| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Office v. X for Mac Triple Header Brings Increased Mobility, Affordability and Compatibility | |
|
||
| Time: 08:41 EST/13:41 GMT | News Source: Microsoft Press Release | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
The Macintosh Business Unit at Microsoft Corp. today announced a Microsoft® Office v. X for Mac triple header, empowering Mac OS X users to get even more out of the leading productivity software for less. Unveiled this morning during Macworld Conference & Expo in New York were a new Palm Handheld Synchronization add-in for Entourage (TM) X; the Get It Together promotion, offering up to $100 off the purchase of Office v. X when it's purchased with any new Macintosh computer; and a Remote Desktop Connection (RDC) client, allowing remote connection and access to Microsoft Windows®-based computers from virtually any network connection using a Macintosh computer. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 234 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:42:20 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/17/2002 11:35:16 AM |
| Wow... I'm really surprised to see the RDC client (although it's only for OS X.1 and higher :( ). I hope it works much better than the Java one from HOB.... |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2002 4:54:17 PM |
|
baarod, let's be realistic: Office sales have declined from 8.5 million in 95 to 3.5 million today on the Mac. Mac users don't want to use it and they are finding ways to do without it.
Nisus and Appleworks can both open and save Word files. Even little programs like MarinerWrite can open them. MS is still selling plenty of copies of Office 2001. Office.X was released with some new features but these were almost entirely Quartz features--whereas Entourage/Outlook was crippled and there was no Palm conduit and there were many, many bugs; there was no upgrade option. Apple has been on target with its own projections for OS X adoption from the very beginning. MS was just smoking crack that of the 2.5 million expected users 750,000 would buy a new version of Office--particularly when many may have purchased 2001. If Apple continues to meet its projections, 20% of all Mac users will be X users--what is Microsoft's current breakdown? somewhere along the lines of 10%, 20%, 40%, 30%-ish? Please. Today, Jobs stated that 25% of all Maya sales are now OS X sales. Does that sound like a failure to you? Why shouldn't Apple soft sell its own users who will have a more demanding migration than new users--they have done two significant migrations in the past and they know how to pace it over a 3-5 year period... The same will follow. Adobe does not make crap products although the quality and features have declined in the last 3 years since they now focus on a more Win-centric metaphor and mindset. |
| #3 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 7/17/2002 5:29:10 PM |
|
I am actually impressed by the RDC client. Although it still bugs the hell out of me that I can't right click with the Apple Pro Mouse. Now there is some irony for ya...
I am more curious as to what this will do to Citrix. Are they totally toast now as I don't really see a need for there Metaframe product... Kinda funny out of all the Hoopla from Mac World I am most impressed with software written by MS. Go figure. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2002 6:12:03 PM |
| What I was most impressed with: Sybase, SPSS, a ton of DB and RAD tools came to the Mac; iSync'll be nice if there are ever GPRS phones in the US; rendezvous support from all of the printer manufacturers. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/17/2002 6:12:04 PM |
|
In all fairness, sodajerk, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison between Maya and Office for OS X. Consider the main platforms on which 3D content creation is done--the 'nixes are big players there. It should be no surprise that Maya has done very well when Apple switched to a Unix-based OS. With Office, the benefits of Unix are much less apparent. That's a very poor comparison.
I think MS is more or less just venting frustration with the pickup of Office for OS X, and obviously, that is tied to the rather lackluster *use* of OS X (not so much the sales alone). If people are finding ways to do without Office on the Mac, then certainly MS should re-evaluate it's Mac offerings. I think with the release of the RDC client, though--a real surprise to me--they are showing their commitment to the platform. There's an irony, though--proud Mac users sometimes go out of their way to avoid using MS software, but yet most people acknowledge that if MS leaves the Mac market, it will be a huge blow to the Mac. I told a Mac friend of mine about the RDC client, and it sounds like it works really slick. I'm curious, though (since I don't have access to a Mac here), does it give you the options for color bit-depth, caching, clip board redirection, etc., that are features on the Windows RDC client? Yeah, RedAvenger, the differences between MetaFrame and WTS are continually narrowing... I wonder if MS will ever produce a DOS RDC client, though.... ;) |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2002 6:18:57 PM |
| I can let you know tomorrow bluvg about RDC. Actually, I think it's more impressive with Maya--even though Maya gets done on expensive workstations, and Macs may be cheaper--a lot happened on NT, and certainly the people who had previously been using Maya on another platform had to purchase hardware on top of the software without knowing what the benefits or disadvantages could be about the hardware and software. That's a huge success. I'm not sure which way it'll go but various Mac sources have gotten additional comments from Browne and it does seem apparent that MS is either being extremely two-faced or playing their cards however you want to see their classic battles. That I don't entirely appreciate; the worse part about it is most people will not see this double-play; they aren't aware that MacBU actually is committed or that MS is no longer necessary. That lack of knowledge about the true situation is what's most ugly to me. |
| #7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/17/2002 6:26:39 PM |
| Can you point us to the other comments from Browne? I always got the impression that the MacBU was fairly autonomous, and that they were big Mac fans. You're saying this is a facade? Or are you saying that the MacBU is sort of a token gift to Apple that has a planned death in its future? I'm guess I'm not sure what you are trying to say--please share what the buzz is in the Mac community. |
| #8 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 7/17/2002 6:42:10 PM |
| I see what you mean about Maya to a certain extent, but they really are two entirely different apps. The 3D crowd has always been 'nix-friendly, and part of the reason that NT got a (somewhat artificial) boost was because SGI was selling NT over their IRIX workstations. Nonetheless, my point is that Maya is an application whose user base would likely choose a Unix-based OS, whereas Office isn't really the type of app that lends itself (either technically or user base-wise/socially) to a particular OS. I think MS is frustrated that they spent considerable effort in supporting Apple's brand new and substantially different OS by being one of the first on the block with their flagship software package in OS X-savvy form (how about Adobe and Quark dragging their feet?), and that Apple hasn't really responded in kind by doing much in promoting the availability of Office for OS X. That's what partners (which, in this case, they are) do, and so MS is venting--if you don't really want to help us sell your users on our software--the premier office suite for the platform, and in the world--then it might be time to re-evaluate the offering. If the market is small and shrinking, MS can do without it. |
| #9 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2002 6:56:55 PM |
|
Yeah, but there's a point there too. Almost all the Adobe apps are now out but they had tons and tons of problems. They aren't bad mouthing Apple now. What about HP, Oracle, Sybase, and soon Siebel bringing their enterprise-level tools to the Mac? How many Macs do you see running enterprise software, but these developers are going right ahead developing OSX products.
You lose me on your point with Maya--I don't think there's much that is particularly compelling about either app's functionality, userbase, or history that makes it advantaged on the Mac OSX in terms of adoption or sales. Consider my examples above--these companies are still making products, but there's no reason to expect a groundswell of sales because they were meant for OS X in anyway. I'll post the link soon, but I'll need to dig around--there were two different stories... What I'm not sure I'll be able to find you is a discussion in a bb somewhere where someone was saying that KB is much more a lacky than the former head of the old Mac division. (You can't always trust boards, but it was a good dialgoue--really sounded like he knew what he was talking about.) Yes, I am certainly saying that the MacBU is not that autonomous at all. Only in the sense that they have to build their stuff from the ground up, yes. But they do not get to make many decisions for their own. Browne puts on a good show though. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, July 17, 2002 at 19:11. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2002 6:59:05 PM |
|
here's the first one: http://www.macworld.com/2002/07/16/microsoft.html
...now where did I see that other story... |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2002 7:08:43 PM |
|
oh yeah, the eweek one; there's little comment from MS, it's mostly a rebuttal, but Schiller denies having heard of any concerns at all from MS even though he talks to them virtually daily. This article also points out that KB conveniently went off on sabbatical--almost as if the higher ups know he wouldn't have the heart to reiterate what made it into the story.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,382858,00.asp And then there's this from the "marketing" director of the MacBU, McDonough: "He said Microsoft's comments regarding Mac OS X were not an attempt to rain on Apple's Macworld parade but came in response to user and media concerns over the impending conclusion of a 5-year deal Microsoft made with Apple in which the software giant made a $150 million investment in the company. That deal ends next month. "We're responding to customers, and we're saying that agreement or no agreement we're committed to the Macintosh platform as long as there is business for us." Did it sound like they were saying they were commited to you? It sounded to me like they were dumping or else, didn't it. How can someone doublespeak like that. I would actually say that Office is the most widely promoted X app of any of them; Maya being number two but in a whole 'nother league, this ain't no consumer app however pro you think Office is. There have actually already been two rounds of rebates/bundling from Apple to ease the cost of, promote Office. |
| #12 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/17/2002 7:21:19 PM |
| Yeah, I apologize about saying the reversals came from Browne; I didn't mean to mis-characterize anything in anyway. In the MacWorld article they come from McDonough too, they just quote Browne from April... which is after all, only 2.5 months ago. This is when they released their patch to fix 1,500+ bugs... did something happen since then that changed Browne's mind? If so, wouldn't it have just as much to do with a consumer slowdown and the low quality of his products (mostly talking about IE, Outlook, and I guess WMP still comes from Poole, so that's not Browne's fault... but still...). |
| #13 By 3339 (67.119.192.174) at 7/17/2002 10:22:16 PM |
|
bluvg: yes, it does. Or at least most of them... No, clipboard redirect--it only allows cut and past for rtf, plain text, and unicode... It also supports Apple's keychain. Desktop rez, seesion window resize, hide dock and Apple menu, multi monitors, bit depth, remote sound controls, device connections, right click and alt key mapping, startup apps, connection speed, GUI controls (window resizing, themes, anims, etc...).
There are also a number of known issues--some big, some minor (num lock confusion--their advice: keep hitting it till it works, extra pages when printing to local printer, losing connections on sleep, no right click mapping when key caps is on, seems to not support 2-button mice, why I don't know, etc...) |
| #14 By 2960 (68.100.19.3) at 7/18/2002 12:39:51 AM |
|
The most interesting and useful thing to me today to come out of MacWorld is...
The Terminal Server/Remote Desktop Client. I am utterly floored that they actually released this thing! Think about it. Microsoft just gave Mac users access to nearly every piece of productivity software ever created for Windows. I've downloaded it, used it, and it works perfectly. It's fast too. I really needed this. Here's a rare "Thanks!" to Microsoft. Now, I would also like to take this opportunity to tell Steve Jobs he can go pack sand with his $130 full price with no upgrades for MacOS X 10.2. You are out of your friggen mind Steve! You want someone with a 3 month old machine to pay $130 for a point-release upgrade ? Short of killing off the majority of the Grass-Roots Mac resellers, this is the stupidist idea you have ever had, and unfortunately goes a long way in proving Microsoft's point this week. TL |
| #15 By 5444 (208.180.140.230) at 7/18/2002 1:19:42 AM |
|
Here is an interesting thing to think about also.
MacBU has basically refused to port the framework to the mac. Yet if they did port it, most everything written on the framework could run on a Mac also. Opening up a large software platform for developers with a write once mentality. Saving cost for both MS and Apple developers and opening the network to alot more choice. There are already Rumors that Office 11 will be the last c++ based version of Office. If they can get the speed up in the framework 2.0. It would also get alot of the antitrust people off their backs. because MS would be bring a platform to APPLE that runs on the native platform and brings developers to the Apple platform. Imagine a VS.net for the Mac:) It could also open traditionally Mac developers to the Idea of writing software that runs on mac and windows. Or the more favorbly licensed BSD Unix for that matter. Time will tell, The framework needs some improvements yet. and then would have to be ported to a Big endian platform (which mono has done btw) or a little endian platform. Or perhaps Apple themselves will implement such a beast and kick off Java:) From the rumors I am hearing several of the Big aps at MS are moving over to the framework in the next 2 years. They have to or what is the point of spending 4 years developing a new platform and not putting their own platforms on it. Rumors of IE and Outlook express moving over to the framework soon and the WSH moveing also. El |
| #16 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 7/18/2002 2:03:27 AM |
|
TL, current owners of OS X will be able to get 10.2 for $20.
I remember that part of MacWorld, because I was thinking <sarcasm> Great, they're making them pay for another point release just to move closer to a release-quality OS.</sarcasm> Check this link out http://www.apple.com/macosx/uptodate/ |
| #17 By 3339 (67.116.253.31) at 7/18/2002 2:26:20 AM |
|
Actually, el, this is one of my points... The MacBU is independent in terms of their facilities, resources, and staffing although all of their directives largely come from outside the group. I would imagine they have little knowledge of the crossteam development work of .Net/Office/Windows integration except for feature functionality (i.e. not development). They actually have been building their own IE without the assistance of the internet group of Microsoft. Occassionally, there has been talk about migrating services/tasks to Office on the Mac--I'm not suggesting they are completely walled in, but basically it would be asking a ~150 group of people to continue developing an office suite, a browser, and .Net while Microsoft has, I'd guess, about 3-4000 developers doing the same. As I said, WMP came from Poole's group which could care less about the Mac and I would imagine that the RDC came from outside MacBU too because it's a straightforward set of remote network functionality, but I know for a fact that Rotor (the BSD CLR) was not developed by the MacBU and they have nothing to do with it's development--it even came from outside of MS initially. So ~150 is a good size development team, but they are designing all of the Mac software unless a particular tool is very specific in nature; I even think their budget is confined although MS never braks out the P/L of the unit as an individual group--in other words, they are strangled but the profits flow back to the mothership. Of course, Microsoft should develop the framework for other platforms--then they could sell ALL their software to ALL platforms without much porting and individual teams. But unfortunately, you don't hear crap about this happening and I don't see any effort to even appear to do so... never mind actually do so.
enforcer, nope, it's a paid upgrade. I heard it too, but if you can tolerate trying to time the stream's loop--listen again. You'd be amazed by how smooth and subtle Jobs really is; he slipped it in--definitely said something about if you buy a new Mac between now and Aug. 24. "Customers who purchase a qualifying new Macintosh computer on or after July 17, 2002, that does not have Mac OS X v10.2 “Jaguar” included can upgrade to Mac OS X v10.2 “Jaguar” for US$19.95." This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 02:30. |
| #18 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 7/18/2002 3:41:15 AM |
|
Heh. That is slick. Do they not want to keep their existing customers? What happens when 10. 25, .3, .4 etc. are released? If they keep charging the people most enthusiastic about OS X, some people may consider doing the Apple "Switch" in reverse.
I know they are trying to build a new platform while still staying in business, but why not wait a bit, work their hardest to improve the core OS features/components, make it as fast and stable as possible, and release that as a free upgrade? Then, focus on add-ons and new features which they can then roll into a full upgrade that more people would be willing to buy. |
| #19 By 3339 (67.116.253.31) at 7/18/2002 4:13:11 AM |
| enforcer, I think the idea is that Jaguar is that release. |
| #20 By 2459 (24.206.97.178) at 7/18/2002 5:01:29 AM |
|
I know. But I meant in the context of OS X's development from first release. Instead of charging their best customers for most of the changes to OS X up to now. They could have focused on the OS' core functionality, made it speedy and stable and get rid of the quirks, release that as a free update and then make additions and updates for which they could charge.
Should you really have to keep paying just to get a little speed boost to your UI (I know 10.2 is more than that, but UI speed has been one of the major issues with OS X, just an example)? I don't think buyers of OS X thought they would have to pay full price for 10.2. Is there any chance Apple will provide upgrades at their stores again? This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 05:04. |
| #21 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 7/18/2002 11:01:58 AM |
|
What's this? Apple is charging for service packs to OSX?
|
| #22 By 3339 (67.116.253.31) at 7/18/2002 11:40:43 AM |
|
--double post--
Good damn it. Byron, anyone, any idea why Mac IE would send posts just by refreshing the page even when a comment form isn't open? This is freaking horrible, and I blame IE, but I wonder if there's any connection with the site's code. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, July 18, 2002 at 11:44. |
| #23 By 3339 (67.116.253.31) at 7/18/2002 11:46:22 AM |
| enforcer, I could give you my take, I'm not bothered by it... Of course, I don't want to get in a position defending it against others--I know some are pissed--and my own position has nothing to do with being happt to make Apple wealthier. |
| #24 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 7/18/2002 2:01:52 PM |
|
Tech (I know he actually is a Mac user) and others, there actually may be a reversal on the policy. There are indications that you can preserve a mac.com email without becoming a .mac member; and Apple is not only answering calls complaining about the upgrade cost but they are actually attempting to solicit feedback and guage an appropriate response.
So if you are actually a Mac user and you are pissed and don't see the value in paying for Jaguar, I suggest 2 things: wait to buy it and complain to Apple. (I suggest going to MacSlash to find the phone number you should call and the comments of those who have already). |
| #25 By 3339 (67.116.253.31) at 7/18/2002 6:40:07 PM |
| enforcer, I could give you my take, I'm not bothered by it... Of course, I don't want to get in a position defending it against others--I know some are pissed--and my own position has nothing to do with being happt to make Apple wealthier. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 234 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:42:20 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
