 |
 |
Office for Mac 2011: First look (Page 3)
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 
Given limited time and prioritized work efforts, I'd rather have an improved O2k10 32-bit than a less-improved 64-bit app suite.
*Ahem* Adobe *ahem*
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Polwaristan
Status:
Offline
|
|
But in Adobe's case, if one needs apps with huge amounts of ram, then that would rate higher in priority. But with Office it doesn't.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot
Who cares?
Why does it matter in the slightest whether the Office Suite goes 64-bit?
Twice the number of GPRs available. Also, 64-bit memory space can help Excel, but given the choice between a 32-bit native app with the polish of Word 5.1 and a 64-bit app with the polish of Office 2007, I would pick the former.
|
|
The new Mac Pro has up to 30 MB of cache inside the processor itself. That's more than the HD in my first Mac. Somehow I'm still running out of space.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status:
Offline
|
|
BRING BACK WORD 5.1a.
dammit.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Status:
Offline
|
|
Outlook for Mac seems pretty enticing. Here's hoping Microsoft doesn't make a watered down or half baked version. They're losing ground as a company and FAST. You'd think with the slow shift of more and more people migrating to Mac, it would garner more of their resources.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top