[cpac]

Appleworks used to be my means for shunning all that was MS, but after ClarisWorks 4, it just got worse instead of better. After getting X I thought I'd give it another shot, especially as it's cheap and there wasn't anything else out there yet. To my dismay the half-assed port is abysmal in every respect. TextEdit is MUCH better, and I've taken to using Word 98 in classic rather than deal with AppleWorks. [/rant]

ANYWAY, my thought is that Omni seems to do such a ridiculously good job creating/porting apps for X, that were they given the head start of the AppleWorks code, they could come up with a truly outstanding office suite. I know MS Office v. X will be out soon, and while their MacBU does do some great work, I'm not sure I want all the extra "features" (such as built in Instant Messaging!?) that MS is cramming in there (not to mention the huge price).

Destined to remain a pipe dream?

cpac

[Orange Luna]

I think everyone will agree AppleWorks needs some serious attention now. I wonder how much Apple even wants to challenge MS Office. MS Office is good advertisement for the Mac. AppleWorks can be a nice additional package when you buy a new iMac but I wonder if Apple has the will (not to mention time and resources) to devote to it. ideas?

[Tim2 at Omni]

Originally posted by cpac:
<STRONG>

ANYWAY, my thought is that Omni seems to do such a ridiculously good job creating/porting apps for X, that were they given the head start of the AppleWorks code, they could come up with a truly outstanding office suite.

</STRONG>

As much as I'd like to see a decent non-MS office suite on OSX (I don't know what they were smoking when they wrote Appleworks. Yeesh!), we're primarily a Cocoa development house. Appleworks is Carbon.

Might be a cool project to start from scratch on, though... *grin*

I personally can't wait for Office X. Eye candy aside, it looks pretty good to me. :-)

[MacGorilla]

I think AppleWorks rocks, especially with the new translators. I think I'm the only person on the planet who thinks so, though.

If Omni would like to create a Cocoa office suite, I'd pay for it, absolutely. Anybody else up to pestering Omni to make one?

[thePurpleGiant]

Okay guys, there you go, a great job for ya!! A cocoa word processor/office app for os x, that'd be so great!! pleeease?

[thePurpleGiant]

.don't get me wrong, I love AW, it's just gone downhill though. It's far more powerful to me in it's simplicity mainly because it lets me do what I want it to do, not what it thinks I want to do...

[Millennium]

I'm not sure it's entirely necessary to Cocoafy AppleWorks, which would itself be a ridiculously difficult task that likely would kill off most chances of getting it done well.

However, I do agree that a good Cocoa office suite is necessary. The reason I specify Cocoa is its object-oriented nature here. Any competitor to Office has to be written in an OO system, because this same idea is how Office achieves its excellent integration between its own apps, and even other apps as well.

Perhaps a Cocoa-based frontend to GNOME's office suite would be a way to go? It would mean finding a way to Cocoafy Bonobo, but in and of itself that could actually be a Good Thing. That would already give us a leg up in terms of backend functionality; AbiWord and Gnumeric have very good, solid backends which might be able to be leveraged, and Evolution is just plain awesome.

Of course, even that may not be necessary. We already have Cocoa-based alternatives to many of Office's apps; Mesa nicely replaces Excel, for example, as OmniGraffle and GLYPHIX could replace the drawing aspects of the apps. We would still need decent word-processing and presentation apps to complete the package, of course, and Mesa and the drawing programs might need a redesign to export their functionality (at least in terms of viewing) as reusable Cocoa objects, to make sure the apps integrated perfectly.

But this is all possible. And I wouldn't mind seeing the other apps come into play. "OmniWord", perhaps?

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>I'm not sure it's entirely necessary to Cocoafy AppleWorks, which would itself be a ridiculously difficult task that likely would kill off most chances of getting it done well.

However, I do agree that a good Cocoa office suite is necessary. The reason I specify Cocoa is its object-oriented nature here. Any competitor to Office has to be written in an OO system, because this same idea is how Office achieves its excellent integration between its own apps, and even other apps as well.

Perhaps a Cocoa-based frontend to GNOME's office suite would be a way to go? It would mean finding a way to Cocoafy Bonobo, but in and of itself that could actually be a Good Thing. That would already give us a leg up in terms of backend functionality; AbiWord and Gnumeric have very good, solid backends which might be able to be leveraged, and Evolution is just plain awesome.

Of course, even that may not be necessary. We already have Cocoa-based alternatives to many of Office's apps; Mesa nicely replaces Excel, for example, as OmniGraffle and GLYPHIX could replace the drawing aspects of the apps. We would still need decent word-processing and presentation apps to complete the package, of course, and Mesa and the drawing programs might need a redesign to export their functionality (at least in terms of viewing) as reusable Cocoa objects, to make sure the apps integrated perfectly.

But this is all possible. And I wouldn't mind seeing the other apps come into play. "OmniWord", perhaps?</STRONG>

you really have no clue what you're talking about do you?

cocoa is obj-c, carbon is c++. BOTH are OO languages, both are just as good. there's not any performance increases, or anything like that. any office suite needs to be written in cocoa to compete with ms office? come on what hole did you pull that out from? not only should you learn the differences between C, c++, and objC (or non-differences), you should also learn about the gnome project before you open your mouth. there's no gnome office suite. there's abiword, and gnumeric. two independent sucky programs. by the way, both of which, are written in PLAIN OL' C. writing a "cocoa front-end" would be the most absurd, ridiculous thing i've ever seen anyone waste time on. that's is just stupid. what do you expect to gain? it's certainly not going to make it 'faster' or 'more robust.' or even add any features. and staroffice, well, that is C++, and that is being ported to the Mac OS using carbon. they've got some excellent documentation about porting applications for multiple platforms. hey maybe you should read those too?

maybe you need to go buy another 3 edged sword, huh?

regards.

[cpac]

Originally posted by thePurpleGiant:
<STRONG>Okay guys, there you go, a great job for ya!! A cocoa word processor/office app for os x, that'd be so great!! pleeease?</STRONG>

I know Nissus is working on a Cocoa version of Nissus writer, but their info page is horribly vague (doesn't specify a release year much less a specific date.

I think the necessary features in an acceptable Cocoa word processor would be:

1) Basic page layout tools (including header/footer &c.) (aren't these pretty much already written between OmniGraffle and OmniOutliner?)

2) Add something to do Footnotes

3) Add tables that work they way they should (AppleWorks currently is horrendous, something that emulates Word's tables, or is even more intuitive would be great)

4) Outlining features (this just means incorporating OmniOutliner)

5) MS Word import/export 'cause you've always got to share with those people anyway, although I'd be willing to wait on this feature, or get it through a third party like MacLink.

Anything you guys think this "basic" cocoa word processor would be lacking? (I'm thinking that if you need templates and macros you're better off just going with Word v. X). Doesn't this sound pretty do-able?

cpac

[Millennium]

My friend, you're the one who doesn't know who you're talking about.

cocoa is obj-c, carbon is c++. BOTH are OO languages, both are just as good.

Neither Carbon or Cocoa is a language. And neither API is bound to a specific language, either.

Both Objective-C and C++ are object-oriented languages. But Cocoa and Carbon are not both object-oriented systems. Carbon is procedural, although some OO frameworks (such as PowerPlant) are build on top of it. This is fine; procedural methods are better than OO in certain circumstances, and OO is better than procedural in some circumstances.

In this case, though, OO is more appropriate, for reasons I have stated before, and will refine later in this post.

there's not any performance increases, or anything like that.

Actually there is, but not in the way blind Cocoa advocates often claim.

Cocoa does have a small bit of overhead, due to its dynamic runtime. You typically won't notice this unless you're performing thousands of CPU-intensive operations, and since Cocoa is concentrated on the UI aspects of programming, you won't typically be doing that. However, if properly programmed, it is Carbon that has the performance advantage, however slight that might be.

any office suite needs to be written in cocoa to compete with ms office? come on what hole did you pull that out from?

A little hole called "integration". Perhaps you've heard of it. I've done a fair bit of Windows programming, and I can say from experience that some of the things Office can do, both between its own apps and apps written by other companies that have nothing whatsoever to do with Office, is astounding. This is because of the component-based architecture of Office. Cocoa has a similar component-based ability built in; Carbon does not. The Mac OS once had an architecture like this; it was called OpenDoc. But Apple canned it, and it didn't carry over into Carbon.

not only should you learn the differences between C, c++, and objC (or non-differences)

There are differences, and they are significant. Depending on the circumstances, those differences can make one language more appropriate than another for a given task. That's why there are so many programming languages out there; each is designed to do something well, and there are tradeoffs involved in that.

you should also learn about the gnome project before you open your mouth.

I've been using it since version 0.1.

there's no gnome office suite. there's abiword, and gnumeric.

You forgot to mention Evolution and the GIMP. There are some others as well. It is true they're not developed by the same company, but that doesn't matter; they're considered to be part of the essential "office suite" anyway.

two independent sucky programs.

I wouldn't say they suck; they're actually both quite nice. They are independent, though.

by the way, both of which, are written in PLAIN OL' C.

Your point?

writing a "cocoa front-end" would be the most absurd, ridiculous thing i've ever seen anyone waste time on.

Why? C code integrates into Objective-C perfectly. By definition, in fact, because Objective-C itself is defined as an extension to C.

that's is just stupid. what do you expect to gain? it's certainly not going to make it 'faster' or 'more robust.' or even add any features.

That's right. I just want a native, component-based interface. Carbon can give me the first of these. But it cannot, by its very design, give me the second. And that's just fine; that's outside the scope of what Carbon should be used for. But it means that you need a different system. Cocoa can be that system.

and staroffice, well, that is C++, and that is being ported to the Mac OS using carbon. they've got some excellent documentation about porting applications for multiple platforms. hey maybe you should read those too?

Oh, I don't mean to take away from their efforts. They're doing as good a job as is possible. But they are not attempting to do component-based integration, either, and that's something which I think will be necessary for any serious competitor to Office.

maybe you need to go buy another 3 edged sword, huh?

You do know what that means, right? Your side, their side, and the truth.

[Scotttheking]

I'll pay for one.
I'm paying for OW as soon as it is a decent speed and works with my web page (anyone know who I contact to make it work, I heard there is an email, but don't know what it is)

AW in OSX has been too crashy for me, at least in the spreadsheet part.

[max4ever]

If you see my earlier post, 'AppleWorks 6--Why so bad?', from this week, I explain my love-hate relationship with AppleWorks. I definitely agree that AW for X has serious problems, but with work could be saved. I have no need for Office and wouldn't pay for it; if AW was revised or if Omni came out with a Cocoa WP, I'd be all over it, figuratively speaking.

[Developer]

There is a Cocoa word processor called Okito Composer
http://www.okito.net/composer/

It's crap though.

[cpac]

Actually I just checked out that Okito Composer and it's got some promise.

It's very basic so far, but if it were to add footnotes and tables, and maybe a WYSIWYG font menu it'd be a lot closer to something I'd regularly use. I think the "tool drawer" is a pretty neat concept as well.

Clearly though if this Okita Composer thing can be thrown together with a minimum of development, an "OmniWord" which incorperated features already flushed out in OminGraffle and OmniOutliner could be great!
If it had all those features I listed above, I'd DEFINITELY pay for it (hint hint Omni?)

Now I wish I'd paid more attention in CS 5 (basic C++ programming) so I could help get this thing rolling...

cpac

[thePurpleGiant]

Things I would like in a Cocoa WP:

� Automatic spell checking (automatically done in services, but still, thought I'd mention it)

� A very customisable toolbar

� Easy to use tables (ie, easy to move, edit, add more rows and columns etc..in word I spend 3 minutes just trying to delete a friggin table!)

� WYSIWYG fonts (either in menu or font pallete...maybe both, option?)

� basic drawing tools (like AW currently has is fine)

� word count

� text wrap

� alligning drawing objects options

That's cover 99% of my use. As you can see, a lot of this sounds like AW is already, I'd just prefer more polished implementations of it all quite simply. I'd be willing to pay up to $50US for this if done well.

Jeremy

[MacGorilla]

Add to the list the abillity to compare two documents and see the differences. There is a shareware add on to AppleWorks to do this. I would like to see this built in.

As for cost. I would pay at least $99 for all the features we've mentioned.

[Okito]

I am the developer of Okito Composer and I must say this discussion has been very interesting to me! It is always great to see what people are interested in when it comes to having a native Mac OS X-based Word Processor.

I thought everyone might be interested in a few things about Okito Composer:

1. Composer is in a very early stage of development. I have had requests for all the features people have mentioned here and I am working hard to add them all. Of course, I am one developer at this point where Microsoft Word requires a large team...thanks to Cocoa I am able to do quite a bit!

2. Composer is designed around a technology called the Okito Toolbox that allows all Toolbox-based programs on your computer to tightly integrate. Any tools available in your Toolbox-based drawing program will automatically be available in Composer, and visa-versa. If there is enough interest in Composer, we may expand it into a suite of office/creativity applications. In fact, I would prefer to partner with other companies to provide some of these other applications; as long as they use theToolbox, the programs will integrate seamlessly!

Anyway, right now Composer is only available publically to give people a chance to comment on the basic design of Composer and to tell me what features they want to see. If you are interested in seeing this program developed to a full word-processor, download the program, send me your feedback, and ask others you know who might be interested to do the same!

Cheers,
-Charles

[MacGorilla]

I tried Okito Composer and was roundly unimpressed BUT as a developer myself, I understand it is in early development so I wont bash it. I know it will only get better with time.

If Okito comes to encompass all these requested features, I'd be a happy man. So would many others!

[alphamatrix]

Well i'm a big fan of Okito Composer, I use it for my math and science notes its a good start. Keep up the good work.

"I have four words for you Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers!"
Steve Ballmer

[thePurpleGiant]

I'd be interested in trying out Okito, but the address posted above doesn't work for me, is it right?

Okita Composer at Versiontracker.com


There you go!

[Okito]

For anyone who tried to download Composer in the last 12 hours: there was storm last night that apparantly reset the server, however the web server did not come back up automatically. This has been corrected. You can find Composer at version tracker (see the link above) or at the Composer web-site:
http://www.okito.net/composer

Cheers,
-Charles

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Okito ]

[Gee4orce]

I'd like to see this theoretical new word-processor use XML as it's native file format. In fact, I think all OS X apps should do this whereever possible.

For instance, I noticed that OmniGraffle - believe it or not - uses XML as it's file format. It stores the instructions for how to draw the graph*

WHY ? The main benefit of XML is that it's relatively easy to move data between different applications - unlike using, say, MS Word as your common document interchange format - which then requires everyone to share documents with to possess MS Word.

In fact, you guys should be writing your documents in raw XML by hand, and then writing a parser in Perl to convert it into LaTEX...

* Note: is a document created by OmniGraffle called a Graffle ?? I wonder...

Omni should do an Office suite, excellent idea, excellent, go Omni, go!

[thePurpleGiant]

Okay, I downloaded Okita thing doodle (whatever it's called...)

comments:

I know it's early stages, so i wont be too harsh, just general idea's/suggestions...

� there's friggin 3 ways to change the font! (popup meu in toolbar thing, list in toolbar and font panel in separate window)... tools drawer customisation would be great.

� I really like the popup menu for fonts with an autocompleting section to type the name in...not exactly Mac OS X guidline standards (i don't think), but something I find very useful

� a 'document' section where margins and the like can be changed is essential

� I like the size 'slider', very nice

� Some drawing tools, ala AppleWorks would be a good idea, just things like square, circle, line (with arrow) and polygon would be good.

and that covers the very first things that struck me about it. There's many more features I would like, but that's enough for now...keep it up

Jeremy

[MemeTransport]

Originally posted by thePurpleGiant:
<STRONG>Things I would like in a Cocoa WP:
[list defining a basic wordproc]

Jeremy</STRONG>

I'd add non-contiguous selection, PrettyGREP (TM), styles, master pages or page styles (basically all used styles plus head/footer, formatting etc glommed into one selection), and full use of ATSUI. If it integrated nicely with a decent spread sheet and a couple graphics programs I'd be in heaven.

Oh ya, an interface that isn't ugly or constantly in the way. And if the spell checker and search'n'replace were offered out as a Service that be darn cool. Oh, if it could open any file too. And...

I'd pay a fair bit for it. Wordperfect filled the gap at one time, AW doesn't do everything I want and is a POS. I look at Nisus Writer every year and like the power but don't like the inteface.

It doesn't need to have half the feature of MSWord. In fact, I hope it doesn't.