Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

DBvader · Mar 28, 2003, 05:07 AM

i am a recent switcher who moved from a 2000+ to a Dual 867, and i love it. i was just wondering, though, is MS planning a new release of Office anytime soon? The programs navigate slower and are less responsive than my PCs version of MSO.

the same goes for Photoshop.

are they slower and less responsive becuase they are carbon apps? any cocoa development in the works for either of these applications?

moonmonkey · Mar 28, 2003, 05:10 AM

Originally posted by DBvader:
are they slower and less responsive becuase they are carbon apps? any cocoa development in the works for either of these applications?

No and no.

They just need to be warmed up a bit.

Wait for the next version.

DBvader · Mar 28, 2003, 05:36 AM

and when are those later versions slated to be released?

beb · Mar 28, 2003, 09:11 AM

I would think that Office 11 for OS X would follow the release of the version for Wintel.

Then again, Office v.X is better than the Windows XP version, how that happened is beyond my comprehension.

Then again, I would love to be able to have Access on OS X -no matter how crappy it is or how much better Filemaker Pro is.

DBvader · Mar 28, 2003, 03:26 PM

im notcertain how its better than the PC version. i saw that on an ad a while ago, before buying my mac. its essentially the exact program, just slower and less responsive...

i would think the windows version is better only for thsoe 2 reasons, and other than that, they are the same.

CheesePuff · Mar 28, 2003, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by DBvader:
im notcertain how its better than the PC version. i saw that on an ad a while ago, before buying my mac. its essentially the exact program, just slower and less responsive...

i would think the windows version is better only for thsoe 2 reasons, and other than that, they are the same.

Where is it slower and less responsive? On a Dual 867 MHz it should be fine.

nobitacu · Mar 28, 2003, 03:55 PM

If they do make Office 11 for Mac, I hope they will have something called a Update from Office X, because I just spend a lot of money getting this... I would hate to spend another $500 on a new version when it comes out.
But the thing is... if there is a update one you can buy, then later on, Office 12 comes out, will we still be able to just buy another update version and make it to 12? or have to buy a full version then? It'll save a lot of money if we can just do update after updater after update for each new version of Office.

Ming

Ganesha · Mar 28, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by DBvader:
im notcertain how its better than the PC version.

1) No activation.
2) Better formatting actions for people who access options via the mouse and not keyboard shortcuts.

AU_student_iceBook · Mar 28, 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by nobitacu:
...later on, Office 12 comes out, will we still be able to just buy another update version and make it to 12? or have to buy a full version then? It'll save a lot of money if we can just do update after updater after update for each new version of Office.
Ming

This has always been MS policy in general. If you had any recent previous version of office, you could just upgrade to office v. X

-Q- · Mar 28, 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by nobitacu:
If they do make Office 11 for Mac, I hope they will have something called a Update from Office X, because I just spend a lot of money getting this... I would hate to spend another $500 on a new version when it comes out.
But the thing is... if there is a update one you can buy, then later on, Office 12 comes out, will we still be able to just buy another update version and make it to 12? or have to buy a full version then? It'll save a lot of money if we can just do update after updater after update for each new version of Office.

Ming

I got my upgrade to Office v.X for $150 b/c I owned a previous version. I'd imagine they'll do the same when the new one comes out...

Superchicken · Mar 28, 2003, 07:38 PM

Office v10 is generally veiwed as better because A it doesn't look like crap, and B I think probably because it has pallets which make more sense than a ton of tool bars. I used office the trial and I acctually enjoyed it, if I weren't content with what I've seen from open office I'd probably buy it.
Anyway Office 11 will probably come out after the PC version they tend to stagger em. And Office for Mac looks different becasue the MacBU makes it not the office team.

Cadaver · Mar 29, 2003, 12:05 AM

MS Office is definitely faster on a PC because of the way Microsoft integrates certain functions into the OS - specifically so their apps are faster than the competition.
MS software will always be faster on the PC than the Mac. Perhaps it's my bias, but I believe it's engineered by Microsoft this way.
However, that said I find Office's speed at least acceptable on my 1GHz TiBook.

Photoshop 7 suffers from OS X's generally pokey GUI. The application's actions, however, I find to be quite snappy.

There certainly is a trade off in speed for a vector-based, double window buffered GUI on a bandwidth-limited motherboard. Hardware limitations aside, I still prefer MacOS X to Windows XP.

DBvader · Mar 29, 2003, 02:15 AM

"Where is it slower and less responsive? On a Dual 867 MHz it should be fine."

everywhere, from startup to save time, the program just isnt as fast.

of course the speeds of this applications dont change my opinions on OS X in any way, i still love it...

... i was just wondering why those 2 apps in particular are so clunky, and if they were planning on fixing it.

Macint_sh · Mar 29, 2003, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by DBvader:
"Where is it slower and less responsive? On a Dual 867 MHz it should be fine."

everywhere, from startup to save time, the program just isnt as fast.

of course the speeds of this applications dont change my opinions on OS X in any way, i still love it...

... i was just wondering why those 2 apps in particular are so clunky, and if they were planning on fixing it.

On my PowerBook G4 with 512MBs memory I find Office and Photoshop to be rather fast.

One thing that the PC version of Office does not have over the Macintosh version is Quartz.

I could add nice anti-aliased text and transparency to things in the Mac version and I could not even dream of doing such in the PC version...

DBvader · Mar 29, 2003, 03:34 AM

"On my PowerBook G4 with 512MBs memory I find Office and Photoshop to be rather fast."

commpared to the pc version, or do you feel that its fine based on its performance alone. i have 512 DDR in my dual 867, and its performance is fine, just slower, and less responsive than most programs on the mac or PC.

"One thing that the PC version of Office does not have over the Macintosh version is Quartz."

is the text AAd? its not like the QE makes it faster, though...

" I could add nice anti-aliased text and transparency to things in the Mac version and I could not even dream of doing such in the PC version..."

really? i never messed around with the transparency things, what do you use it for, and how does that incrase productivity.

other than looking better than the PC version, i think the mac version is a bit thinned down compared to the PC version.

Also, are you sure the text is antialiased? i know that some things are, but others arent. i know, for example, that chimera isnt, but that text in on the desktop, safari, and in finder are... i have never he ard it being AAd in word.

Sven G · Mar 29, 2003, 03:52 AM

For those worried about the Office X/11 price, just get the academic version (available to all): it's identical to the "normal" one (except for the - usually negligible for a home user - fact that you may not use it in a "commercial" environment).

BTW, it would be nice if Office 11 for OS X also included some implementation of the Windows/Office XP "task panes" - maybe in a new manner that is perfectly integrated into the OS X system...

willed · Mar 29, 2003, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by Macint_sh:

One thing that the PC version of Office does not have over the Macintosh version is Quartz.

I could add nice anti-aliased text and transparency to things in the Mac version and I could not even dream of doing such in the PC version...

Yeah except you can't actually print it! At least this was the case last time I tried under 10.1. Looked very pretty on the screen, but I couldn't print it. Known issue apparently. Office v.X is by no means Snappy. You'd have thought a word processor really should be able to run superfast on any modern Mac by now wouldn't you

CheesePuff · Mar 29, 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by DBvader:
commpared to the pc version, or do you feel that its fine based on its performance alone. i have 512 DDR in my dual 867, and its performance is fine, just slower, and less responsive than most programs on the mac or PC.

Well, you can slap in another 512 MB chip to make the total 1024 MB (1 GB). Mac OS X really eats up RAM and the more you have the more the system in general and applications will feel more responsiveness.

Toyin · Mar 29, 2003, 10:19 AM

Dual 500 1.5gb of ram 10.2.4 and Office v.X
vs 1.4ghz P4 768mb of ram with Win2K Professional and MSO Premium.

The PC definitely launches MS Office files faster but within the application they're pretty equal. OSX on a whole is slow at pulling up the save dialogs.

RAM would improve your situation. OSX loves ram. The jump from 768MB Ram to 1.5gb of Ram made a difference on my machine.

DeathMan · Mar 29, 2003, 12:45 PM

)

Originally posted by DBvader:
... i was just wondering why those 2 apps in particular are so clunky, and if they were planning on fixing it.

If it makes you feel any better (and it doesn't make me feel better at all

)These aren't the only apps that suffer from what I call "inferior port slowness syndrome, or iPss. They're not even the worst cases.

In my opinion the iPssiest apps are:

1. Macromedia Dreamweaver
2. Adobe Illustrator (the 10.0.3 update fixed this to a great extent, however.)
3. Macromedia Flash

If these respective apps could get a nice swift kick in the butt (metaphorically speaking) I think we'd be all set. What happened to Macromedia? when did they abandon reason for madness?

passmaster16 · Mar 29, 2003, 03:42 PM

Word v.X is slower on my dual 867 w/2 GB ram than Word XP on my Athlon 1.4Ghz with 1 GB ram. I really do like the Word v.X interface more than its windows counterpart. If they would only speed it up a bit.

Colonel Panic · Mar 30, 2003, 09:56 AM

I like Office v.X, but a speed demon she ain't.
Noticably sluggish compared to Office 2001 in classic or OS 9, as well as Office 2000/XP on the PC side.

How much is OS X related and how much is Office X related it is hard to say but a new version would be welcome.

I don't fully buy the "better than Office XP" stuff.

CatOne · Mar 30, 2003, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
Well, you can slap in another 512 MB chip to make the total 1024 MB (1 GB). Mac OS X really eats up RAM and the more you have the more the system in general and applications will feel more responsiveness.

WRONG. Unless you're paging, extra RAM makes NO difference whatsoever. If you are paging, then it'll make a huge difference.

Just run 'top' from a terminal and see how many pageouts you have. If that number is large (say over 100K) and the number in parens (number the last x seconds) is nonzero, then extra RAM is the ticket. If not, it doesn't matter. OS X is good with memory management.

gregpins · Mar 30, 2003, 11:36 AM

I think this issue is bigger than Office or Photoshop. It's an OS X issue. There are lots of Mac lovers who try to spin or downplay the performance gap. I think it's better to tell the truth and push Apple harder on the performance issue.

OS X+chip speed shortcomings=a perfect storm of bad performance on the Mac platform that must urgently be addressed.

Yes, OS X is pretty, stable, lots of good features -- but it is also SLOW. Slow browsing networks. Slow switching apps. Slow surfing the net. Slow in games. Slow bringing up dialogue boxes. Slower than OS 9. Slower than Windows XP or 2000. Any recitiation of OS X's strengths should be balanced by an acknowledgement of this glaring weakness.

Yes, people with brand-new or very new hardware are going to say "works good for me." But lots of folks with 1 year-old hardware are struggling with this. And I'm not talking about grandma sending e-mail. That kind of user is fine. I'm talking about, for exampe, designers and creative professionals, the bread and butter of Apple's enterprise business. I am Partner in a medium-sized ad agency and I oppose putting our design staff on OS X because of this issue. Apple has already lost all of our Avid systems, which went PC a couple of years ago.

I am concerned that Apple is not as focused on performance as it should be. After all, the slower OS X is, the more people will be incented to buy new systems to better handle it. That may be in the company's short term financial interest, but it weakens the platform long term.

I am praying that 10.3 brings MAJOR speed improvements. If it doesn't, I think Mac market share will continue to decline.

Just my two cents.

CheesePuff · Mar 30, 2003, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by CatOne:
WRONG. Unless you're paging, extra RAM makes NO difference whatsoever. If you are paging, then it'll make a huge difference.

True - but ask anyone here who has added more RAM. It also results in a performance increase. Sure, going from 1.5 GB to 2.0 GB will not do a big difference if you are writing a letter, but I think if you even just have a few apps open such as Safari, Mail, Word, etc. going from 512 MB to 1024 MB will make a difference.