Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

daveshaw · May 17, 2006, 03:18 PM

I'm considering installing this software on the latest version of Tiger. I'm wondering if I'm setting myself up for some problems as far as this software being outdated and running it on OSX. I'm currently running AppleWorks 6.2.7 on my G4 400 very smooth. (I had it originally installed on OS 9.2.2, then I upgradet through OS 10.3 and just now 10.4. Can I install the very same old software on the newer machine (G5 1.8 Ghz with OS 10.4)and expect the same operation as I have on my old G4 or should i consider other "newer" applications for wordprocessing?

Thanks

TheoCryst · May 18, 2006, 01:32 AM

It will technically work the same, but you might want to upgrade anyway. Appleworks is all but abandoned, and very feature-less when compared to Office 2004 or even Pages.

brettcamp · May 18, 2006, 05:08 AM

... or even NeoOffice, which is free.

daveshaw · May 18, 2006, 08:28 PM

okies

thank you

Person Man · May 19, 2006, 12:15 PM

Originally Posted by TheoCryst

It will technically work the same, but you might want to upgrade anyway. Appleworks is all but abandoned, and very feature-less when compared to Office 2004 or even Pages.

Try telling that to my mother. She insisted on having AppleWorks on her brand new Intel Mac mini. She won't give that up until it refuses to run under some future operating system, and then she'll gripe and grumble about "being forced to switch" and then learn to use Word or Pages.

Love Calm Quiet · May 20, 2006, 07:23 PM

I run AW 6.2.9 on PB Tiger. ... on rare occasions. I don't recall any problems - other than its usual limitations!

eeeaa · May 20, 2006, 09:07 PM

Why has Apple decided to abandon the software? Have they ever let on as to why? Does it have anything to do with the agreements that they have with Microsoft regarding Office for Mac?

bowwowman · May 21, 2006, 08:05 AM

Have AW 6.2.9 on Tiger .6...... notta problemo

JRDasher · May 23, 2006, 01:30 PM

I use AW 6.2.9 on 10.4.6 almost daily, runs without problems.

Person Man · May 23, 2006, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

Why has Apple decided to abandon the software? Have they ever let on as to why? Does it have anything to do with the agreements that they have with Microsoft regarding Office for Mac?

No, it has nothing to do with the agreements they have with Microsoft.

Apple feels they have something better in iWork. Sure, they don't have a spreadsheet, but perhaps iWork '07 will.

eeeaa · May 23, 2006, 11:43 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

No, it has nothing to do with the agreements they have with Microsoft.

Apple feels they have something better in iWork. Sure, they don't have a spreadsheet, but perhaps iWork '07 will.

Is that an assumption, or do you have inside information from someone at Apple? Being that they don't release the details of the contracts, it could very well be that Microsoft, as part of the most-recent contract this year, mandated that Apple not interfere with their Office for Mac sales. Frankly, Pages is not a word processor, and, if it was meant to be, it missed the mark. Keynote is an existing product that Apple may have worked into the contract because it was already popular.

I hope that they do release a spreadsheet, and package FileMaker with their own office suite, but I don't think anyone knows yet if it's coming, and I'd doubt it. I think Apple is fine letting Microsoft dominate the business market (as evidenced by the fact that they don't even let on that they own FileMaker, unless you are looking closely), while they take the creative market. Pages and Keynote, are, at their cores, creative apps. A spreadsheet and full on word processor are clearly not.

It could also be that we are both wrong. Perhaps Microsoft mandated nothing (or Apple refused to agree to it), and Apple simply wants out of the office apps market, in order to focus on creative apps. Their current commercial (one of them, anyway) makes this even more probable, because it clearly states that PCs are good for office apps, while Macs are good at creative apps. It could simply be a case of "this is what we want our vision to be - this is who we are to the public."

Person Man · May 24, 2006, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by dmetzcher

Is that an assumption, or do you have inside information from someone at Apple?

Neither. It would not be in Microsoft's best interests to forbid Apple to do something like that. It smacks of anti-competitiveness, and if something like that were to get out it would be VERY bad for Microsoft. Plus Apple wouldn't stand for it.

Besides, AppleWorks was NEVER a competitor to Office.

bbales · May 24, 2006, 09:17 AM

Even though I finally caved and bought Office about 3 years ago (it made it vastly easier to send files to clients and other people, rather than using translating software), I still use AppleWorks for daily word processing. But I tell you, lately I've been wondering if I should just start using Word or anotehr alternative. Want to drag the document icon to mail or entourage to e-mail the file? Can't do it in AW. And there are other limitations as well. I wish Apple would have supported this product as it should have.

eeeaa · May 24, 2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

Neither. It would not be in Microsoft's best interests to forbid Apple to do something like that. It smacks of anti-competitiveness, and if something like that were to get out it would be VERY bad for Microsoft. Plus Apple wouldn't stand for it.

Besides, AppleWorks was NEVER a competitor to Office.

We'll agree to disagree on that point. It would be in Microsoft's best interests to get Apple to agree to such a provision in the contract. As far as anti-competitive, yes, that's true, but not illegal. Companies can make any agreements that they choose, within reason. The problems arise when they use their market power to "force" other companies (like MS did with PC clone venders) to put certain software on their machines, as opposed to other software titles. If Apple sat down and decided that (1) we want MS Office on our machines, and (2) in order to convince MS to do that, we'd need to promise that we will not use our own market power to run MS out of town on the Mac platform. Think about it logically. Will you sign a contract that say that you MUST create a software package (probably with certain provisions that say you have to release so many updates and bugfixes over a certain period of time) if the company with which you were signing the contract could, at any time, run you off their platform by creating a competing, integrated product? That's exactly what MS has done in the past, and I'm sure they won't open themselves up to that sort of thing, if they don't have to. It makes little sense to commit resources to a project if that project could be squashed by the very company to whom you are committing.

Of course, Apple could simply refuse any such agreement, and tell MS: "That's the risk you take if you want a spot on stage with us at MacWorld." MS could then agree to sign or not.

The point is, this has nothing to do with anti-competitive practices. Sometimes, companies need to be a little smarter before signing agreements with competitors. Not everything that MS does is illegal.