| 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 2007...for Linux? | |
|
||
| Time: 12:01 EST/17:01 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
An article yesterday on ZDNet argued that Microsoft might soften its stance towards open source, and may even write applications for its famous open source competitor, Linux. A few years ago, I would have been more skeptical. Making product for Linux might help to popularize the alternative platform, thus cutting into Microsoft's own operating system revenue. From a simple cost-benefit analysis, the cost of writing for the fast-growing Linux operating system market, in terms of lost sales, outweighed the benefit of sales into the channel. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:04:18 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 7/14/2005 1:46:35 PM |
| #1: It was in MS' interests to keep Apple alive as an example of a competitor so as to be able to claim they aren't a monopoly (only 97%!). Then they threaten Office for Mac to keep Apple in line. I think the best thing for MS to do is to start writing for Linux. If they can come out with best-of-breed apps for Linux, then they have the best of both worlds -- making money off of Windows and Linux. A similar analogy would be the RIAA/MPAA vs the Internet. Don't fight it; embrace it and use it to further your own ends. Just because Linux is open source doesn't mean MS has to open source their own Linux apps, so they can be as proprietary as usual. However, eating crow isn't fun, so they will have to come up with some face-saving spin. |
| #2 By 2459 (69.22.124.157) at 7/14/2005 2:28:32 PM |
| As small as the Mac market is, the Linux market is smaller. Most game companies have a hard time justifying Linux ports (some equating it to charity). I'd be surprised if MS made Office for Linux considering the small market/piracy factor and "GPL-incompatible" zealotry. If they did produce it, it'd likely be lacking in many areas like the Mac version. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.6) at 7/14/2005 2:48:59 PM |
|
"As small as the Mac market is, the Linux market is smaller"
Can you back that up with some hard facts? |
| #4 By 23443 (63.93.197.67) at 7/14/2005 2:52:37 PM |
|
#4, I can't give you hard facts, but I can tell you that most Linux users are using Linux because they don't like Microsoft, so the odds of them using MS Office for Linux are pretty slim. This is my opinion and is based on many comments read on Slashdot, so take that for what it's worth.
Do you have any facts to refute his claim? Thanks, TowerDave |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 7/14/2005 2:53:47 PM |
|
#3: While the last Mac I used was back in the mid-80's, I had read reviews that generally painted Office for Mac as being somewhat superior to the PC version. Now this could be a Mac-oriented site doing the reviewing with natural bias, but I don't know differently.
As for the market share aspect, MS revenues have been flat for a few years so they need to expand into whatever markets they can to increase company value. That's why they're now into console games, phones, cars, your living room, US Navy ships, etc. Why not Linux? They could still implement any kind of WPA scheme under Linux if they were concerned about app piracy. |
| #6 By 415 (69.67.200.50) at 7/14/2005 3:24:55 PM |
|
I agree with the author. It's very unlikely that Microsoft would ever port any major applications to Linux. I would add that I believe Microsoft would sooner shoot flaming Windows Longhorn DVDs out of their anus for all the world to install license free than port MS Office to Linux.
However, I do think Microsoft will be more inclined to do so if .Net Framework based applications could run reliably on Linux. In fact I think Microsoft would first involve themselves in porting the .Net Framework to Linux, either via the Mono project or via an internal project. |
| #7 By 2332 (204.9.221.59) at 7/14/2005 5:17:54 PM |
|
According to IDC both the Mac and Linux have around 3.2% market share.
But that really doesn't matter. Microsoft would be completely retarded to sell Office for Linux. Why? Well, for one, about 90% of that 3.2% hates Microsoft. At best, Office would be pirated. Linux "thrives" on the personal desktop because people hate Microsoft and Linux is "marketed" (by places like Slashdot) as the anti-Microsoft. There are plenty of Unix-clones out there that are arguably superior to Linux (OpenBSD, for instance), but that don't enjoy a fraction of the success of Linux because they're not marketing like Linux is. Another reason why Microsoft would be foolish for selling Office for Linux is that, despite that fact that there are better alternatives, Linux is making some progress in the business arena and taking workstations away from Microsoft. (I would surmise that a lot of the migrations are due to Anti-MS Techies who have some influences at the companies in question and are able to convince higher-ups that it will save the company lots of money, despite the scant data to support these assertions.) One major barrier to these adoptions is that a lot of the software people use on a daily basis is only on Windows, and Office is at the top of the list. Yes, there are alternatives to Office... but it's not Office. People are used to Office, and they fear change. If all of a sudden Office was on Linux, that would be one major barrier to Linux adoption removed. Why would Microsoft EVER want to do that? One might say that Office is $500, but Windows is only $200, so why not push the $500 to a larger audience? Well, because a Windows sale almost always results in an Office sale. It's just the way it works. Microsoft has been the largest supplier of software to Apple since day 1 of... um, Apple. Most people agree Apple would not exist had Microsoft not had such a large commitment to them all this time, despite their differences and competition in the OS market. But the big reason Microsoft hasn't really feared making Office available on the Mac is because businesses long since gave up on the Mac. When was the last time you heard of a company switching from Windows to the Mac? It really just doesn't happen. For one reason, the enterprise management tools just aren't there for the Mac. There isn't really any Mac Active Directory, and until OS X, there hasn't really been any good way to run Macs in a multi-user, business like environment without clumsy 3rd party software. Macs weren't made for businesses; they were made for home users. As a side not, OS X Server blows. The threading model essentially serializes kernel operations, and cripples OS X Server performance. It's almost useless in a high load, multi-user environment. It makes for horrible a [Web, File, Database, etc] server. Apple might be becoming more of a thread on the desktop (although I'm still not particularly convinced of that), but they have almost no hope in the business world, and that's why Microsoft has no problems selling Office for the Mac, and that's also why they have a big problem selling it for Linux. |
| #8 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 7/14/2005 6:37:35 PM |
|
Gee, I know . . . I'll write a story about . . . Office on Linux?
And so it goes, another person who makes their living writing gets a paycheck. The awful thing about it is that we had to read it. I don't what is worse. The carefully sourced Microsoft spokespeople that the author quoted to arrive at his conclusion . . . Oh! What a minute. The author didn't quote anyone at Microsoft. He quoted a dufus over at the OSDL. Or, we have the treatise on luxury goods (I guess anytime an open sore advocate has to buy software it is considered a luxury good) otherwise dubbed Microeconomics 101. lol Meanwhile, we have Latch making his usual totally unsubstantiated statements. To wit in post #3: It was in MS' interests to keep Apple alive . . . " or "Then they threaten Office for Mac to keep Apple in line." Or we have Latch discussing Microsoft earnings: "MS revenues have been flat for a few years . . . " I guess that would be why Microsoft's earnings went from $23B in 2000 to $37B in 2004. I think IronCladLou pretty much sums up my take on the author's banal article. Hey, in the print edition, it was probably next to a full page ad for Microsoft Windows Server 2003. Go figure. |
| #9 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at 7/14/2005 7:44:01 PM |
|
RMD -
I for one would be fascinated to know how many Linux users are like me and have dual boot machines. I for one would probably get rid of Linux if I knew how to dump it and reclaim the repartitioned space on my second hard drive without loosing my other data. (I guess I could do it with a backup of data onto DVDs and a complete reformat of the hard drive back to NTFS. But I am lazy; which is the reason I hated Linux. Too damn hard to use!) |
| #10 By 3653 (68.52.165.46) at 7/14/2005 7:46:37 PM |
|
Latch - Isn't it about time for you to pack your bags and leave? Enough with the pure lies...
"MS revenues have been flat for a few years" Let me spot check for you... 2005, First Quarter - $9.19 Billion (12%) 2004, First Quarter - $8.22 Billion (6%) 2003, First Quarter - $7.75 Billion (26%) 2002, First Quarter - $6.13 Billion (6%) Your girlfriend should be so flat. |
| #11 By 3653 (68.52.165.46) at 7/14/2005 7:55:25 PM |
|
<further_off_topic>Did anyone notice that firefox market share has not only stagnated, but begun to drop?</further_off_topic>
http://www.itproductivity.org/browser.htm |
| #12 By 32313 (208.131.167.19) at 7/15/2005 10:34:13 AM |
| If they were going to develop a version of Office for Linux, it would have be specific to certain distributions only such as possibly only Redhat, Novell Linux Desktop and maybe even Madriva. |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 7/15/2005 12:02:59 PM |
|
#11: Nope, not by a longshot. In fact, now that I know I bug you, I'll post EVEN MORE!!!!!!!!!!!
pfffft |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 7/15/2005 12:22:25 PM |
|
#12: Did anyone notice that you're talking out of your ass?
'The Mozilla Foundation's Firefox browser nibbled off a small market-share portion from Microsoft Corp.'s Internet Explorer (IE) in June, continuing a consistent monthly trend this year. Firefox increased its market share to 8.71 percent, up from 8 percent in May, while IE's share shrank to 86.56 percent from 87.23 percent, NetApplications.com, an Aliso Viejo, California, maker of applications for monitoring and measuring Web site usage, said Thursday in a statement." |
| #15 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 7/15/2005 1:58:34 PM |
|
#2,
For heavens sake, Microsoft had NOTHING to do with keeping Apple alive. Man, Apple can't even get credit for what it DOES do any more. And no, I don't think it was all Steve Jobs. Sometimes I think Apple survives in _spite_ of Steve Jobs. TL |
| #16 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 7/15/2005 2:00:25 PM |
|
#6,
Anyone I've ever talked to who has used office on the Mac and PC has agreed the Mac version was superior in many ways, mostly useability. Feature wise they are about the same. Minus Access of course. TL |
| #17 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 7/15/2005 2:01:49 PM |
|
"I would add that I believe Microsoft would sooner shoot flaming Windows Longhorn DVDs out of their anus for all the world to install license free than port MS Office to Linux."
That's pretty good :) TL |
| #18 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 7/15/2005 2:15:16 PM |
|
RMD,
"Microsoft has been the largest supplier of software to Apple since day 1 of... um, Apple. Most people agree Apple would not exist had Microsoft not had such a large commitment to them all this time, despite their differences and competition in the OS market." You are absolutely correct, kindof. I would say this was the case until, oh, 1994 or 5. I think this changed when Windows 95 came out. The entire world market shifted with that release. This is also about the time that other companies (MacroMedia, etc...), mainly graphics companies, really started to feed the Macintosh market. In the early days, Microsoft Software for the Mac was really pretty awesome (except for the dumb-ass "Division Layout" methods used in MS Word that people don't understand to this day). It was really good stuff. Microsoft was a pretty cool company back then. But that all changed over time. Microsoft got bigger, snottier, greedier and more expensive over time. THAT is what I really dislike about that company. It's not gates. It's not the products. It's the attitude the company has. Anyway, I've owned Mac's since day one. I took delivery of one of the first 100 Mac 128K's from Computerland to hit the streets in Northern Virginia back in 1983 or 4 (I can't remember the exact year any more :)) I've had a Mac in my house every day since that day. I've probably owned 20 plus Mac's over the years, and up until 1997 or so I owned one of EVERY Model Apple every produced. These days it's a new one every now and then. I really appreciated Microsoft's efforts in the early days of the Mac, up until about the time they released Word 6.0 for the Mac. Short of Apple's own OpenTransport 1.0 there was hardly a worse piece of software crap ever released for the Mac. This was the version that started the "Cross Platform, Shared-Code" mentality at Microsoft. Thank god that eased up over time, and we now have another excellent Office product for the Mac. Other companies sure did a better job of getting that right (Adobe, MacroMedia, etc...). Microsoft tried to toss a Windows-faced application to the Mac Crowd, and we threw it back :) Ok, I'm rambling now. I could talk about the REALLY fun and exciting early days of the Mac for hours. I was in it up to my ears from 1983 up through about 1998. I've started from scratch and managed two Apple service organizations (for other people/contracts), and ran the Apple Department at a fair-sized computer company for 5 years until they closed that branch. Main difference now is instead of having 6 Mac's and one PC in the house, there's now 6 PC's and one Mac in the house. A man has to make a living afterall :) TL This post was edited by TechLarry on Friday, July 15, 2005 at 14:26. |
| #19 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 7/15/2005 2:18:19 PM |
|
#12,
It just goes to show that you can find WHAT you want to hear if you look hard enough. I shall counter with: http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=8358 "Mozilla Firefox increased its market share to 8.71% in June 2005, up from 8% in May 2005, while IE's share shrank to 86.56% from 87.23%, NetApplications.com said." TL |
| #20 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 7/15/2005 2:21:20 PM |
|
#16,
The ability to use Office/PC 2003 or whatever version on the Mac is totally, absolutely free. It's called the MacOS X version of the RDC Client :) To this day I can't believe Microsoft actually released that. I love the thing though! TL |
| #21 By 3653 (68.52.165.46) at 7/15/2005 6:06:04 PM |
|
lol at you guys. My post simply points out the absurdity of what you fellas do each month in quoting the growth of firefox.
Speaking of firefox, this can't be good... http://www.betanews.com/article/Spread_Firefox_Site_Hacked_Data_Leaked/1121448513 closedsstandard: as to where i dug up that link... i dont remember... some tech rag somewhere linked to it. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Friday, July 15, 2005 at 18:06. |
| #22 By 3653 (68.52.165.46) at 7/16/2005 12:37:12 AM |
|
yeah, like i'm gonna waste even a minute looking it up. perhaps i made up the website, registered the domain, and created this fantastic story.
you caught me moron. seriously, its funny to watch you folks go through the familiar pattern every time a piece of "bad news" comes your way. 1) discredit the source (ie... the site looks horrible, so they must be idiots) 2) say Microsoft somehow is paying for the info (ie... netcraft says the website runs on IIS. I smell a conspiracy) 3) no reply. you act like you didn't revisit the activewin page and accidently didn't respond to the article/post losers ps... someone give me credit for breaking closedstandards from his tired brand of humor. It took months, but he actually posted something outside his normal revolting persona. This post was edited by mooresa56 on Saturday, July 16, 2005 at 00:46. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 323 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:04:18 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
