love it if Apple would go ahead and release that suite soon.

    That said, killing Office for Mac would cause microsoft to lose those profits, and probably lead to more people switching to Apple. Microsoft knows that Apple can make a slick GUI for almost anything, and they know that their Office GUI is anything but slick. That's why there was all the crap about the ribbon. They don't want to incite Apple to do anything smart, like releasing a better product than MS Office.

    1. Re:Please do, and soon! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1
      I was thinking exactly the same thing. If MS was going to go nuclear on Apple, they should have done it when Apple was defenceless. At this point, the worm has turned. Clearly, MS and Apple have a deal in which MS agrees to keep developing Office, and Apple agrees to not compete with it or encourage any competition.

      But I wonder seriously which party is crossing their fingers in hopes the other doesn't back out of this deal. Clearly, it used to be Apple. But I suspect that many people on the MS campus worry that Steve Jobs & co might make a son-of-iWork that's so good that OSX users won't miss Microsoft. But of course, if MS went nuclear, you just know that Apple would port their office suite to Windows and viral-market the shit out of it. Maybe they'd collaborate with Google so that the whole suite would have an internet back-end.

      This could be a crazy pandora's box of hurt for Microsoft. I think that if gloves come off, Apple can do more damage to MS than vice versa. Another thing they could do: leak out an OSX-86 that runs well on normal PCs. It wouldn't be perfect, I'm sure there would be driver issues with some hardware, but if the standard pirates of the world start passing around OSX, who would be left to care about Vista? Not enough people to keep the giant Microsoft beast fed.

      I for one would be happy to see the gloves come off. Any deals that prevent competition usually hurt the customers, and the OSX Office deal definitely does.

    2. Re:Please do, and soon! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The day that Office for Mac gets killed will be the day that iWork gets released as a complete, full-featured, Office-killer suite.
      Which will be the day many corporations, universities, people will stop considering Mac.

      That said, killing Office for Mac would cause microsoft to lose those profits, and probably lead to more people switching to Apple.
      I doubt it.

      Microsoft knows that Apple can make a slick GUI for almost anything, and they know that their Office GUI is anything but slick.
      Because Microsoft obviously has nobody who understands GUIs and Apple is the God of GUIs.

      Hey guess what? I don't like a lot of Apple's GUIs. Their OS and software offers very little customizations compared to others (Just compare the KDE desktop environment to OS X in customization).

      That's why there was all the crap about the ribbon.
      Because Microsoft made it, it must be bad! D:

      like releasing a better product than MS Office.
      I certainly don't find iWork pages superior to Microsoft Publisher and/or Word.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    3. Re:Please do, and soon! by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      Apple cannot and will not make a suite of office applications that are compatible enough with Microsoft Office that I'll be able to use them for much of anything. I plan to buy MS Office 2008; I do not plan to buy iWork.

      If you aren't already familiar with Microsoft Office and don't need to exchange files with anybody, I'm sure iWork is great, and will only get better with time. But if your final target isn't a PDF or printed page, nothing but Microsoft Office will cut it.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    4. Re:Please do, and soon! by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "I suspect that many people on the MS campus worry that Steve Jobs & co might make a son-of-iWork that's so good that OSX users won't miss Microsoft"

      They don't give two hoots about that, because they already have Office users locked in by undocumented and patent-encumbered proprietary formats, hence the fact that none of the competing office suites has managed to gain any notable traction.

      "I think that if gloves come off, Apple can do more damage to MS than vice versa"

      How, precisely? Apple have (being generous) 3% of the world desktop PC market, and 1% of servers. What "harm" could they do to a company with 95% of desktops, and 40% of servers?

      "Another thing they could do: leak out an OSX-86 that runs well on normal PCs"

      Which would damage sales of Macs, not Microsoft's stuff. Perhaps you haven't noticed that there have been various free operating systems out there for at least a decade without significantly damaging Microsoft's desktop market share, and their noticeable success in the server arena has mostly been at the expense of proprietary UNIX systems rather than Windows servers. Note also that sales of Macs have actually picked up since the Intel switch, not because of OS X or Apple's ads, but due to the fact that people can run Windows on them now, so having a Mac doesn't mean being either locked out of must-have applications anymore. And every Mac that runs Windows is a boxed retail version of Windows sold, each of which makes MS a _lot_ more money than an OEM license.

      "It wouldn't be perfect, I'm sure there would be driver issues with some hardware, but if the standard pirates of the world start passing around OSX, who would be left to care about Vista?"

      1) Very few of the people who will end up using Vista will "care about it" -- they'll receive it with their computer, just like they did with XP. Microsoft have already been paid for those pre-installed versions, so they aren't financially damaged if somebody installs a different OS afterwards.

      2) People don't install operating systems "because they're better" -- they install them because there's a "killer" application they want to run. OS X doesn't have any "killer applications" that the average Joe cares about, and actually lacks some of the "killers" that corporates need, so why would anyone bother installing OS X on a PC that already came with a "free OS" which can run 99% of the software out there?

      "Not enough people to keep the giant Microsoft beast fed."

      Like many fanboys, you are failing to see the cold, hard financial facts of the situation. Virtually every one of those PCs that a free version of OSX gets installed on will come with a Windows license that MS have been paid for, while Apple won't receive a single penny. The same situation will exist in corporates, who have annual site licenses that they pay MS for. So the party who will be losing money is Apple, who will sell far fewer Macs than now and make nothing from the free OS X, while MS will still be raking in billions every month from OEM and coprorate licenses.

      NB: I am writing this on a Mac, and like them _a lot_, but I have that doesn't mean I live in a silly fantasy world where Apple is some sort of all-powerful IT god that can do what giants like IBM couldn't. OS/2 was a much better piece of software than Windows, and unlike OS X, was being sold by a company that (at the time) was (a) much bigger and richer than MS, and (b) had a massive international presence in corporate IT departments, yet Windows absolutely trounced it in both the domestic and corporate arenas despite being a piece of crap by comparison. Why? Because _there were no killer apps for OS/2_, and people don't install different operating systems for the sake of it, even if they're demonstrably more wonderful than what they've already got.

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    5. Re:Please do, and soon! by A_Non_Moose · · Score: 1

      It is inconceivable

      Clippy "Montoya" Paperclip:

      You just used that word again!

      Would you like to know what it means?

      --
      Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
    6. Re:Please do, and soon! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Because Microsoft obviously has nobody who understands GUIs and Apple is the God of GUIs.

      I know you meant this as sarcasm, but in truth to those of us with formal training in human-computer interactions, sometimes that is the way it really seems. MS consistently releases products with very basic usability flaws that have been in textbooks as examples of what not to do for decades. They do produce the occasional well designed UI, but on the whole they are terrible. It is hard to say what is going on at MS. Either they have somehow managed to hire some of the worst UI people in the world who now run the show and are very hands on, or it could be they have very good UI people who have no real power and who have their good designs rejected by marketing in favor of a repeat of a bad design but in cornflower blue.

      On the other hand, Apple's UI guidelines are used as a teaching resource by universities and in industry workshops around the world. The truth of the matter is, Apple consistently produces very usable UIs and frequently that is a competitive advantage they exploit.

      Hey guess what? I don't like a lot of Apple's GUIs. Their OS and software offers very little customizations compared to others

      Ahh, but the test of a usable interface is not whether or not you like it. If you don't like the iPod interface does that mean is is a lousy UI? For the most part Apple's UIs are far from perfect, but still better from a usability standpoint than most anything else in mainstream use. The ability to customize a UI, by the way, generally decreases overall usability. This is not true in every case, but for a significant number of them it is. For example, a lot of people want to set their background to a picture of their kids and almost every OS lets you do that, but from a usability perspective most of the backgrounds people pick make it harder to find their icons than the default background. Just because people like it, does not make it a better UI.

      Because Microsoft made it, it must be bad!

      I haven't installed a copy of the new version of office, nor have I evaluated the UI choices in it. I don't know if it is a good UI or a poor one, but I also don't trust your opinion on the subject because you don't seem to know what you're talking about. It is not necessarily a poor UI because MS made it, but it would ot surprise me either, given their history of poor UIs.

      I certainly don't find...

      I'm not sure I care what you find superior for your tasks and I don't see how it relates to whether or not Apple is capable of releasing an office suite that would be considered superior to MS's offerings by OS X users.

    7. Re:Please do, and soon! by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      Apple have (being generous) 3% of the world desktop PC market, and 1% of servers. What "harm" could they do to a company with 95% of desktops, and 40% of servers? Apple is years away from encroaching on the volume license agreements that MS has with big businesses. But if you look at the consumer market, where everybody buys their own office suite (through retail or bundled with the machine), Apple is doing very well. In 3Q 2006, Apple was the number 4 computer maker, with 6% market share. And in the more profitable laptop market, Apple has close to 15% market share.

      Microsoft's install base is not growing. Apple's is exploding. Pretty much nobody switches from Apple to Wintel.

      You also claim that BootCamp is responsible for the growth in sales of Macs. This is a half-truth at best. Anybody who will buy a Mac and then run windows can be counted on to purchase the Mac version of whichever piece of software forced them to install Windows. People who buy Macs want to switch and will complete the switch as soon as they can. Already, pretty much the only apps that people use bootcamp for are games. 2d apps run just fine with crossover or parallels. Right now, the vast majority of intel Mac owners are never not running OS X.

      In the consumer market, MS Word and Powerpoint have exactly 0 advantages over iWork. iWork, on the other hand, has many advantages; the number one being that it is totally Mac-like. Mac users will pay more for an app that behaves well on their system. Witness the continued existence and profitability of the Omni group.

      Even as the sales of Macs grow, the sales of MS Office for Mac will decline, because iWork is getting better. It won't be long before corporations are finding that too many employees have only Macs at home.
    8. Re:Please do, and soon! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      MS consistently releases products with very basic usability flaws that have been in textbooks as examples of what not to do for decades.
      They do, but when it comes to their office suite applications, it's on a whole another level of UI design I've noticed, compared to smaller things like Windows Defender.

      Ahh, but the test of a usable interface is not whether or not you like it.
      Okay, I should of been more articulate, I don't particulary like it because I find it takes me extra steps todo things.

      The ability to customize a UI, by the way, generally decreases overall usability.
      I have to disagree here. It may make things more complicated, but if I can customize a interface to be more efficient for what I do (take less steps todo a commonly used function), it's certainly not less usable.

      This is not true in every case, but for a significant number of them it is.
      The subject is office suits, I do believe it applies for the majority of them.

      but I also don't trust your opinion on the subject because you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
      Actually I'm just tired of hearing people say something has "issues" or something is "bad", simply because it's from Microsoft. It was more of a joke than anything.

      I'm not sure I care what you find superior for your tasks and I don't see how it relates to whether or not Apple is capable of releasing an office suite that would be considered superior to MS's offerings by OS X users.
      People have been suggesting that iWorks can replace Microsoft Office on this article, claiming that it'll some how whipe out Microsoft if Microsoft pulls Microsoft Office out of OS X -- Uhhhhhhh.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    9. Re:Please do, and soon! by Weedlekin · · Score: 1

      "But if you look at the consumer market, where everybody buys their own office suite (through retail or bundled with the machine), Apple is doing very well."

      Apple is doing well in their traditional core markets of creative professionals, domestic users, and education _in certain countries_. However, I would argue that MS Office doesn't sell in large numbers to either domestic users or creative professionals -- it's far too expensive for the former (in some countries it costs as much as a Mac Mini), and in general isn't required by the latter.

      "3Q 2006, Apple was the number 4 computer maker, with 6% market share. And in the more profitable laptop market, Apple has close to 15% market share."

      You are giving US figures, while (as my post said) I was giving world figures. Apple have around 3% of the world desktop market, up from 2.5% a couple of years ago, which is significant in terms of growth for Apple, but not as a percentage of overall desktop computer sales. Microsoft on the other hand rake in money from 95% of those sales, with either pre-installed OEM versions (domestic, small business, education) or annual corporate licenses (medium and large businesses).

      "Microsoft's install base is not growing. Apple's is exploding."

      Because it's far easier to grow a 3% market share than a 95% one.

      "Pretty much nobody switches from Apple to Wintel."

      A lot of people do however run both out of necessity. Not all people who use Macs are "switchers" that throw away what they already have just because they buy a machine from Apple.

      "You also claim that BootCamp is responsible for the growth in sales of Macs. This is a half-truth at best."

      Why then was there so much excitement in the Mac community when BootCamp was announced? Why did so many existing Mac users buy Intel-based machines even though they had perfectly serviceable G5 systems that could actually run most existing Mac software faster than Intel ones via Rosetta (if indeed such software _would_ run under Rosetta, which wasn't the case for everything)?

      " Anybody who will buy a Mac and then run windows can be counted on to purchase the Mac version of whichever piece of software forced them to install Windows"

      And you know this because you have evidence from where precisely? I haven't seen any figures to indicate this (or for that matter the opposite), so all we have to go on are opinions, and there is a significant body of those which seem to believe that the opposite will happen, i.e. that the presence of easy Windows compatibility via BootCamp / Parallels / whatever will prompt some companies who currently produce software for both platforms to abandon OS X entirely.

      " People who buy Macs want to switch "

      Again, your opinion stated as if its a fact, with no evidence to back it up. Do the people who bought Macs because of the "iPod halo effect" that Apple themselves acknowledge do so because the want to "switch", or because Apple stuff is currently "cool", or their iPod will work with it better? If Apple's ads are anything to go by, the company itself seems to believe that most of their potential customers will have no idea what an operating system is, because they never mention OS X, or that Macs can't run Windows software out of the box, so if you actually have some hard statistical evidence for your assertion, I suggest you send it to Apple's market research people.

      "Already, pretty much the only apps that people use bootcamp for are games"

      Most of which run like crap on the Mac Mini and MacBook, which are two of Apple's biggest sellers. So again, please provide some evidence for your assertion that people are spending hundreds of dollars for retail copy of Windows to play games on hardware that's not up to the job. And by evidence, I mean hard statistics, not some posts from Slashdot, Digg, and equivalent fora, or anecdotes.

      "2d apps run just fine with crossover or parallels"

      Both of which cost extra money, and in the case of Parallels, also require more m

      --
      I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
    10. Re:Please do, and soon! by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      ...when it comes to their office suite applications, it's on a whole another level of UI design I've noticed, compared to smaller things like Windows Defender.

      A lot of their basic usability flaws are in their core OS, not "smaller things." As for the UI of MS Office, I've not noticed that it is particularly good or better tested in that regard.

      I have to disagree here. It may make things more complicated, but if I can customize a interface to be more efficient for what I do (take less steps todo a commonly used function), it's certainly not less usable.

      The assumption that you're making is that your personal experience is a useful data set. Being able to switch the background could allow you to customize it with 4 color background that lets you sort things increasing usability. In general, users are worse at determining what will make their computer more usable and the ability to customize results in decreases to usability more often than increases resulting in a net loss. In general if you make a feature customizable, people will customize it in poor ways, which is why it usually is a bad move for usability.

      People have been suggesting that iWorks can replace Microsoft Office on this article...

      From what I read, people were claiming Apple could greatly expand iWorks and put resources behind it and the resulting product could be significantly better than MS Office. I've read comments that imply this could significantly hurt MS. The first is entirely possible, but I don't see it as likely anytime soon. The second is improbable for a slew of reasons there is no need to go into.

    11. Re:Please do, and soon! by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      The assumption that you're making is that your personal experience is a useful data set.
      I should hope it should at least contribute as useful data for certain people (mainly decently trained, techies).

      In general, users are worse at determining what will make their computer more usable and the ability to customize results in decreases to usability more often than increases resulting in a net loss.
      I agree this is the case for untrained and non-techie users.

      In general if you make a feature customizable, people will customize it in poor ways, which is why it usually is a bad move for usability.
      Actually I tend to see (at work) untrained users not customizing things to suit them, just using the default layouts. I do think it is important that the default layout is very workable.

      However, just because a interface is usable for less experienced/knowledgeable users doesn't mean the lack of customization doesn't get in the way of more 'professional' users.

      From what I read, people were claiming Apple could greatly expand iWorks and put resources behind it and the resulting product could be significantly better than MS Office.
      I don't disagree with your findings.

      I've read comments that imply this could significantly hurt MS.
      I acknowledge there is the possibility.

      The first is entirely possible, but I don't see it as likely anytime soon.
      Neither do I.
      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  35. Not new... by archdetector · · Score: 1

    This and related emails were part of the DOJ's case against MS.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/msft/p29.html

  36. Hasbro... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

    Hasbro should make Nerf chairs for people to throw at meetings. (Like whenever the subject of Microsoft comes up.)

    Maybe mini, hand-sized ones.

    They can give the first case of 'em to Steve for a promo.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  37. ...even MS doesn't play by its own standards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PC with Word 97: Hi, I'm a PC

    PC with Word 2000: and I'm a PC.

    PC with Word XP: and I'm another PC ... (Repeat 17 more times)

    PC with Word 97: So what are you guys working on?

    PC with Word XP: We're working on this year's budget. We need the numbers for your department.

    PC with Word 97: Okay, send it over.

    (Pause)

    PC with Word 97: Here you go.

    (Pause)

    PC with Word XP: What's wrong with this file?

    PC with Word 2000: I don't know, it's formatted all wrong.

    PC with Word XP: I'll bet it's Word 97's fault. Hey, Word 97?

    PC with Word 97: It looks fine to me...

    PC with Word 2000: Word 97, look, you're a cool guy and we really like you, but you can't just go off and mess up a document like that!

    PC with Word 97: But...but...I'm using Word just like you guys!

    PC with Word 2000: Oh oh oh? Listen, I don't have time to play games, I need your numbers in that file without any screwing around!

    1. Re:...even MS doesn't play by its own standards. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, even though 97 might have a problem opening it, he can just tell 2000 to save it in his format. Then, once he sends it back over, 2000 and XP will happily convert it back. Suck it!

    2. Re:...even MS doesn't play by its own standards. by Smurf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, you didn't get it at all. The problem isn't that Word 97 doesn't open Word 2000 files (although I think it actually does). The problem is that a file created in a version of Word tends to get mangled when opened in a different format. Specifically the page layouts tend to get screwed up, something specially infuriating for long documents like a book or a thesis.

      This is not only true when transferring files from a Mac to a PC or vice versa. It also happens among different versions of Word for Windows (or for the Mac, for that matter). Heck, sometimes even moving a file between two PCs with the SAME version of Word screws the layout! (In this case the culprit may be different versions of a font or specifying a different printer).

      For comparison, a document written in LaTeX will look fine when rendered in different versions of LaTeX. Maybe not exactly identical, but at least it will almost always look great anyway. Or consider PDF files, which look and print perfectly on any system/viewer/printer (although they are a pain to edit).

      So, dude, you suck it.

  38. Microsoft business partners, remember this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While your contact at the company is telling you how important you are, while you're being publicized as a partner, always keep in mind:

    Someone there is drafting email about how to do you great damage, immediately.

  39. Re:Now Steve? NOW? by slickwillie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Is this the right time to release OS X for PC's?

    Why wait?

  40. And hurting Apple is bad because...? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How is this any more malicious than Apple preventing X86 Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware? Or refusing to license FairPlay? Or locking out third-party applications on the iPhone?

    Office is Microsoft's IP, and like all their products, it exists primarily to provide a raison d'être for their main cash-cow: Windows licenses. Why should Microsoft increase the value of anything that can become a threat to their business?

    1. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by iPaul · · Score: 1

      It has to do with relative market power. Even though Apple has something like 2/3 market share for MP3 players, they have a much smaller fraction of music sales. They have a very small percentage of the hardware and software market so they can't really dictate terms in those markets. If they had traditionally licensed OSX and had 75% of the PC hardware market, deciding to stop licensing the OS is a possible anti-trust violation. Apple has less than 5% of the market for desktops. The iPhone has, as of today, a 0% market share. If Apple stopped making iTunes for PC's, the only real harm would be to Apple. Likewise, if Microsoft only had 25% of the office software market - their decision to create or not create a Mac OS version would be fine.

      Microsoft, however, has such a large share of the office software market, that they can use it as an economic club in another market (operating systems). Traditionally, what the US has done is to break up concentrations of economic power to promote free-market capitalism. If we can't break them up, like the electric company which is usually a natural monopoly, then we regulate them and limit what the can do and what they can charge. Imagine if Ford had 90% of the tire market. If they stopped selling tires to other auto manufacturers they would be abusing their market power. You could still buy a car - the radio would work.

      I'm not some pinko "everyone play fair" lefty. The concentration of market power into too few hands in industries actually goes against free market principles. Free markets are most efficient when there are many sellers. When you have abusive market power, sellers are able to extract excess profits and make everyone poorer as a result. It's even worse when abusive companies use their power to destroy competitors in other, unrelated markets.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    2. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by banerjek · · Score: 1

      For me to feel sorry for Apple, they'd first have to allow other products to buy stuff from their iTunes store. The whole reason Apple has been marginalized is because they tried to make people get everything through them.

      The result -- everyone bought machines that didn't force them to get everything from one source. MS might learn a few lessons from Apple's screwed up playbook if they want to avoid future heartache.

      Of course, it wouldn't hurt for Apple to learn how to build a decent mouse. Most people really like the two button design. Maybe Apple could increase their coolness factor by removing the keys from the keyboard.....

    3. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by swillden · · Score: 1

      How is this any more malicious than Apple preventing X86 Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware? Or refusing to license FairPlay? Or locking out third-party applications on the iPhone?

      It's different in one way: It's illegal for Microsoft to do it, and business as usual for Apple, or any other non-monopolist, to do it.

      Office is Microsoft's IP, and like all their products, it exists primarily to provide a raison d'être for their main cash-cow: Windows licenses.

      You've put your finger on exactly what Microsoft is not allowed to do. You are not allowed to leverage your monopoly in one area to increase or maintain your market share in another area. In this case, Microsoft has monopolies in both the operating system and office suite space (though there hasn't been a court finding about the monopoly status of Office) and it uses each to maintain the other.

      Microsoft is perfectly within its rights to cancel Office for Mac because it's unprofitable, or because it distracts from other work, or because they just don't like making it any more. But Microsoft is not allowed to make a decision about their Office product specifically to harm a competitor in the operating system space.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I agree it would be exactly like Apple refusing to license FairPlay, because they have a market position that is, not a monopoly, but by far the greatest share of the market, in digital audio players. Their refusal to allow competition is by definition anti-competitive, and is an illegitimate abuse of their market position.

      But it would not be like Apple refusing to license its OS to run on non-Apple hardware. Apple has nothing remotely resembling a monopoly in that area; they can't abuse a market position they don't have.

    5. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 1

      Oh noes! I got modded down! The Apple cultist modstorm brigade is going to kill my karma! My important message will be silenced!

      So far the responses have been as I predicted - claiming that this is some sort of violation of their monopoly status. Remember that they got busted for abusing their monopoly by using it as a vehicle to dump a different product, a web browser, to destroy a potential rival, Netscape. Their intention to compete didn't matter so much as the fact that they were giving it away.

      So if they only decided to start charging an unreasonable price for Office, would that then be a violation of their monopoly? What they couldn't find developers willing to work on it? What if they just decided to start making it suck? I mean, the Apple cultists are always going on and on about how much Microsoft products suck, so how can they expect Microsoft to be under any obligation to make Office suck less for them? How does Microsoft's reasoning have anything to do with it? Would it be ok if Bill did it just out of plain old spite? God knows I would.

      And if Apple is so great, why haven't they made an Office suite so superior that drives the sale of Apple hardware in the enterprise? Remember, Apple isn't even really in the operating system business. Mac OS is just razors to sell brushed metal and plastic.

      The fact is, it was a mere accident that Apple became dependent on Office. To force Microsoft to continue to prop up Mac OS is no different than forcing them to port Office to Linux or Solaris or BeOS. How the hell do you force someone to work on something they want to fail? And why should Apple get special treatment in this regard? Because you like Apple and hate Microsoft? That makes it right?

      Ok, then, let the guberminky bust open iTunes and the so-called FairPlay. Let's not be hypocrites here.

    6. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by iPaul · · Score: 1

      You really don't understand the nature of free-market capitalism, do you? The point is that a company with enough market power to kill competitors in unrelated markets actually harms all consumers. Preserving competition keeps capitalism from descending into the robber-baron economy of the early 20th/late 19th century. You're confusing a free market with an absence of rules. You are right that the remedy is a serious problem, you can't force a company to come out with a high quality product. However, you can make sure that companies understand there's a legal price to pay for throwing around their market weight.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    7. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Not licensing FairPlay is hardly an illegitimate abuse of their market position.

      I invite you to tell me how it is, considering that all it does is make people unable to play iTunes songs on other players. It's not like Apple, by denying them FairPlay, is denying them the ability to sell music.

    8. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      I invite you to tell me how it is, considering that all it does is make people unable to play iTunes songs on other players.

      I submit that it's the other way round: it's the sellers of content that get excluded. Sure, other people can sell MP3s that will play on the audio player that currently has something like 70% of the market (I think that was roughly the figure, last time I checked) -- but no one else can sell DRMed music that will play on it. Now, of course, from one point of view that certainly isn't a bad thing ... but it's certainly not a level playing field. And someone who holds a monopoly has a responsibility to make sure that the playing field is even.

    9. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by Bu11etmagnet · · Score: 1

      Remember, Apple is, at heart, a hardware company. They enjoy very high returns from selling shiny Apple boxes. OS X and all Apple software has one purpose only: to make people buy Apple *hardware*. If any J. Random Intel box could run OS X (out of the box and not through complicated hacks) and people stop buying Apple hardware, Apple would be in big trouble.

      --
      Life is complex, with real and imaginary parts.
    10. Re:And hurting Apple is bad because...? by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      Is it any more malicious than apple not releasing iTunes for Linux?. Apple is the 68th largest corporation in the world, larger than Schlumberger, Credit Suisse, 3m, Rio Tinto, Newscorp, American Express. They may claim to have better ethics than their peers, but do you believe them?

      What is over now with Apple is people thinking that buying apple makes them different and special. I don't think they feel the same way when they buy their post-its from 3M.

  41. Oh really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought that Macs were Windows incompatible to try to hurt Microsoft. I mean, we've got to stick it to the man, now don't we?

  42. bleck by Danzigism · · Score: 1
    as much as I despise Apple in the first place, I don't think a move like this will harm them.. I'm sure they could just make their own Office Suite, or someone will figure out a way to run OpenOffice like the guys at http://porting.openoffice.org/mac

    if they're desperate, they'll install XP on their Mac, or just continue to use older versions of Office for Mac.. at this point in the game, it'd be stupid to stop making the software since I'm sure it makes M$ a *little* bit of a money..

    --
    *plays the Apogee theme song music*
  43. talking out of both sides of your mouth. by twitter · · Score: 1

    Today, you and many others say this is obvious:

    Of course they found emails saying this. It's blatantly obvious to any armchair strategist. The only way you wouldn't find an email somewhere in the MS vault saying something anti-competitive is if the entire organization had been coached not to use this type of language.

    Tomorrow, the M$ astroturfer cloud, will tell me I'm paranoid and that M$ is not that evil.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  44. Ironic Ads anyone? by Tragek · · Score: 1

    I was pretty surprised to find find Windows Live advertising popups (you know, the on-hover ones) on a page very explicitly chastising MS for it's business practices. That being said, i've seen worse.

  45. Re:This is *not* news by Teckla · · Score: 1

    Before bailing out almost bankrupt Jobs and Apple...

    Microsoft's pathetic $150 million investment in Apple made no appreciable difference whatsoever to Apple's finances. Apple had billions in the bank at the time. The investment was nothing more than symbolic.

    Idiot.

  46. ROFL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Is this the new angle for free software "activism"? When did it go from just "we're better" to "you suck and I hate you and you must be an astroturfer"?

    And "M$", boy does that shoot up your credibility...

  47. Microsoft exploded a Bug-Bomb by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    they would get even more for their bribe money to whoever received it that immediately pulled the DOJ dogs off of Microsoft after they had been convicted of abusing their monopoly position.
    I imagine the proceedings went something like this:

    "Due to the severe and heinous nature of your crime, you, Microsoft of Redmond, Washington, are--"

    "Recognized for selfless love and devotion to His Shadow."

    "Of 26 Counts of Monopolistic--, -s of Monopolistic--, -s of Monopolistic--"

    "You, Microsoft of Redmond, Washington--"

    "You are hereby given an Award of Merit!"
    --
    Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    1. Re:Microsoft exploded a Bug-Bomb by j0kkk3l · · Score: 1

      "Recognized for selfless love and devotion to His Shadow."

      I'm sure some of you won't know that "his shadow" is the main evil character in the sci-fi series LEXX's first season. His shadow rules a vast empire of humans and his goal is to destroy humanity.

  48. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by mgabrys_sf · · Score: 1

    Could you tell us what University so the rest of us can stay the fuck away from there?

    Sounds like a fun place to send our kids.

  49. While the DoJ is sleeping ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    From what I've been reading there will be no VBA support for Office 2008. This concerns me, as there are many of our staff and faculty who have invested time and money in macros running in Excel properly. Breaking VBA support in Office 2008 will possibly slow adoption for the Mac OSX platform or make people more reluctant to jump platforms once they discover this problem. I'm not entirely surprised by their decision since it seems to follow a recent trend and an end to the 1997 Apple Microsoft support agreement to bundle IE with OSX.

    - Discontinued Outlook and no MAPI support on Entourage
    - Discontinued IE support (not a huge problem since Safari)
    - Discontinued Windows Media Player and no DRM support for WMV and WMA (Flip4Mac doesn't do DRM)
    - Limited support of MSN Messenger
    - Allowed to purchase Virtual PC from Connectix, stalling G5 support, then killed it
    - Finally crippling Office 2008 by removing VBA
    - Bought Bungie Studios before the release of Halo. Stalled Mac release for number of years. Crippling almost all Mac game development where before Bungie used to create both Mac and PC games, with a little more emphasis for the Macs.

    I suppose Ashcroft and Gonzales have bigger fish to fry because looking at the computer desktop/office monoply isn't worth the USDOJ anti-trust divisions time ;)

    A REVIEW OF RECENT ANTITRUST DIVISION ACTIONS
    DEBORAH PLATT MAJORAS
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General
    Antitrust Division
    U.S. Department of Justice
    June 12, 2003

    In United States v. MathWorks, we challenged an agreement between two head-to-head competitors in the design software field: MathWorks and Wind River. Competition between these two had resulted in significant technical improvements and price reductions for consumers. But their collaboration agreement on the sale and development of software gave MathWorks control over the prices, marketing, support, and future development of the Wind River software and required Wind River to stop its own development and marketing. Shortly after the agreement, Math Works announced that it would undertake no further development of the Wind River products. We reached a settlement with MathWorks pursuant to which a trustee was appointed to sell the Wind River assets, which were successfully sold to National Instruments.

    1. Re:While the DoJ is sleeping ... by zsau · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't mean to criticise *you* (not least because I don't know who you are!), but why is it such a bad thing for MS not to provide tools for Mac OS X, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that they don't provide anything for Red Hat.

      I used to assume it was just because MS didn't compete with Mac OS X because of PPC hardware (according to some strained definition), but they did with GNU/Linux because it usually runs on the x86 platform, but even that strained argument no longer applies...

      --
      Look out!
    2. Re:While the DoJ is sleeping ... by vought · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to criticise *you* (not least because I don't know who you are!), but why is it such a bad thing for MS not to provide tools for Mac OS X, but there's nothing wrong with the fact that they don't provide anything for Red Hat.


      Um, beccause they've offered this feature on the Mac OS for years?

      In other words, they're discontinuing the VBA feature on the Mac. They've never offered,/b> the feature on Red Hat. They are taking this action to reduce the competitiveness of an operating system competitor. They have no such leverage against OO or Linux.

    3. Re:While the DoJ is sleeping ... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      Hang on... so what?

      I didn't realize the precepts of monopoly/antitrust there was "your business model is hereby frozen - you must stick it out in this market forever".

      Companies change direction, change priorities and discontinue products all the time - I'm not sure whereby you think Microsoft should not have the right?

    4. Re:While the DoJ is sleeping ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry your rationale doesn't make sense. Microsoft used to provide all these products for Mac OSX and as a recent trend has slowly killed more and more products for Mac OSX as Apple became more successful, even though Microsoft Office for Mac OSX seems to have healthy sales lately. The GNU/Linux argument would apply if Microsoft had products for Linux then killed it as Linux became more successful. i.e. Microsoft feels that if they slowly remove features they can avoid DoJ scrutiny while avoiding mass migrating to Mac OSX. Microsoft still is an abusive monopolist with a little over 95% share and even greater outside the USA. I am simply pointing out that they are continuing to exert their immense influence on other markets like Macs and to a lesser extent to Linux (now that Ballmer is touting IP infringement with the Novell SUSE deal). Microsoft has less influence of Linux because of OpenOffice. At the same token many more businesses would have probably switched to Linux if Outlook and the Office suite was made for Linux.

    5. Re:While the DoJ is sleeping ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um. Entourage 2004 and Outlook 2007 both come in over the same mechanism to an Exchange server - WebDAV.

      MAPI, at least in terms of running over port 137/138 as most people think of MAPI, is dead.

  50. Enter VMware Fusion by andersh · · Score: 1

    I am soo looking forward to the day VMware finishes the Fusion product for Mac OS, because then all the Apple-haters will have one argument less. You do know Fusion enables you to run Windows in OS X and use DirectX for games? We would not even have to leave OS X to play your Windows games! Probably at a performance cost of course - but we have BootCamp for that!

  51. Article summary is basically a bald-faced lie by drsmithy · · Score: 1

    Just so y'all know - because I'm sure no-one will actually read the thing - the submitter has picked a couple of quotes, utterly out of context, buried in an email exchange that is pretty much 100% positive about Mac Office and its continuation as a product.

    1. Re:Article summary is basically a bald-faced lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be an ass, but this is just one of those things that really peeves me.

      Bald-faced is incorrect. The proper idiom is bold-faced.

    2. Re:Article summary is basically a bald-faced lie by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      Not to be an ass, but this is just one of those things that really peeves me.
      Bald-faced is incorrect. The proper idiom is bold-faced.

      Either is correct, although they have slightly different roots.

  52. Well la de da! by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    You'd think that, over the years, that Apple would have created their own version of Office software that works with MS-Office file formats like OpenOffice.org did? Or at least work with OpenOffice.Org to bundle OOO with OSX instead of MS-Office and break that stranglehold Microsoft has on Macintosh users forcing them to use MS-Office for Macintosh?

    Odd, Microsoft does not make MS-Office for Linux, *BSD Unix, Solaris, and other operating systems and it does not even seem to harm them and their marketshare keeps increasing anyway. I highly doubt that dropping MS-Office for the Macintosh would harm Apple, it would more likely harm Microsoft because Microsoft just cut out a lot of profits from the sales of MS-Office for the Macintosh.

    Logically it would make good business sense for Microsoft to make MS-Office for other platforms as well, which would increase their profits.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Well la de da! by iPaul · · Score: 1

      The fact that Office is on the Mac is an accident of history. Using market power in one market to harm competition in another market may be a violation of law (IANAL). However, they do use the fact there's no 100% compatible Office software for Linux as an sales point. I was an OOO user for a long time, because I spend 95% of my day pounding out code for Unix. It was easier to be on Linux full time for a variety of reasons. I had all sorts pesky, non-catastrophic issues with OOO. For example, reimbursement forms (from Sun!) that are excel spreadsheets. Or timesheets in Excel. Not to mention Word doc after Word doc on policies, procedures, meeting minutes, etc. that failed to open correctly.

      If Microsoft stopped shipping Mac Office, it would take OSX off the radar for many companies, along with consumers and universities. Although I'm not sure what you could do to stop Microsoft from *not* doing something. The current administration (and therefore the DOJ) shows no interest in restricting businesses in any way, shape or form. I'm not sure you could compell Micrsoft to put out an Office release for the Mac.

      BTW I'm sure Apple was very reluctant to offer any kind of Office suite because they knew that all too often No Microsoft Word == No Mac Sale.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    2. Re:Well la de da! by Petrushka · · Score: 1

      You'd think that, over the years, that Apple would have created their own version of Office software that works with MS-Office file formats like OpenOffice.org did?

      They do, at least in the arenas of word processing and presentation software. The rest is in beta.

      Odd, Microsoft does not make MS-Office for Linux, *BSD Unix, Solaris, and other operating systems and it does not even seem to harm them and their marketshare keeps increasing anyway.

      I doubt the accuracy of this last claim; I know of no evidence of *nix/BSD/Solaris market share increasing (though if you have any I'd be glad to hear it). Last I heard, Linux, for example, had been sitting steadily on about 0.30-0.35% of desktops for several years; though I'd be hard pressed to remember my source for that (the evidence impressed me at the time, though).

    3. Re:Well la de da! by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

      > I doubt the accuracy of this last claim; I know of no evidence of *nix/BSD/Solaris market share increasing (though if you have any I'd be glad to hear it). Last I heard, Linux, for example, had been sitting steadily on about 0.30-0.35% of desktops for several years; though I'd be hard pressed to remember my source for that (the evidence impressed me at the time, though).

      You're thinking of HitsLink. HitsLink does show a recent gain in Linux users, but stats from them are pretty much meaningless anyway. I think one problem of many is that they base their stats on ad clicks, so Firefox users (including most Linux users) aren't counted due to AdBlock.

      --
      vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  53. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by maynard · · Score: 1

    It is no University you want to "stay the fuck away from." But, honestly, no. I used to be far more open about my full name and personal contact. That is until people started harassing me by calling my office number, posting my business contact info and soliciting harassment from others, etc. So... sorry. Think: well known technical university on the east coast.

  54. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you read the actual email here (instead of the artice about it), it's a plea to ship Mac Office set against existing discussions of dropping the product because it isn't doing well enough in the market. Microsoft was in ongoing negotiations with Apple and Apple apparently asked them for a guaranty that they would continue shipping Office. Making such a declaration early would have been stupid.

  55. "Overly Critical Guy"? by JimDaGeek · · Score: 0

    I have been using /. for many years now (different UID's).

    I remember "Overly Critical Guy" being a pro MS dude(always). Is this just some MS shill? I am not trolling, I am just wondering why "Overly Critical Guy" looks to have done a 180 on his stance on MS.

    --
    General, you are listening to a machine! Do the world a favor and don't act like one.
  56. Interesting by RHSC · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure whether it's funny or sad that so many people here take personal offense to what one company does or does not do to another. In the end, it's up to them (both Microsoft and Apple) how they want to run their own business, and they are not required to develop for each other.

  57. Just a note on the "investment" by daveschroeder · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I know the parent didn't make reference to this, but a lot of people think it, so:

    In August 1997, Microsoft purchased $150 million in non-voting Apple stock.

    As of the prior quarter, Apple had $1.2 billion in cash on hand .

    The money didn't "bail Apple out", as some people think. It was a symbolic gesture. The symbolism of the "badly needed" "investment" (which really wasn't needed from a financial standpoint) renewed peoples' faith in Apple, renewed the faith that Microsoft and Office would still be on the Mac platform, etc.

    So while you could argue that the gesture was needed (and I'd tend to agree), the money itself wasn't.

    And Microsoft made out like bandits on that investment.

    1. Re:Just a note on the "investment" by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      And Microsoft made out like bandits on that investment.
      As I recall, in a back page newstory of the time, MS simultaneously shorted their position. So they didn't make anything on the "investment": it was a PR stunt.
      --
      -- I speak only for myself
  58. I like it... by thorkyl · · Score: 1

    More Open Office users.

    --
    -- I am the NRA, enough said...
  59. The important thing by proberts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...isn't Word/Excel/Powerpoint- NeoOffice works fine for those, it's Entourage- in an Exchange business environment, that's a key item and mail.app doesn't cut it.

    Paul

    --
    http://www.pauldrobertson.com
  60. 10...9...8... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the slashdot munchkin "there's nothing wrong with this, stop bashing microsoft" brigade.

    Paging Mr. Barkto..

  61. The Commercials did it by abshnasko · · Score: 1

    After watching those Mac vs. PC commercials where Vista is bashed to hell, if I were Microsoft I'd want to pull it too.

  62. MSFT is the same by aristotle-dude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    -DRM
    -Proprietary hardware
    What's proprietary hardware? Only intel can make intel CPUs and intel chipsets. Only NVidia can make Nvidia compatible gfx chipsets. Macs can use the same Ram, hard drives and optical drives as everyone else. Now they even have Intel CPUs in them like other brands. Where is your proof?

    -Proprietary software
    What's wrong with that? Do you even know what proprietary means? A lot of "open source" programs have proprietary file formats of their own. Sorry, but source code is not the same as a documented open standard. MSFT and a bunch of other companies also have proprietary software even by your definition.

    -Closed protocols

    -Lock-ins MSFT's Playsforsure DRM has platform lockin. You cannot use an MTP only device with anything other than windows. MSFT's Zune only works with windows and the Zune software.

    -selected compatibility Would you care to define what you mean by that? MSFT has selected compatibility with windows.

    Anything good said about Apple in comparison to Microsoft is just hypocrisy. Except for human interfaces, that where they excel (ex iPod).
    Give us something solid, not just empty rhetoric and hyperbole.
    --
    Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
  63. Re:old version by Technician · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you could download Open Office for free shortly before MS Office 97 shipped. The project had not even started. It's predicessor StarOffice was not out yet.

    The article contains the PDF of the e-mail. The e-mail discusses the pending release of Office 97 for the Mac.

    OpenOffice.org is based on StarOffice, an office suite developed by StarDivision and acquired by Sun Microsystems in August 1999. The source code of the suite was released in July 2000
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  64. I guess I've misread the article. by seanyboy · · Score: 1

    From what I can tell from reading the original PDF, the Microsoft threat to cancel the Mac Office project had more to do with Apple messing Microsoft about. I assumed they were holding back details which Microsoft needed to make the project work. Secondly, the statement that Microsoft were using Apple users for testing features seems completely unfounded. The emails author was stating that new work on memory management would probably be useful in future releases of Office on Windows. I can only assume that this memory management was added out of necessity. Macs don't or didn't have the best reputation for playing well with memory.

    In all, there seems to be a lot of pride in the Mac version, a degree of frustration at Apple playing politics and no trace of anything anti-competetive. I realise that Microsoft don't have the best rep in the world for playing fair, but this email doesn't show microsoft in anything but a good light.

    --
    Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
    1. Re:I guess I've misread the article. by seanyboy · · Score: 1

      Quoting from T.F.A.

      "The pace of our discussions with Apple as well as their recent unsatisfactory response have certainly frustrated a lot of people at Microsoft. The threat to cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have as doing so will do a great deal of harm..."

      i.e. Microsoft's Mac division were trying to get Apple to do something (probably to do with Mac Office; presumably something technical or marketing based) and Apple were dragging their heels. (Probably to cause damage to the Mac Office release or Mac Office sales). Microsoft *threatened* to take their bat home to force Apple to start behaving properly.

      --
      Training monkeys for world domination since 1439
    2. Re:I guess I've misread the article. by David+Taylor · · Score: 1

      I think lots of other people are mis-reading the e-mails. I can't see anything in there that pretty much any company wouldn't try.

      And that guy that was heading up the Mac team - I'd have him leading my team any day. If that is what most MS engineering people are like then there is a lot that could be learned from them.

  65. just a thought by General+Lee's+Peking · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If Steve Jobs had a secret Intel port of Mac OS X going on for years, is it so hard to imagine that he might have a secret office suite project going on in case Microsoft dumps Apple? The only reason he wouldn't release it would be because Microsoft's support for Apple is good for sales and Apple's own office suite would be for a ``use only in case of emergency'' scenario. I mean, even if it were vastly superior to Microsoft Office, it would be a hard sell.

    1. Re:just a thought by iPaul · · Score: 1

      That would be cool. Of course MS would then cram a bunch of A-player engineers back into Office for Mac, to crush Apple's office suite for the Mac. So that they could take it away again. On a serious note, I wonder if reverse engineering the Office file formats would tickle MS into suing Apple on copyright gournds?

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    2. Re:just a thought by General+Lee's+Peking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Apple had been secretly developing a serious office suite (as opposed to iWork) for years, having learned from mistakes made in MS Office, I doubt very much Microsoft could do anything to blow it away in an instant. These things take time to design and develop, no matter how many or how good your ``A-players''. And Apple doesn't have to reverse engineer doodly-squat when they can work (and are already working) with DataViz who is licensed to work with MS document formats. So what I mentioned is indeed possible.

  66. no big deal by oohshiny · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think there are many things I'd fault Microsoft for, but dropping Office for Macintosh isn't one of them. The problem with Office is its proprietary and closed formats, and those don't get fixed by having a Mac version.

    While Apple fans like to talk about Apple vs. Microsoft, Apple's actions suggest that they would really simply like to be part of a cozy little duopoly with Microsoft.

  67. What if they did? by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

    In addition to other office suits like NeoOffice available for the Mac, KOffice and a bevy of other KDE-related software is about to become easily portable to the Mac as a native application, thanks to Qt 4.x. People will be looking at it more in the future. What if Apple got the incentive to do with KOffice as they did with KHTML to make Safari?

    To paraphrase: the more you tighten your grip, Microsoft, the more users will slip through your fingers. ;)

    1. Re:What if they did? by walter_f · · Score: 1

      What if Apple got the incentive to do with KOffice as they did with KHTML to make Safari?

      You mean, take the code and be done with that?

      Hopefully, KOffice has been put under a better licence than the KHTML code.

      A GPL licence would have prevented this (which was, formally, a legitimate behaviour, of course).

      Walter.

    2. Re:What if they did? by Dasher42 · · Score: 1

      Well, not to reopen that can of worms, but they did give back the code, albeit after huge changes and without revision control metadata. That still counts. I don't get the sense that they meant any spite to the KDE developers, they just have their own way of doing things. After all, they use Objective C.

  68. A long, long time ago... by flyingfsck · · Score: 2, Interesting

    documents were created with typewriters or written by hand. Then Wordstar happened. No-one gave a shit about layout and preservation of fonts when converting to/from WordPerfect. It was good enough if the text contents got transferred during a transfer. It still applies today. The fact is that the exact layout and preservation thereof during a transfer is nice to have, but not essential.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:A long, long time ago... by mrchaotica · · Score: 0

      The fact is that the exact layout and preservation thereof during a transfer is nice to have, but not essential.

      No, the fact is that the vast majority of people have no business wasting time on presentation in the first place! Just think of what a gigantic waste of time Microsoft has singlehandedly caused through Word, because everybody was messing with their fonts and shit when they could have just used plaintext instead and been done with it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  69. The old OOo vs MSOffice by sparkz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been of the view that OpenOffice can deal with just about every MS Office document, since the days of StarDivision's StarOffice 5.1 (remember that?).

    However, I have also been a *nix user all that time. For the past 18 months, my work has required me to work with MS Office (and therefore, Wintel desktop).

    I had not realised quite how bad the situation was; I know that the .doc format is undocumented, even internally within MS, but using an entire MS Office suite, provided by one of MS's largest partners (EDS), it is a horrible, ugly mess. We have documents embedded within documents; opening an embedded document means that I have to enable/disable macros within the new document. Unfortunately, it doesn't work, so you double-click the icon, click "Enable", nothing happens, double-click the icon again, and the embedded doc opens. This is apparently "correct behaviour".

    We also have various templates, which I naively assumed could be edited as required, by an untrained user (such as myself; I'm certified in WfWG3.11, but nothing since from MS!). This is the corporate standard, after all. But no, I have to admit failure. I cannot edit our templates. Maybe that's me, maybe it's MS. I can configure cross-site clusters, but I can't edit an MS Word document. I don't think that the deficiency is in my own IT knowledge.

    I have to be open - I don't much care for Windows, it's not a huge dislike, it's just not a big part of my life. I find configuring Samba/CUPS on my Ubuntu print server rather difficult to do (http://steve-parker.org/urandom/?y=2007&m=01#prin ters_hp3180), and in the end, I gave up, scp'd the .doc to the Linux box and opened it in OpenOffice.org, to print it direct. It was a steaming mess, nothing like the original MS Word document.

    So, I am finally forced to agree that OOo is no replacement for corporate uses of MS Office. It's not OOo's problem, though; it's MSO's problem. It's an undocumented pile of layers upon layers upon layers, dating back to the late 1980s.

    Ugh. I can't deal with MS Office docs using OpenOffice.org, but then again, I can't do much with them using MS Office, either.

    The key problem seems to be the format, more than the app itself. Neither app fully understands the format, and so neither app quite manages to display it properly.

    In the past, I've opened .doc files in OOo, just to find a random blank page part way through, which I could not delete. I had assumed that that was a flaw of OOo, but I've had the same problem with MS Word documents in MS Word!

    Let alone the issues about how future generations are going to access this information, the fact that the corporate standard is MS Office, seems to be a classic example of following the herd over the cliff.

    I am still waiting for the perfect (or even near-perfect) office suite. OOo is the closest, with open (if complex) code, and an open (and well-documented) file format.

    --
    Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    1. Re:The old OOo vs MSOffice by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am still waiting for the perfect (or even near-perfect) office suite. OOo is the closest, with open (if complex) code, and an open (and well-documented) file format.

      It'll never happen, because "office suites" are inherently wrong. Like above, with your example of "embedding documents" -- that's wrong. The concept doesn't even make sense! Or putting content and presentation together haphazardly -- that's wrong, too. Yet that's exactly what Word is designed to do. And "macros?" Wrong! A document and an application are two different things. Documents aren't meant to be executable! Because of these things, MS Office and OpenOffice, like 'goto,' should be considered harmful.

      So what's the "right" thing? XHTML, with separate content and stylesheet, is the "right" thing. TeX is the "right" thing. Writing an actual application when you need an application, instead of hacking the functionality into Word or Excel using VBA, is the "right" thing. And most importantly, realizing that the point of the document is the content, and that you shouldn't be wasting time with excessive markup in Word, is the "right" thing!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:The old OOo vs MSOffice by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I am finally forced to agree that OOo is no replacement for corporate uses of MS Office. It's not OOo's problem, though; it's MSO's problem.

      Except that Microsoft hold all the power, and will do until such time as some of the large-scale highly publicised OO.o migration plans come to fruition.

      While it's technically Microsoft's problem, don't for one minute imagine that they consider it to be a problem.

    3. Re:The old OOo vs MSOffice by Dputiger · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I read posts like this and I honestly wonder what the heck you were trying to do. Maybe it's simply that I've never run across the specific scenarios you describe, but I've been using MS Office (and templates, embedded documents, etc) in one form or another for a decade, without running into these types of issues. At one point, you stated: I cannot edit our templates. Maybe that's me, maybe it's MS. I can configure cross-site clusters, but I can't edit an MS Word document. I don't think that the deficiency is in my own IT knowledge., but the comparison is flawed and inapplicable due to the incredibly broad nature of what "IT knowledge" can mean. It's entirely possible to be a specialist in a specific IT area, while still knowing nothing about other segments. By your own admission, Windows isn't a big part of your life--but even if it was, being certified on Vista and XP would still say nothing, inherently, about your familiarity with the MS Office software package. Instead of getting into a vague discussion of file formats and such, I'd hit the basics of MS Office usage and configuration. I've never attempted to write a file template--I've never had to do so--but if I had to write one, I wouldn't assume that a background in networking, Unix, and Linux meant that I knew anything about doing the job correctly.

    4. Re:The old OOo vs MSOffice by synthespian · · Score: 1

      I am still waiting for the perfect (or even near-perfect) office suite. OOo is the closest, with open (if complex) code, and an open (and well-documented) file format.

      I've bough a SoftMaker Office suite license for my FreeBSD, and I'm pretty satisfied. It's much more compatible than anything you'll be able to find (even more so for Unix/Linux). Opens complex Excel documents. Not perfect, but I've had it with OO.org. I can't be wasting time with stupid errors. Give it a try (it's a fair 69.95 - and they also have academic prices and bundles).

      http://www.softmaker.com/english/

      --
      Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
  70. Mac Office 4.2 by dcemt · · Score: 2, Interesting

    To keep this in historical context, in June 1987, the current version of Mac Office was version 4.2.1. It was a direct port of the Windows version and released in 1994. As such, it did not behave or look like a Mac application. By 1997 the age of the program and its poor reputation contributed to poor sales. Office 98 was certainly was under development, but had not yet been released at this point. Office 98 proved to be a successful release due to its feature set and mac-like interface. At the time of this email howerver, the success of both Office on the Mac and the Mac in general were very much in question. It also makes sense to test new features on the Mac version, which is geared much more for home use than its Windows counterpart.

    1. Re:Mac Office 4.2 by phillymjs · · Score: 1

      It was a direct port of the Windows version and released in 1994. As such, it did not behave or look like a Mac application. By 1997 the age of the program and its poor reputation contributed to poor sales.

      Just wanted to add that Office 4.2.1 contained Word 6.0-- which was such a bloated piece of shit compared to its predecessor, Word 5.1, that Microsoft actually responded to customer outrage by resuming sales of 5.1. I worked at a university bookstore at the time, and 5.1 seriously outsold 6.0.

      The Word 6.0 debacle more or less directly led to the formation of the Mac Business Unit, which gave us Office 98 and every Microsoft product for the Mac since.

      ~Philly

  71. I wish they had discontinued it. by Lockelator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Apple then would have come out with something compatible, better, and free. Look at keynote, for example.

    1. Re:I wish they had discontinued it. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      I don't think they would of had something available so quickly.

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
    2. Re:I wish they had discontinued it. by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Although Keynote was immediately better in its first iteration than PowerPoint and its 10 year head start, it isn't free. Still, Keynote does cost much less and is a much superior product. It is too bad that PowerPoint has such a foothold in the brains of billions of people who lack all ability to consider alternatives.

    3. Re:I wish they had discontinued it. by natural1 · · Score: 1

      "...something compatible, better, and free. Look at keynote, for example." Well, Keynote isn't better than PowerPoint and it's not free, but it is compatible. One out of three ain't bad...

  72. Its the format.... by 5ynic · · Score: 1

    Yup. It's 20 years worth of cruft-in-a-box. Much of it is undocumented. Much of it is unreliable black-box mumbo-jumbo. What you say about editing templates is so depressing and familiar - I've had similar moments of madness recently. My background is in RDBMS coding/design... I can optimise and debug nasty SQL Stored procedures for a large finance-house application, but I can't get alternate-page headers and footers to work reliably in an MSWord mail-merge - something is rotten! I'm keeping my fingers crossed an escape route will exist, however briefly, and getting ready to bail, even if there's some pain involved.

    --
    ceci n'est pas un sig
  73. Mega FUD by Zorque · · Score: 1

    Oh no, a company discontinuing a product they've made for their competitor so that they can gain the upper hand! Welcome to business, folks.

    1. Re:Mega FUD by swordgeek · · Score: 1

      You're right of course. The first thing that came out of my mouth when I read it was, "no shit sherlock!"

      BUT, let's not forget that Microsoft is a legal monopoly, and as such are subject to anti-trust acts. This may be something that contravenes allowable behaviour under such laws.

      --

      "People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
    2. Re:Mega FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait.. Microsoft would be required to produce Office for Mac for the rest of eternity? Thats pretty shitty.

  74. Exchange by sparkz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do have a very good point there. MS Exchange is a "killer app", not because it's good, but because if it's deployed once, it has to be deployed everywhere to be useful. So if a corp decides on MS Exchange, it needs to use MS Outlook, therefore it needs to use MS Windows.

    I know that Hydrogen et al have done what thay can, but (forgive me, I've not been watching lately), have they got 100% compatibility?

    I now get Outlook meeting appointments from third parties, requiring MS Exchange/Outlook all round. But then, it seems that the "innovation" behind this involves a simple one-liner text-based email saying "Accepted: "

    Desktop is not my field, but this whole "we need MS because they use MS" thing must be cross between a house of cards and the emperor's new clothes; somebody will come up with the "Eureka!" moment to get us out of this apparent vendor lock-in.

    I just wish that I was smart enough to be that person

    --
    Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
    1. Re:Exchange by jimicus · · Score: 1

      I've yet to find anything which has 100% compatability. Everything I've found depends on a plugin installed for Outlook, and the plugins tend to vary in terms of how good they are.

      One thing they frequently don't offer, which Exchange/Outlook does, is realtime updating of free/busy information. It doesn't sound like much, but without it you've got a massive race condition every single time someone schedules a meeting. The first manager to get tripped up by this will have IT's guts for garters.

      Actually, that's not strictly true. Scalix claims 100% compatability, complete with support for HA, clustering with Exchange and various other things, but I've looked into that and found the licensing costs for that particular edition to be comparable to Exchange itself. Additionally, while it claims to have great integration with Active Directory, it doesn't integrate with any other directory services. So you'd still need an AD domain, which right now implies at least two Windows servers and the appropriate licensing.

  75. Convicted monopolist? LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MS is already a convicted monopolist.


    It always makes me laugh when I see this kind of idiotic statement. It shows a true lack of understanding.

    Clue: being a monopoly isn't illegal. You can't be "convicted" of being a monopoly. Abusing a monopoly to gain an unfair competitive advantage is illegal. Big difference.

    It's like saying someone who got a speeding ticket is a convicted driver. How stupid does that sound? No, they're a convicted speeder. Bad car analogies FTW!
    1. Re:Convicted monopolist? LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And your response is just as idiotic.

      MS holds a monopoly.

      MS has been convicted of abusing their monopoly.

      MS is a convicted (2nd point) monopolist(first point).

      Was that so hard?

    2. Re:Convicted monopolist? LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, what a fucking moron. Let me get this straight:

      Bob likes to play video games.

      Bob was convicted of shoplifting.

      Bob is a convicted (2nd point) gamer (first point).

      Gotcha. Idiot.

  76. Re:Now Steve? NOW? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

    OS X isn't ready to run on an uncontrolled hardware platform.

  77. Exactly! by unassimilatible · · Score: 1
    The biased article suggests it's an attempt to run Apple off the road, simply ratfuck them for anti-competitive reasons; when in reality Gates wants to do business with Apple, and is just playing hardball. That is a huge difference.


    Makes you wonder if submitter even read the e-mail before he posted the story!

    --
    Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
  78. Timex Sinclair 1500 - Excellent Little Computer! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TS1000 Emulator .

    The Computer community could use a $99 Linux 'Timex Sinclair' type computer -
    With enough memory and fuctionality to use web applications, print things, and save stuff to an external USB hard drive. All solid state with no moving parts. (add optional USB hard drive, USB cd-writer, USB printer, etc)

    Have it come with a 2GB flash stick loaded into a USB 2.0 slot, and hook up to your TV/VGA monitor.

    The TS2007 - Runs Linux!

    The Timex Sinclair 1500 is an awesome little design.

    I bought the 'Learn Computers' TS 1500 suitcase kits on Ebay - Mint condition no less. Everything works flawlessly.

    I want to buy a TS 1500 form factor Linux machine right now!

  79. Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pay? by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple charges double for everything it sells.

    Can you back up this statement? The last price comparison I saw between equivilently equiped Macs and Windows PCs Macs edged out Windows on a price/feature basis.

    Falcon
  80. Apple has Aperture (high end) by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Aperture isn't a dropin replacement for Photoshop, it's not meant to be a thorough photo editor. What Aperture comes closest to in regards to Adobe software is Lightroom, which Adobe is just releasing version 1.0 from beta. If you're going to do any in depth photoediting you'll still need Photoshop.

    Falcon
  81. OS X isn't ready to run on an uncontrolled hardwar by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I'd be supprised if Apple were to release OSX for commodity PCs, though I would like to see it. Apple is as much a hardward as a software company and they've already found out that if they allow Mac clones they will loose hardware sales. For a few years, while Jobs was gone, Apple did license clones. But when Jobs was brought back he ended that as Apple was loosing money because of it.

    Falcon
  82. MS pulling OO for Macs by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    So no, OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite: they do it while there's still time, before OOo gets good enough that Mac users would just say "good riddance" to MS. Right now, they can't, so MS plays its card.

    The problem with this though is that MS pulling out of Office for Macs will drive more people to OO and therefore OO will gain capabilities faster. If MS really wanted to harm OO they would release MS Office for Linux and make it affordable. The only reason a person would then use OO is because they won't use MS products.

    Falcon
  83. Microsoft must be very careful of anti-trust laws by Jeff1946 · · Score: 1

    If the justice department (oxymoron under Bush) decided for anti-trust reasons to break up Microsoft a straightforward thing to do would be to separate the operating system portion from the office portion and eventually allow them both to compete with each other. For this reason Microsoft should very careful about doing non competative actions. The government also could specify a standard word processing format and only purchase software that used it. Again Microsoft must be careful of how they tread. Just ask AT&T. IBM was facing a similar situation but was saved when the Intel/Microsoft based PCs took over so much of the computer business.

  84. One thing I've learned by mattgreen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Slashdotters hate being told that what they're discussing isn't important, even though that is the case with petty OS arguments. A mere discussion of operating systems somehow snowballs into a discussion of politics and religion that has very little bearing on reality. The personal anecdote is respected almost as factual content. This behavior is exemplified by the two replies you've gotten that say, "hey lighten up!"

    Parent is absolutely right: there's a whole world out there with REAL problems that need to be fixed, not some lame ass "my hate for a particular company dictates my worldview" tripe that passes for news around here.

    1. Re:One thing I've learned by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Matt, but I think this story IS part of the "real problem". We're being shown this silly OS-War but there's little difference between Apple and MS. In fact, I've started seeing Mac as a more prestigious nameplate of Microsoft, just like Lexus for Toyota.

      They're both feeding the same monster.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    2. Re:One thing I've learned by spookybones · · Score: 1

      Oddly enough, RMS would completely agree with you. Not all zealots are as zealous as they seem.

  85. Not a replacement for *who*? by babbling · · Score: 1

    When you say "replacement" you have to define what type of user you are talking about. I'm a casual user of office software, so I might use it to type a letter I intend to print, or to create a spreadsheet for personal use. For my purposes, OpenOffice is easily a replacement.

    I think you'll find that for most students writing up essays or school projects, OpenOffice is also a suitable replacement.

    Perhaps there are some users in business environments who need more out of their office software than OpenOffice offers (I can't really imagine what...), but for at least 50% of users, I think OpenOffice would be a very decent replacement, especially considering the cost savings.

  86. Ha, the test features make people want a Mac. by Jahz · · Score: 1

    The document also confirms that Microsoft at the time saw Office for the Mac as a chance to test new features in the product before they appeared in Windows, 'because it is so much less critical to our business than Windows.'" Definitely true, and they clearly still feel this way. I never had any stability issues with Office X or problems with partially implemented features. It feels like a really solid product.

    Ironically, Office X is years ahead of the latest Windows Office in terms of user interface and usability. My Windows friends are always amazed at the sleeker, semi-transparent, foldable-menu UI on the Mac version that i've been using for years now! Additionally the presentation mode of PP is top notch, really. Much better than the way its done on Windows. Worth noting that I only really use Word for text processing and PP for presentations on occasion.

    Now, when my friend use to tell me that they couldnt get a Mac because they need Windows for the applications, they would always note Office as the most important one. When I showed them how much cooler it looks running on a Mac, they shut up pretty quick and walked away mumbling. Now, you can't walk through the halls without noticing that half of the laptops are Macbooks. I rarely hear this argument anymore, especially with boot camp.
    --
    There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
  87. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    > This is principally due to MS Office support; users want it. Badly.

    You're migrating platforms over an office suite? That's silly, especially since Linux can run M$ Office through at least XP with WINE, and work on newer versions is ongoing.

    Hell, even if your administrators aren't good enough to be able to set up a WINE config file, buying CrossOver Office to do it for them would still be cheaper than shelling out for a fleet of Macs.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  88. Point a gun to that guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have Microsoft Office (illegal copy of course) in both my Mac Mini and Mac Book Pro but I don't use it at all. I just have to show friends that there is a 'Office' for Mac. I do use NeoOffice and have used it (OpenOffice) for years in both Windows and Linux.

    I am old time use of StarOffice/OpenOffice/NeoOffice and I am sick and tired of the old song 'OOo is *almost* there'. The truth is that some users like to use what they know Windows/Office and won't change unless you point a gun to them and force them to use it for 6 months. And even them they might get shot.

  89. playing the Infopath / MS OOXML lock-in by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1

    I think the big question is: did Microsoft consider dropping it merely because it wasn't generating enough revenue, or mostly because they wanted to hurt Apple.

    I would posit the latter. Look at some of the ODBC problems in M$ products for Apple. The problems have been around for ages and M$ has no plans to fix them, and hasn't fixed them despite new releases. The solution promoted is to ditch Apple. That company doesn't appear to treat Windows users any better, so my solution, however, was to ditch M$ and that has worked quite well.

    Yes, the M$ Office for Apple has been profitable, but another reason for M$ to keep it around would be to maintain the lock on the office file formats. So to drop it now is probably just trying to force the few into Windows and thus the InfoPath / MS OOXML lock-in. IMHO, it's a premature move and will cost them.

    There are a quite a few options, that are in most ways better, though different. The weakest points, which could go away in short order, are the file formats. The M$ formats are still undocumented and only some on the list below fully support OpenDocument, though that number is rapidly growing.

    That's just focusing on word processors. There is a similar range of choice for spreadsheets and presentation graphics. Now see how important control of those file formats is.

    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  90. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by Deviate_X · · Score: 1

    Microsoft are not dropping Mac support for office - this report is from 1997, and if you actually read the email, you will find that its actually talking about improving support for the mac and justifying supporting the mac and apple despite the 1997 drop in sales.

    The macworld.co.uk website has twisted this around for _entertainment_ purposes, probably with the assumption that people would not actually read the email

    The email: http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/1 22106/PLEX0_6060.pdf

  91. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by 10Ghz · · Score: 4, Informative

    30GB Zune: $249.99
    30GB iPod: $249

    "Nearly double"? On what planet are you living on? And the Zune is bigger and it weights more (iPod: 4.8 ounces, Zune: 5.6 ounces).

    Please give some real examples of this "nearly double" prices Apple asks for it's mp3-players. Go on, it shouldn't be that hard, right?

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  92. mod you up if I could by Wabbit+Wabbit · · Score: 1

    For the Lexx reference. Not every day you see one of those around here.

    --
    Nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained -Tom Baker, Doctor Who
  93. Another stupid car analogy? Please no... by rbarreira · · Score: 1

    Why do slashdotters always use stupid car analogies? Your analogy doesn't even work. Road tires are necessary to make cars, office software isn't necessary to make computers at all.

    --

    The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    1. Re:Another stupid car analogy? Please no... by iPaul · · Score: 1

      I was actually reaching for some analogy that didn't involve computers. I realized I wasn't like 95% of the computer users out there when I thought it was odd that Microsoft didn't deliver a compiler with Windows. After all, how useful is an OS without a compiler. Then came the horrible realization. For most computer users office software is the dominant tool outside of the web. I would argue that having an OS without an office solution, to most people, is like a car without tires. Note, also, I said Ford has a large percentage of the tire market, not 100%. GM could still buy tires from some other company, but it would be more of a niche solution. You probably wouldn't find the tires you needed at your local garage, etc.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
    2. Re:Another stupid car analogy? Please no... by rbarreira · · Score: 1
      But does Apple buy Office from microsoft to include it the computers they sell? No they don't. That's the beginning of the end of your analogy's validity, but there's more:

      • A car is not functional without tires, while a computer is fully functional without office software
      • You can build tires which work with any car, but you can't build office software which works in every platform (don't come talking about Java or .NET, that's obviously not a solution here)


      Is that enough to make you forget the car analogy? If not, just think about this: by your logic, Microsoft is supposed to make versions of Office eternally, no matter how much money the lose because of that? If that's the law, it's got to be a very fucked up one to have that consequence.
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    3. Re:Another stupid car analogy? Please no... by iPaul · · Score: 1

      You could still play with the radio and the wiper blades, but okay, we're going to disagree about the car thing. I think you get my point about the necessity of an office suite to make computers useful to the large part of market.

      That's the point, though, that Microsoft makes something that greatly enhances the functionality of the Mac. In various anti-trust cases, such as ATT's breakup, the government forced corporations with excessive market share to make unprofitable decisions in certain markets, because their actions could cause large, irrepairable harm to competitors. For example, ATT was essentially ham-strung by the government for over a decade. In the 1950's GM approached 50% market share and actually became concerned they might be subject to anti-trust actions by the government. They were careful not to do anything that would appear to harm Ford, American(?) Motors, or Chrysler.

      Microsoft could probably stop making office because it's unprofitable, and especially with this DOJ, would probably not have to undergo serious anti-trust scrutiny. However, to can a profitable product, when you have the market power Microsoft has and with the sole purpose of harming a competitor, is a violation of the law. It's not a matter of being pro-mac or anti-microsoft. It's a matter of the laws we've put in place to ensure that markets are not directed by one or a few people. Competition makes capitalism work - monopoly is not much better than a state run economy. I can't remember specifics off hand but the DOJ has brought some recent anti-trust actions in other markets where the participants had far less than 95% of the market.

      --
      Leave the gun, take the cannoli -- Clemenza, The Godfather
  94. insert fud here and mod up .. by rs232 · · Score: 0

    'OOo won't replace MSOffice quite yet. Which incidentally is why I think MS is pulling the plug on the Mac Office suite'

    'The threat to Cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately'

    was: Re:That's why kids... (Score:5, Insightful)

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  95. the threat to Cancel Mac Office 97 .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    Why were they considering threatening to cancel Mac Office. Who first proposed threatening to cancel Mac Office.

    'The threat to Cancel Mac Office 97 is certainly the strongest bargaining point we have, as doing so will do a great deal of harm to Apple immediately'

    Email Communications (Score:5, Interesting)

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  96. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "Fine, then. MP3 players. Can you cite a tangible reason (not just "ooh, design! shiny!") why iPods are typically 70-90% more expensive than comparable models from other manufacturers. And lets remember ... NEARLY DOUBLE... not just a little more."

    What kind of argument is that? Is not "design! shiny!" a tangible reason?

    By your kind of logic you can also explain to us why a Ferrari costs 1000x more expensive than a regular car apart reasons like "design!" and "faster engines!"

    So what if it is faster, the engines are made of the same metal, who cares what amount of intellectual property and engineering has gone into it. It is free right? You are only paying for the materials. Yeah right.

  97. For 90% of MSO users, OOo is BETTER by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the 10% it is worse.

    Why is OOo better?

    Handles old Win docs better
    No printer-dependant output
    Cheaper
    95% of the functionality is there and the 5% you need doesn't get used and can be found in a different manner anyway.

    So for 10% of the time, there may be something you need another tool for and when everyone is working on the EXACT SAME production system the accuracy of MSO (same version, same DLLs same printers, same drivers...) is higher than OOo. That level of similarity isn't common, though, and if it breaks more than a miniscule ammount, the fidelity of OOo is as good as the various boxes with MSO.

  98. Misleading title by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    "Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple" -> Microsoft didn't "want" anything.

    They were discussing it, but mostly as as a card for bargaining with Apple on different matter. Notice Bill Gates said if they can hide their progress from Apple, since revealing the project is almost done and to be out will put them in a worse position for negotiations.

    Or you believe Microsoft should simply say "hey what the heck, Office it the de-facto Office package, so we can't negotiate our position, we'll just bend-over and let be f-ed in the ass by everyone".

    1. Re:Misleading title by KiahZero · · Score: 1

      It's really quite simple. Microsoft, as a monopolist in not one but two markets (operating systems and office software) can't use their monopoly in one for the purpose of helping the other. Thus, even using it "as a card for bargaining" is abusing their monopoly, as they would therefore receive a better deal in bargaining with the card than without it (if this wasn't the case, there would be no need to have it "as a card" in the first place).

      --
      I'm a lawyer, but not yours. I wouldn't represent someone who thinks taking legal advice from Slashdot is a good idea.
  99. Keynote is free? by walter_f · · Score: 1

    So Apple has started to give it away for free?

    The threat to cancel MS Office for Mac OS is and has been the big stick that Microsoft has never missed to shake in Apple's direction.

    To come out with "something compatible" to MS Office for Windows is not an easy thing to do.

    Apple could have supported the development of OpenOffice in a substantial way for years now (this would have been the way to go), but they rather preferred not to.

    As a consequence, Microsoft's big stick will continue to work perfectly.

    Walter.

  100. I, for one.... by JeffTL · · Score: 1

    I, for one, have been enjoying getting to use Excel Page Layout View years before almost everyone else.

  101. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by maynard · · Score: 1

    Oh, we're good enough to support wine (if the users wanted it). No. We're migrating to OS X because users demand it. This is exactly how Linux came into the lab. People just installed it everywhere until it became so unwieldy for users to support on their own that they hired staff to do so. This time, the staff are on top of the migration and planning for it.

    We are a university laboratory. Each professor has their own income stream, their own projects, and their own group of postdocs and grad students. Our goal is to make certain the computers they connect to our network are secure, and configured such that they can utilize basic services. And then there's data retention.

    My job exists to support scientists conduct science. I am not paid to promote a politico-software philosophy

  102. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by synthespian · · Score: 1

    High fidelity? A lot of MP3 players on the market aren't Hi Fi.

    --
    Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
  103. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    MP3 players are by definition never Hi-Fi, not even the fairy touch of Apple can change that.

  104. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Fine, then. MP3 players.

    One example does not prove Apple charges double for everything. And as the post I replied to says, they do: "Apple charges double for everything it sells".

    why iPods are typically 70-90% more expensive than comparable models from other manufacturers.

    I neither own any mpg3 music players nor follow the industry so I can't say how the prices of iPods compare to others. And I don't plan on getting any, the next music player I may get is a turntable for playing vinyl.

    Falcon
  105. Hello, I don't RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An emailed memo from Microsoft-founder Bill Gates to then Mac Business Unit chief Ben Waldman dated June 1997 talks about morale in the Mac Office development camp.

  106. I say drop it by darrenkopp · · Score: 1

    Seeing as how apple is delaying releasing a patch for the ipod becuase windows vista "supposedly" messes up the songs on your ipod, i say take office off of the mac. Maybe when people start switching back to Microsoft to use office, apple will look beyond their ego and fix a problem, if it is a problem, within the 12 months BEFORE the next microsoft operating system is released, rather than leaving it unresolved a month AFTER it's released.

  107. That's one way to look at it... by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 1

    ... another way to look at it is that Microsoft actually showed compassion and basically saved Apple from bankruptcy.

    Of course, that doesn't make a good Slashdot headline. So never mind.

    1. Re:That's one way to look at it... by zioncat · · Score: 1

      Wow. I hope you're being sarcastic.

    2. Re:That's one way to look at it... by ThinkFr33ly · · Score: 1

      Not at all. What about Paul's article is unresonable or incorrect?

  108. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by Gropo · · Score: 1

    Can you back up this statement?
    (...Queue the "brand new factory MacBook Pro" versus "Refurbished Dell" herring)
    --
    I hate Grammar Nazi's
  109. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
    No, you're right, it's not hard - from Amazon:

    iPod Nano 2g, 4GB, $193.98, vs RCA 4GB Mini Jukebox, $89.99, vs Creative Zen 4GB $140 (not quite double on this one, sure), vs Sandisk Sansa 4GB, $103.

    Sorry, you were saying?

  110. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

    The ipod is half as thick as the mini jukebox and has a color display, the creative weighs TWO POUNDS and is considerably larger than the ipod, the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run and is twice as thick as the ipod as well (otherwise it looks like a nice player, though it is a good 50% off the suggested retail price through amazon, where as the ipod is only 3% off). Apples to Oranges.

  111. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
    All subjective. Again, why are any of those factors justification for 75% differences in pricing?

    So what if the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run? iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).

    though it is a good 50% off the suggested retail price through amazon, where as the ipod is only 3% off). Apples to Oranges.

    Utterly irrelevant - bottom line is that those are prices consumers can pay. Not consumers problem if Apple gets pissy at sellers selling iPods below RRP! Do you whine that you paid less than MSRP for your new car, too? Or that that amount less than MSRP for the car might be less if said car is in demand?

  112. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).

    I wouldn't call running gtkpod a "kludge" any more than running iTunes is a kludge. You open the program, connect the device, transfer the songs to/from the device, and you're done. How's that a kludge?

    No, it's not as easy as accessing it as a USB mass storage device like my iRiver, but it's no worse than using iTunes.

  113. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by BarryJacobsen · · Score: 1

    All subjective. Again, why are any of those factors justification for 75% differences in pricing?

    Subjective?!?! Do you know what that word means? These are OBJECTIVE differences between the products. The cheapest product you listed lacks the color screen (which adds cost) and is TWICE as thick as the ipod despite the fact that competing in the area of PORTABLE MP3 players (which again, adds cost, if you're going for a small player, you want a SMALL player).

    So what if the Sandisk requires Windows XP to run? iPod requires iTunes to run. Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge).

    Well, that means the ipod runs on TWICE the platforms of the sandisk, which is a consideration for some people and likewise could justify a cost increase.

    Utterly irrelevant - bottom line is that those are prices consumers can pay. Not consumers problem if Apple gets pissy at sellers selling iPods below RRP! Do you whine that you paid less than MSRP for your new car, too? Or that that amount less than MSRP for the car might be less if said car is in demand?

    No, I don't whine that I pay less, though I do wonder why, and in this case I would assume it's because they CANNOT sell the players and have an ABUNDANCE of them (implied: because no one wants them for one reason or another), where as ipods do not vary in cost because they have a clear demand. It's worth something to have a product that I know will still be made in a few years as it means I will still have support.

  114. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

    Subjective?!?! Do you know what that word means? These are OBJECTIVE differences between the products.

    Good point. I'll grant you, I was ambiguous with the intention of what I was saying. Those tangible differences are not inherently better. Up to a point it costs no more to make a product bigger or smaller, so the appeal is subjective. Likewise with the weight, as 'rugged' is a feature some people want. I know I (as someone who moved from an iRiver to an iPod to a Nano, my current player, so please don't take this as an anti-Apple diatribe) would have little issue with my nano being twice as thick. You might. It's all good. But again, the costs of shrinking an object are negligible, to a point.

    No, I don't whine that I pay less, though I do wonder why

    Rebates, seller incentives, marketing promotions. You're right - it is partially supply and demand, of course, I'm not naive enough to believe otherwise. On the other hand, there are a few companies that are known to get ultra pissed off when people sell products below RRP, and Apple is one of these. Why should they care? They get the same amount from the wholesaler? You have to ask why they have an issue with a big seller being content to razor his margins. It's not supply and demand at that point. It's due to Apple's incessant desire to control every aspect of product perception (which is fine, to a degree). And if that happens to be at a higher price point for no discernible reason (which to be fari, I'm not trying to argue, I'm more questioning whether the discernible reasons are in themselves justification for the overhead), then its only hurting, not benefiting the consumer, who has to pay more to fund Apple's desire for self image.

  115. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    All subjective. No they are not, they are hard facts.

    Again, why are any of those factors justification for 75% differences in pricing? Um, yes? Color-screens cost more than mochrome-screens. Making things small costs extra. And since we ARE talking about "_portable_ mp3-players", the size and weight of the device DOES matter! You took bunch of players that had nowhere near the specs of the Nano (well, apart from the storage-space), and then proclaimed how much cheaper they are. Well, they are cheaper because they are bigger and crappier. If they made those players as small as the Nano is and with color-screen, they would cost quite a bit more.

    iPod requires iTunes to run. No it doesn't

    Sucks for Linux users, huh? (Yeah, I know you can kludge your way around it on Linux. Key word - kludge). Weird. Both Amarok and Banshee "just worked" with iPod last time I tried them. Maybe I did something wrong?
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  116. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by 10Ghz · · Score: 1
    Um, I'm sorry, but those are not "comparable". They look cheap, crappy and un-intuitive. The Lyra looks like utter shit (is that a _monochrome-screen_?!?!) and it's significantly bigger and heavier than the Nano is (three times thicker, over twice as heavy), Creative is.... well, Creative. And it too is bigger than the Nano (like it or not, extreme minituarization costs money. Those three obsiously never bothered with it, unlike Apple). Sansa is reasonable, but even it doesn't look or feel as refined as the iPod does, and it's twice as thick. Yes, I have tested it. No, it simply does not feel as good in the hand.

    You might as well say that VW is overpriced, since you can get a "comparable" Lada for half the price. I mean, they are both cars, right? Nevermind the fact that Lada is noisy, it has interior straight from the eighties, it looks like crap, it has no accessories, it's quality is utter crap and it's just _awkward_ to use.

    Sorry, you were saying? I was saying that "show me a comparable mp3-player that is half as expensive". And what did you do? You showed me a bunch of shitty players with zero elegance, design and minituarization. Show me a COMPARABLE player with half the price! No, the fact that it has as much storage-space as the Nano does not mean that it's "comparable"!

    Anyone with a working brain-cell can obviously see where Sandisk, RCA and Creative cut corners on their products when compared to the Nano. And they did that so they could make their products cheaper. But that also means that they are not "comparable". Yes, they are all mp3-players. But not all mp3-players are equal. Just because you managed to find some bargain-basement mp3-players with similar storage-space does nothing to prove your point. It just proves that the mp3-players that are cheaer than the Nano are... well, crappier. Where are the comparable mp3-players? I'm still waiting.

    Maybe I should save a whopping 90 bucks and get the kick-ass RCA Lyra instead of the Nano, since the two are just as good, right?
    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  117. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    > This time, the staff are on top of the migration and planning for it.

    You made it sound like you had professors shouting, "I WANT WORD!" and so to give it to them you're buying Macs. I was saying that if the demand was for Office (rather than for Macs), there's a much easier and less expensive way to do that than changing platforms. If you instead have professors shouting, "I WANT A MAC!", then the situation is different.

    I'm also still a little confused as to whether or not you're forcing people to move. If the researchers are buying the computers and you're supporting them, then obviously you need to support Macs if they've bought Macs. But, you had made it sound like YOU were the one orchestrating the huge Mac-fest.

    > I am not paid to promote a politico-software philosophy.

    I didn't suggest you were. I still think that anyone migrating from Linux to OS X just to get M$ Office is being silly, doubly so since running Office under Linux is pretty trivial these days. Perhaps it's the users being silly rather than you. Maybe you should make sure the users know that Office has run well under Linux for at least 5 years now, so that they don't waste further grant money on buying overpriced white plastic boxes. Since they could then use the money for something else, that might fall under your very broad job description of supporting scientists conduct science.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  118. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

    "Those tangible differences are not inherently better"

    Since the subject is portable mp3-players, I would say that the size and weight of the device IS important. Very important. The smaller and lighter, the better. And Nano is considerably smaller and lighter than the competitors. Making device like that as small and light as Nano does cost money. If it didn't, the competitors would be as small and light as the Nano, yet they are not. Why is that?

    "But again, the costs of shrinking an object are negligible, to a point."

    True, but making things really small does cost money. And it's quite obvious that Apple went the extra mile on that front, wheras RCA, SanDisk and Creative did not. I mean, those three are 2-3 times thicker than the Nano. If it doesn't cost extra, why didn't they make their products thinner? And what about the weight?

    --
    Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  119. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by maynard · · Score: 1

    You made it sound like you had professors shouting, "I WANT WORD!"

    In fact, many are saying just that. Though Powerpoint is a bigger motivator than Word among the professors.

    I'm also still a little confused as to whether or not you're forcing people to move.

    Professors do not take direction from me. They herd like cats, not sheep.

    But, you had made it sound like YOU were the one orchestrating the huge Mac-fest.

    I'm certainly recommending it. I've been supporting UNIX in one way or another since my first industry job, back in 1985. I don't particularly like UNIX, but it does get the job done. And we are a UNIX shop. The Mac is just one more variant.

    Maybe you should make sure the users know that Office has run well under Linux for at least 5 years now, so that they don't waste further grant money on buying overpriced white plastic boxes.

    These people know *exactly* what they're doing. We have Nobel Prize winners here. Nobody wants to run Office under Linux because we've been there and it sucked. These guys have more important work to do than tinker with an OS, unless they need it for some special purpose - like accelerated data collection. Or optimizing code for Monte Carlo sims.

    For us, Linux is a just tool, not a purpose in and of itself.

  120. Re:Does Apple sale for twice what Windows users pa by bean123456789 · · Score: 1

    So, am I to understand that the Zune has a cheaper price per ounce? Sounds like marketing that Microsoft needs to use.

  121. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    > Nobody wants to run Office under Linux because we've been there and it sucked.

    It worked fine for me when I tried it. That was a number of years ago, but I doubt there have been any major regressions and http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/gr oup/?app_id=17 suggests there haven't been. Making WINE config files by hand is error-prone, and standard WINE eschews short-term hacks to make programs work for long-term codebase maintainability, so if you were using WINE and found it wanting, CrossOver Office would probably have been a better choice.

    Seriously, man, Office on Linux has been a solved problem for many years now.

    > These people know *exactly* what they're doing. We have Nobel Prize winners here.

    Well, since there's no Nobel Prize for computer science, that doesn't mean much as far as computer competence goes. And even Turing Award winners don't necessarily know what they're doing if they're from the theory side :)

    > [cut patronizing crap]

    And so should you. Nowhere did I suggest you viewed Linux as an end in itself.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  122. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by maynard · · Score: 1

    Seriously, man, Office on Linux has been a solved problem for many years now.

    Try deploying crossover or wine across hundreds of desktops in production. Doing it on your own for a personal machine is not the same as supporting an application professionally. I do not want to waste my staff time on such matters. And neither do my superiors.

    I've been there. I remember installing a very early release of wine back in 1994. Been following it ever since then. It's a cool hack, but I wouldn't trust office on wine for our documents, spreadsheets, or power point presentations. I bought a crossover site license two years ago. Didn't work - everyone hated it.

    Dude, go with what works. The licensing costs are peanuts compared to staff outlays.

  123. Who cares? by Dretep · · Score: 0

    If MS doesn't want an Office for Apple, big deal. It's within their right to drop support for an OS that's losing them money, especially if it would drum up business for their OS. That's just good business sense.

  124. Linux Marketshare by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 1

    Research shows that Linux is gaining on Microsoft as of the year 2000 yet there doesn't seem to be any MS-Office for Linux.

    The trend seems to be continuing in 2005 and I would guess 2006 as well if the numbers finally come in for 2006.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  125. Re:Drop Office and our lab migration to OS X cease by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 1

    > I bought a crossover site license two years ago. Didn't work - everyone hated it.

    Wow, that's interesting. Even running only gold-supported apps? If you tried with a gold-supported version of Office, and it failed, then I concede you're not being silly :), though I'm also intrigued since your experience is so different from mine and every other one of which I'm aware.

    I haven't really been properly following WINE for a while. I've sort-of painted myself into a corner with my own installation. I got some programs working, but I can't upgrade because they stop working when I do. There's nothing I need it for anymore, though, so it's mostly just a toy I play around with on those rare occasions when I still use my x86.

    I still remember downloading the trial version of CrossOver Office, installing M$ Office, and being blown away by how similar the experience was, though, and then reading some news stories about companies using it to successfully run Office on Linux, and this was more than two years ago. It's a shame it didn't work for you, and I'm curious as to why that might have been. My first guess is that you were trying to run a later version than was gold-listed, but if you weren't, then I really don't know.

    > Dude, go with what works. The licensing costs are peanuts compared to staff outlays.

    Well, I'd guess that the hardware cost would be more than the licensing cost for your specific migration case.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  126. 1997 is Ancient History in Mac Industry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the year Jobs returned and Gates, being no idiot, realized the threat that posed. Who really cares what was going on back in those days? Gates amased his wealth in the late 80s while the government was asleep at the switch. The government eventually caught on, but it was too late, so they put him under a consent decree never to do this shit again. When the whole IE-tied-to-Windows issue cropped up --in 97--, they let him have it with both barrels, not just for violating the consent decree but out of anger for the original offenses that had slid by them in the 80s. Since then, Microsoft has been in a box --they've lost the server market to Linux out of their own arrogance --in 97-- and it looks like they just ran the train off the tracks with Vista (rejected by parts of US government) and IE7 (breaks too many websites). Apple doesn't need Microsoft Office as much as it did 5 or 10 or 20 years ago. They have their own iWorks initiative and there's OpenOffice. If KDE grows up just a little bit more, that will pretty much be the end of Apple (as anything but a hardware manufacturer), so who really gives a g'damn about Microsoft's dirtly letters from 1997 or Apple at this point?