[MacTel]

Quote:

---

pcpro.co.uk/news/99509/mac-users-get-spring-date-for-office-2007-compatibility

---

Perfect. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[horvatic]

Just another tactic to make more money for Microsoft and break Apple's attempt to get back into the business world. They did this on purpose. They know more companies are looking at the Mac as a viable alternative to a PC. So let's change the stratagy and break the key application compatability in the business world, Office. Now Microsoft can say you are better off buying a PC and use Vista because office isn't compatible with the Mac version anymore. The other part of this stratagy is to make every company in the world upgrade to 2007 and ring in the money for Microsoft. I hope this back fires on them and companies say, well since it's not compatible with older versions or the Mac will stick with the version we have until you make it so. Otherwise I believe this will cause lots of pain in the business world, not to mention a lot of money upgrading.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

I never understood why Microsoft made IE for the Mac at all considering it's free. How did they make a profit on that? Why would you continue to spend money on a free product like that? You don't.

---

To absolutely bury Netscape and ultimately destroy the cross-platform nature of the web as well as get corporations to lock themselves into proprietary IE technologies. Once the goal was achieved and Windows became a requirement for the latest and greatest Windows, they could drop IE for Mac.

Quote:

---

VPC is crap compared to Parallels. Microsoft was smart dropping that. What do you mean "reconfigure" VPC as a virtualization product? What the heck does "reconfigure" mean? So me tearing down my house and building a new one from scratch is "reconfiguring"? That's almost as funny as calling surrender "redeployment".

---

VPC as a virtualization product is crap compared to Parallels? You must be comparing the Windows offerings for both products as VPC for Mac included an emulator. They've already got most of the work done in the Windows version, it's just a matter of porting it (Parallels is a port as well).

Quote:

---

How many copies of Office does Microsoft sell to Mac users? I'd like to know because I'm guessing it's not very many. Given that, there is a limit on how much Microsoft can spend on development and still make a profit, and a profit is what they want, obviously.

---

They sell a ton. Office for Mac is an absolute cash cow for them, always has been.

[tallscot]

To absolutely bury Netscape and ultimately destroy the cross-platform nature of the web as well as get corporations to lock themselves into proprietary IE technologies. Once the goal was achieved and Windows became a requirement for the latest and greatest Windows, they could drop IE for Mac.
The Web isn't cross platform anymore?
Which proprietary IE technologies? DirectX? It's not in IE for Mac and never was.
VPC as a virtualization product is crap compared to Parallels?
No. VPC for Mac is crap compared to Parallels for Mac. Microsoft isn't going to spend money on a dead horse and VPC is dead with Parallels and Intel Macs being in the picture.
They sell a ton. Office for Mac is an absolute cash cow for them, always has been.
If you say so. I'd still like to see some facts on this. The point is a developer isn't going to spend more developing a product than they take in. Some people seem to think it doesn't matter how much it costs to get VB running in the latest Office. I think that's naive and ignores history (Premiere Pro, Audition, Encore, Half Life, etc.). Sometimes it's just about business and cost/profit analysis and it's not a giant conspiracy. I know that thinking doesn't go over well here, though.

[PeterG]

Hi all, 2 simple questions. (ignore my ignorance)
1. Is it possible with the success of Apple/Mac, that the other box makers and MS have said, we need to slow down the Mac sales. Especially over the holiday season?
2. I've lost track here but apart from what is/could happen what is the solution?
Take Robs opinion as fact, remove everyone else's view and concentrate on the fix for the future.
Peter
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[mdawson]

As has been addressed by others, Microsofts sole reason behind offering Internet Explorer for free was to trivialize Netscape and once that was accomplished, they diminished and eventually killed development of IE on the Mac. As to the Web not being cross-platform, that inference is a stretch on your part. No one is saying that the Web is no longer cross-platform, but Microsoft did use its dominant position in the browser market to introduce proprietary Web technologies (e.g., .NET) that only work with IE (for Windows).
Any site that uses those technologies are partially, if not wholly, inaccessible to Mac users or Windows users that wisely choose to browse the Web with something other than IE. I have not come across any such sites, but from what I have seen in terms of complaints, it is the banking and real estate industries that have Websites that are tainted with Microsofts Web technologies. (I do not do banking on the Web nor do I use real estate sites.) And by the way, DirectX is not a Web technology.
As Derik has indicated, VirtualPC has existed in Windows as a virtualization package for some time. Therefore, the MacBU did not need to start from scratch. All that was required was to port the Windows version of VirtualPC to Intel-based Macs just as Parallels did with Parallels Desktop. Microsoft could have easily had a viable version of VirtualPC to compete with Parallels, but they chose not to. As for the Mac version of VirtualPC, it cannot be fairly compared to Parallels as it was an emulation package and by default had much more processing overhead resulting in a huge performance penalty. While there is still a performance hit with virtualization, it is less than insignificant in nearly all instances.
Lastly, if you honestly believe that sales of Office:mac are trivial then you are delusional. Microsoft Office is an industry standard and whether we wish to or not, Mac users in most cases have to have a copy in order to be compatible with their Windows brethren. It is a Windows-centric world and Microsoft wiped the table of any productivity suite competition long ago, and as such nearly all Windows users use Office and as a consequence, any Mac user that has to deal with Windows either directly or through associates also need to run Office. The existence of Office on the Mac is also a major selling point for switchers and Microsoft is well aware of that fact.
If you think for one second that the situation in the productivity suite market is any different, then you seriously need to wake up from the fantasy world you are in. Youre smarter than this tallscott.

[tallscot]

No one is saying that the Web is no longer cross-platform, but Microsoft did use its dominant position in the browser market to introduce proprietary Web technologies (e.g., .NET) that only work with IE (for Windows).
Right, for Windows. How does IE for Mac help Microsoft make the Web proprietary? IE for Mac obviously doesn't use Windows-only technologies.
And by the way, DirectX is not a Web technology.
IE for Windows plays DirectX applications. Aren't there some Web sites that require IE because they use DirectX? If not, please list all these Windows-only technologies that were around and being used by IE when IE for Mac was being developed.
VirtualPC has existed in Windows as a virtualization package for some time. Therefore, the MacBU did not need to start from scratch
They needed to port a Windows application to OS X. That isn't really what I call "reconfiguring". That was my only point.
As for the Mac version of VirtualPC, it cannot be fairly compared to Parallels as it was an emulation package and by default had much more processing overhead resulting in a huge performance penalty.
We all know that and I don't have a clue what it has to do with what I said.
Lastly, if you honestly believe that sales of Office:mac are trivial then you are delusional.
What is it with some people? Can't you read a simple post? Show me where I said their sales were trivial. Do that for me. Point it out.
What I said was common sense -- any developer has a limit on what they can spend developing a product and still make a return.
Microsoft Office is an industry standard and whether we wish to or not, Mac users in most cases have to have a copy in order to be compatible with their Windows brethren.
Again, we all know that.
The existence of Office on the Mac is also a major selling point for switchers and Microsoft is well aware of that fact.
You do know that Microsoft is still developing Office for the Mac, right?
Again, go back and read my posts and take a bit more time. I never stated that Office isn't needed. I never stated VB isn't needed on the Mac.

[tallscot]

Quote:

---

Hi all, 2 simple questions. (ignore my ignorance)
1. Is it possible with the success of Apple/Mac, that the other box makers and MS have said, we need to slow down the Mac sales. Especially over the holiday season?
2. I've lost track here but apart from what is/could happen what is the solution?
Take Robs opinion as fact, remove everyone else's view and concentrate on the fix for the future.
Peter
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

1. No.
2. The solution is to keep using Office Mac 2004 if you need VB compatibility. If you don't, it's not an issue. Personally, I love that they are going to utilize Mac OS X features. Frankly, I'm tired of Apple innovating great features in their OS and having big developers ignore them. I understand Rob's point, though. We want VB in their too.

[d00d]

Quote:

---

The Web isn't cross platform anymore?

---

So you've never encountered web sites that will only cater to IE users? You're being disingenuous.

Quote:

---

Which proprietary IE technologies? DirectX? It's not in IE for Mac and never was.

---

Good thing I never said anything about DirectX then, isn't it? Don't put words in my mouth. IE for Mac is still able to work with some websites that Firefox, etc. can't. I've since stopped visiting such sites, but they still exist. Acting as if it isn't true is acting like an ostrich.

Quote:

---

No. VPC for Mac is crap compared to Parallels for Mac. Microsoft isn't going to spend money on a dead horse and VPC is dead with Parallels and Intel Macs being in the picture.

---

Apples and oranges. One is emulation, the other is not. VPC works on PowerPCs only and Parallels works on Intels only. Those are two disjoint markets and therefore are not in competition. VPC doesn't have to be a dead horse. Virtualization is a hot technology that is only going to gain in popularity for a variety of uses. If Parallels was the end all, then VMWare wouldn't be bothering with Fusion.

Quote:

---

If you say so. I'd still like to see some facts on this. The point is a developer isn't going to spend more developing a product than they take in. Some people seem to think it doesn't matter how much it costs to get VB running in the latest Office. I think that's naive and ignores history (Premiere Pro, Audition, Encore, Half Life, etc.). Sometimes it's just about business and cost/profit analysis and it's not a giant conspiracy. I know that thinking doesn't go over well here, though.

---

It does matter how much it costs, but I think you're arbitrarily deciding that moving VBA from PowerPC to Intel is going to cost more than the additional Automator and Applescript support. Let's face it. It's a great excuse to axe something necessary to true cross-platform compatability. Isn't one of Office's strengths the fact that you can trade files with Windows users without thinking? That's now gone and corporations are entrenched with an amazing number of files with VBA. Macs simply become not an option.

[tallscot]

So you've never encountered web sites that will only cater to IE users? You're being disingenuous.
Sure. I've encountered sites that only cater to FireFox too, and Safari too.
So which platform can't access the World Wide Web?
. IE for Mac is still able to work with some websites that Firefox, etc. can't. I've since stopped visiting such sites, but they still exist. Acting as if it isn't true is acting like an ostrich.
And there are still Web sites that work with Firefox that don't work on Safari.
Simple question - which proprietary Microsoft technology is IE for Mac using? You said,

Quote:

---

To absolutely bury Netscape and ultimately destroy the cross-platform nature of the web as well as get corporations to lock themselves into proprietary IE technologies.

---

Apples and oranges. One is emulation, the other is not. VPC works on PowerPCs only and Parallels works on Intels only. Those are two disjoint markets and therefore are not in competition.
Nah, two applications that serve the same purpose but one is Intel and one is PPC definitely compete. They both serve to run Windows on the Mac. The system requirements aren't really relevant. With your logic, Final Cut Pro doesn't compete with Premiere Pro because one works on OS X Macs and the other works on Windows PCs.
None of what you say changes the fact that it costs quite a bit of money to bring VPC to Intel. It seems to me it was portrayed as a simple reconfiguration, whatever that means. I disagree with that.
It does matter how much it costs, but I think you're arbitrarily deciding that moving VBA from PowerPC to Intel is going to cost more than the additional Automator and Applescript support.
Um, no. I'm the one who actually raised the question and asked for facts. Of the two of us, I'm the one who is not coming to conclusions based on conspiracy theories and no facts.
It's funny - I'm told that Microsoft sells a ton of Office for Mac units, yet I'm suppose to believe that Microsoft is intentionally crippling it so the product becomes useless. You know, there is nothing stopping them from just ceasing to make Office. You believe they stopped making VPC to hurt the Mac. Why don't they just stop making Office? These conspiracy theories aren't really consistent, IMHO.

[MacTel]

Quote:

---

If you can create such a utility you will become very popular with quite a few people here. I would love to see what you can develop when the time comes.

---

I would benefit as well from such a utility. I'll see about starting development in March when Microsoft releases the add-in for reading the Office 2007 XML file formats. The VBA-less version of Office for Mac isn't due until next fall so that plenty of time to work out the development of such a utility. Most of the work is mapping functionality between the two Office releases. Anyway, I have some time to chew on it.

[NeoX]

Quote:

---

What TRUE virtualization should be able to achieve is supplying PROGRAMS with the API calls so that Windows Programs could run on the Mac WITHOUT running any Windows OS! That's what I'm really waiting for.

---

Check out codeweavers Crossover Mac:
http://www.codeweave...products/cxmac/
I can't vouch for how good either of these run, but I am really interested in this Coherency mode of Parallels. To the other poster that couldn't find anything about it: I found nothing too, but it was spelled wrong by the original poster... /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[cogito]

I agree this is a very serious issue for Apple.
Close compatibility between MS Office on Windows and Mac has been very important to Apple for many years. Speaking as someone who has used Macs for 20 years I believe there have been times when ceasing development of Mac Office could have effectively killed the Mac and perhaps landed Microsoft in court (again) for abuse of its market dominance.
I don't care if only one MS Office user in one thousand writes VBA code. Often tools developed by that one are used by another thousand (often unknowingly) within the same company. I don't love VBA but have used it as a professional developer for many years. I have often been the guy with the Mac who has been able to say to those needing a clever solution in Excel: "Yes I can do the VBA on my Mac - don't worry it works pretty much the same."
For those running companies where the Mac vs PC decision comes around again the lack of VBA in Mac Office will be another nail in the coffin for Macs.
I hate Microsoft for several reasons mostly relating to killing or crippling or never providing products:
1. They never developed Access for Mac (sure FileMaker Pro is great but would be even better now if it had years of cross-platform competition)
2. They bought and then killed FoxPro for Mac (rated as the fastest Mac database for years and a product not perfect but with fantastic potential)
3. They bought and killed Virtual PC which could also have been developed further and improved. It may have been more important too if there wasn't the Intel switch.
4. Now pulling VBA from Mac Office - a key part of a key software suite and vitally important to the Mac whether many people use it or not.
This is serious enough for Apple to consider legal action over - and I bet they have.

[griffman]

And, the biggie, of course /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif, is that they bought and killed Halo (any version after the first) for the Mac /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif. Want to run Halo 2? Buy a Vista PC (not even XP; they're using it to sell copies of Vista!). Want to run Halo 3? Buy an Xbox 360.
Never mind that they could make scads more money by releasing the game for all platforms simultaneously...it's all about the product push (Vista and Xbox 360 in this case).
-rob.