Mac Office IMHO
instead of revising the Mac version of Microsoft Office ... what?
I am just wonder why instead of revising the Mac version of Microsoft Office, why can't Microsoft take the Windows version and translate it to run on an Intel Mac.
I know they would have to provide some libraries that aren't normally on the Mac, but that would seem an easier and cheaper solution than keeping with the current Mac version and causing it to split from the Windows versions.
Fred Rubs the Crystal Ball
Jobs and Microsoft go way back. They know each other too well. I'm betting that MS is hedging the predictions that Apple's programmers are, in fact, good enough to pull off the 'compatibility' thing. They're betting that eventually, as the Mac hardware and OS matures, it will run the regular edition of OFFICE. . . . Adding the Mac nation into the hord of Windows lemmings adds that much more profit to Microsoft's coffers. Guess what -- eliminating the costs of reprogramming separate Mac products is money in the bank. Pinkslips for MacBU people. Only a guess. . . . I'll remind you of this post in a year or so. :-)Fred
Links and background...
Microsoft axes Virtual PC for Mac, Office still planned
Prince McLean has reported that Microsoft Corp. said it will not proceed with plans for an Intel-native version of Virtual PC for the Mac, but said its Mac Business Unit is continuing work on several other products, including a Universal version of Office. Microsoft also said it has decided not to move forward with a Universal version of Virtual PC at this time. However, it will continue to provide support to existing Virtual PC customers. (READ MORE)06/08/07/
Microsoft said it has updated "tens of millions of lines of code" in its quest to deliver a Universal version of Office.
(READ MORE)
EARLIER in August:
Microsoft launches MacBU blog
Microsoft's Office for Mac team launched Mac Mojo -- the Office for Mac team, also known as the Macintosh Business Unit (MacBU), created the new blog "to offer a broad range of voices and perspectives across MacBU.
Sez Mac Mojo:
... Hello! Welcome to the official weblog for the Office for Mac team at Microsoft (a.k.a the Macintosh Business Unit, or simply MacBU). Our team is focused exclusively on developing software for the Macintosh platform.
(READ MORE)
December 08, 2005
Microsoft claims:
The Macintosh Business Unit (MacBU) at Microsoft is the largest, 100 percent, Mac-focused developer of Mac software outside of Apple itself. We're dedicated to building the finest productivity software for the Mac platform.
(READ MORE)
August 7th
Microsoft kills VirtualPC, VB for Mac
Microsoft's Mac Business Unit today announced that it will cease development on a Universal version of Virtual PC. Current VirtualPC customers will continue to receive product support, however.
(READ MORE)
Got opinions? Use the comments form below, or: drop us a line
Comments
It's been done before, and it didn't work out - and in fact led to the creation of the Mac BU.
MS discovered that Mac users didn't want an identical version of MS Office for Windows, they want the ability to open, edit and save MS Office documents while using 'Mac-like' software (and if you're a Mac 'power user' with integration into the Mac operating system).
The blog entry in the URL I've attached has some interesting background and history.
Technically speaking, what you're talking about is certainly possible - MS could buy out Parallels, and bundle enough of Vista into the Mac Office code itself to get it working (there will be issues around graphics acceleration but they are not unsolveable).
However, taking that move would open the playing field to rival companies (including Apple). With the move towards open / XML file formats that is even more risky.
As for VBA support - it may be disappearing in the Windows version of Office too - or rather, Microsoft would like to have done with 'Classic' VB across it's whole product line. I suspect this may have been a factor in assessing whether it was worth porting to Intel OS X.
http://classicvb.org/petition/faq.asp
[The interesting thing is that if they implement Applescript properly (as they say they are going to do) - i.e. exposed all equivalent APIs - it might be possible for someone to port the VBA language to run on top of Apple's common scripting language interface]
Posted by: JulesLt | September 9, 2006 10:10 AM
Why don't they port the Windows version? Good idea I suppose as far as giving us Mac users a copy of Outlook so we could have 100 percent compatiblity with Windows Exchange clients.
But why give up a better version of Office for one not as good? Remember, PowerPoint, Excel and Word were on Macs first. I had one Microsoft excecutive tell me that many people in Microsoft consider the Mac version the best version of Office out.
The MacBU has been developing the Mac version for years. It would take a lot more money and a lot more time porting the Windows version, and then it would lack all the Mac features of the Mac version of Office that we have now. It would be kludgy (ports always are) and missing so much it would not be worth it just to have Outlook.
Besides, the MacBU made it clear that just to port Access to the Mac would take all of their people several years. So nothing else would be worked on in the meantime.
Botttom line, it would not be faster and cheaper. Just because Macs run on Intel processors now doesn't mean you can easily convert Windows programs to run on them. Shoot, it's hard enough converting complex programs that run on PowerPC Macs!
A few libraries, as you suggest, wouldn't even come close to even getting started doing it.
Posted by: Eric | September 9, 2006 10:23 PM
According to a post on the MacBU blogs (I think), the reason they can't do a straight over port is there is a tonne of assembler code in Excel etc that calls win32 api's directly. yeech.
Posted by: trever | September 11, 2006 8:53 PM
You are correct: Macintosh users do not want a version of Office that isn't Mac-like. However, wouldn't it make the most sense to make the Windows version Mac-like?
:-)
sjt
Posted by: Steven J. Tryon | October 1, 2006 8:19 PM