Microsoft Office 2011 for Mac will be 32-bit only

Microsoft said on Tuesday that its Office 2011 for Mac software will be 32-bit only when it's available later this year.

The decision, spotted by ZDNet's Mary Jo Foley, for a 32-bit only version of Office 2011 for Mac is due to the fact Microsoft has not fully completed the transition of moving its ribbon UI over to Cocoa yet. Apple's framework requires Microsoft to complete the move to Cocoa before they can build a 64-bit version. "While Cocoa makes our job building Office easier, Office 2011 will look and feel great regardless of what technology is powering which bit of user interface", said Jake Hoelter of Microsoft's Mac division.

Microsoft has been recommending Windows users to opt for 32-bit versions of Office 2010 for comparability reasons. "We’re recommending 32-bit Office 2010 as the default installation on both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows mainly due to compatibility with existing 32-bit controls", said Ted Way, Microsoft Office team. Microsoft officials claim Office 64-bit is best for large datasets in Excel but that "over time for 64-bit Office to become the norm".

Office 2011 for Mac is currently in the beta testing phase. Microsoft issued a beta 3 update in late May which included brand new splash screens, icons and minor tweaks to several toolbar and ribbon icons. Office for Mac won't come with all the components that are available in Office Professional Plus for Windows, but will support Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook. Office 2011 for Mac will be the first time Outlook is available on the Mac, offering similar functionality and appearance, including a Mac inspired theme ribbon, as Outlook 2010 for Windows.

Office for Mac 2011 will also allow for multiple document editing, so users can edit the same document at the same time, without getting a lockout notice.  Office for Mac will include document sharing with other Mac and Windows office users, through SharePoint, SkyDrive and web apps. Microsoft officials say Office 2011 for Mac will be available this holiday season.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft demos IE9 hardware acceleration vs Safari 5

Next Story

Google introduces new search indexing system - Caffeine

43 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

32 bit only? THat is a bummer. Soon apple is going into 512bit application and OS so they can make higher def movies about im a pc and you are not mactastic. I do like ribbons better though its so much more visual and easy to use. Than the apple small box I'm not used to.

At least OS X can run 32-bit programs pretty well on x64 Macs... Better than running x86 programs on x64 Windows platform.

lishuhang said,
At least OS X can run 32-bit programs pretty well on x64 Macs... Better than running x86 programs on x64 Windows platform.
I personally never had trouble running x86 apps on either...

lishuhang said,
At least OS X can run 32-bit programs pretty well on x64 Macs... Better than running x86 programs on x64 Windows platform.

There are virtually NO, NONE, ZERO issues with a x86 application on a 64bit version of Windows unless the program requires a 64bit driver or lower kernel access that the 64bit version allows.

OS X STILL does not automatically boot into the 64bit kernel, and is a 32bit OS, this is why applications needing drivers work fine, as they are able to just use 32bit drivers as the kernel is 32bit.

Wow, just wow...

lishuhang said,
At least OS X can run 32-bit programs pretty well on x64 Macs... Better than running x86 programs on x64 Windows platform.

I trust that you have never used Vista or 7 x64.

OMG another Microsoft fail incoming. 32 bit on os x? are they joking? Everything is 64 bits on os x except office. Sure you dont need it but it has its advantages. This just slows down the rest.

lammmetak said,
OMG another Microsoft fail incoming. 32 bit on os x? are they joking? Everything is 64 bits on os x except office. Sure you dont need it but it has its advantages. This just slows down the rest.

Yes, everything... even though it took them 3 releases of their OS to go from starting the 64bit transition to being "done"

Everything is not 64bit, btw, most applications you use (not apple) are still 32bit even if the transition's under way, and Office is a considerably larger piece of software then garage band.

lammmetak said,
OMG another Microsoft fail incoming. 32 bit on os x? are they joking? Everything is 64 bits on os x except office. Sure you dont need it but it has its advantages. This just slows down the rest.

Even the OS X kernel doesn't boot into 64bit mode unless you hold the 6 and 4 on the keypad and have full 64bit drivers for all your hardware on a supported model.

If the OS isn't even running in 64bits, why the hell on earth do you think it really matters if Microsoft is using the 64bit App trick for more address space on OS X, when without a 64bit OS underneath, most of the 64bit processing advantages are LOST.

People really do just believe anything Apple tells them.

lammmetak said,
OMG another Microsoft fail incoming. 32 bit on os x? are they joking? Everything is 64 bits on os x except office. Sure you dont need it but it has its advantages. This just slows down the rest.

You mean everything except for iLife, iWork and iTunes right?

thenetavenger said,

Even the OS X kernel doesn't boot into 64bit mode unless you hold the 6 and 4 on the keypad and have full 64bit drivers for all your hardware on a supported model.

If the OS isn't even running in 64bits, why the hell on earth do you think it really matters if Microsoft is using the 64bit App trick for more address space on OS X, when without a 64bit OS underneath, most of the 64bit processing advantages are LOST.

People really do just believe anything Apple tells them.


Apparently you have no real idea of what you are talking about. Even though the Mac OS X kernel isn't running in 64-bit all applications that have been written in 64-bit are able to reach their full potential and all the benefits that come with it. The kernel has no real impact on the 64-bit abilities of the OS in general. Benchmarks of Mac OS X Snow Leopard with 32-bit kernel vs 64-bit kernel enabled have proofed this over and over again.

I will probably not be purchasing Mac Office 2011, but I must admit that I am happy to see that they got rid of the floating menus. Mac Office 2008 was awful because of those.

And people wonder why Apple software is crap on Windows. Well, here you have it: They're simply returning the favor.

.Neo said,
And people wonder why Apple software is crap on Windows. Well, here you have it: They're simply returning the favor.

Yea, lets compare programs like Safari and iTunes to a complete Office suite...and yes, that was sarcasm.

Apple software is crap on Windows systems because Apple doesnt know how to write their programs and their programs are full of bugs and the LEAST secure out there. Considering, the amount of people using Office on Macs are not many...this won't be an issue. At least it should/will work properly on a Mac using 32bit. To bad I cannot say the same thing for 32bit Apple apps written for Windows.

You don't seem to understand when someone is making a joke.

techbeck said,
Apple software is crap on Windows systems because Apple doesnt know how to write their programs and their programs are full of bugs and the LEAST secure out there.

Mac users can say the EXACT same thing about Microsoft's applications on Mac OS X. Their software is buggy, can be extremely unstable, is lacking in features and just quirky in general.

techbeck said,
Considering, the amount of people using Office on Macs are not many...this won't be an issue.

If only few people used this and the market was really small Microsoft wouldn't come up with a Mac version of Office in the first place. I'm guessing they're making good money.

techbeck said,
At least it should/will work properly on a Mac using 32bit.

Yeah, it should. Unfortunately it doesn't always. Your milage may vary, but then again the same thing applies for Apple applications on Windows.


amon91 said,
Most users won't notice anyway.

I would have to agree with you there. The average user just installs and doesn't even know that kind of information. I'm wondering what'll happen with Office 2010: will users actually know to pick 32/64 or not??? If they just pick 32 they'll be fine but if they pick 64 on a 32 computer it might not fair well.

Meph said,
Even though I'm not a Mac user, it's still a shame that it doesn't use Cocoa in 100% of it.
Yes, but, there's a reason.

Carbon was supposed to be 64 bit originally, so a decent number of companies went forward and wrote their applications in it, expecting to be able to port them over to 64 bit later on. Apple surprised a lot of people (including Adobe. Remember how CS4 was 32 bit only on OS X?) when they decided that Carbon would NOT include 64 bit support.

It takes time to port applications from Carbon to Cocoa.

waruikoohii said,
Yes, but, there's a reason.

Carbon was supposed to be 64 bit originally, so a decent number of companies went forward and wrote their applications in it, expecting to be able to port them over to 64 bit later on. Apple surprised a lot of people (including Adobe. Remember how CS4 was 32 bit only on OS X?) when they decided that Carbon would NOT include 64 bit support.

It takes time to port applications from Carbon to Cocoa.

That is a lie; Apple never stated Carbon would be 64-bit. that is a lie Adobe shills love to spread. Apple was clear from day one Cocoa was the _only_ 64-bit path.

Bullhead said,

That is a lie; Apple never stated Carbon would be 64-bit. that is a lie Adobe shills love to spread. Apple was clear from day one Cocoa was the _only_ 64-bit path.


Actually no. At WWDC a few years ago, Apple announced that they changed their mind about writing 64bit API's for carbon. Before that, it was going to have 64bit API's, and their back-peddling caught a lot of companies - Abode and MS included - off guard.

greenwizard88 said,

Actually no. At WWDC a few years ago, Apple announced that they changed their mind about writing 64bit API's for carbon. Before that, it was going to have 64bit API's, and their back-peddling caught a lot of companies - Abode and MS included - off guard.

Have anything to back that up? Of course not. Here is where you are wrong: http://www.carbondev.com/site/?page=64-bit+Carbon. In fact, three years ago at WWDC, Steve Jobs told the crowd 64 bit Cocoa was the way to go:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/n...-leopard-no-carbon-love.ars

So three years is not enough time to move to 64 bit Cocoa? LOL. right.

Bullhead said,

Have anything to back that up? Of course not. Here is where you are wrong: http://www.carbondev.com/site/?page=64-bit+Carbon. In fact, three years ago at WWDC, Steve Jobs told the crowd 64 bit Cocoa was the way to go:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/n...-leopard-no-carbon-love.ars

So three years is not enough time to move to 64 bit Cocoa? LOL. right.

The first sentence of your second link:

"At last year's WWDC, Steve Jobs announced that Leopard would support 64-bit computing across the board: not only on the Unix command line as in Tiger, but also in Carbon and Cocoa. But... "

Bullhead said,

That is a lie; Apple never stated Carbon would be 64-bit. that is a lie Adobe shills love to spread. Apple was clear from day one Cocoa was the _only_ 64-bit path.

Holy insane batman... This was a major story in the development community. Even now if you search for this you can find the ORIGINAL 64bit support announcement by Apple, all the way up to them dropping 64bit support a few years later.

Apple got lazy with Carbon and either COULDN'T or wouldn't create a 64bit version of the UI platform. This is why Adobe CS products were 32bit on OS X, as they had been PROMISED a 32bit to 64bit migration path in Carbon by Apple, not only PUBLICALLY, but also privately.

thenetavenger said,

Holy insane batman... This was a major story in the development community. Even now if you search for this you can find the ORIGINAL 64bit support announcement by Apple, all the way up to them dropping 64bit support a few years later.

Apple got lazy with Carbon and either COULDN'T or wouldn't create a 64bit version of the UI platform. This is why Adobe CS products were 32bit on OS X, as they had been PROMISED a 32bit to 64bit migration path in Carbon by Apple, not only PUBLICALLY, but also privately.

since i develop for OSX, i think i know what i am talking about. Sure, there is some 64 bit support for Carbon, but Apple never said...your path to 64 bits is with Carbon; the 64bit support in Carbon is simply a stopgap to get lazy developers, like Adobe to quickly port existing apps to 64 bit.

Why in the world did they have Cocoa if Carbon was the path to 64-bits? C is not where Apple wants developers to be for 64-bit...Objective-C is the 64-bit environemnt. Again, this is over three years ago! Yes, i know i am being trolled, but still....

http://developer.apple.com/mac...roduction/Introduction.html

"If you want to create a 64-bit application for Mac OS X, you need to use Cocoa to implement its user interface."

This is from Leopards developer docs. Over three years ago

Edited by Bullhead, Jun 9 2010, 5:13pm :

Bullhead said,

since i develop for OSX, i think i know what i am talking about. Sure, there is some 64 bit support for Carbon, but Apple never said...your path to 64 bits is with Carbon; the 64bit support in Carbon is simply a stopgap to get lazy developers, like Adobe to quickly port existing apps to 64 bit.

Why in the world did they have Cocoa if Carbon was the path to 64-bits? C is not where Apple wants developers to be for 64-bit...Objective-C is the 64-bit environemnt. Again, this is over three years ago! Yes, i know i am being trolled, but still....

http://developer.apple.com/mac...roduction/Introduction.html

"If you want to create a 64-bit application for Mac OS X, you need to use Cocoa to implement its user interface."

This is from Leopards developer docs. Over three years ago

Did you even read over all the replies you got? As someone else has stated, in the second link it clearly says:

"At last year's WWDC, Steve Jobs announced that Leopard would support 64-bit computing across the board: not only on the Unix command line as in Tiger, but also in Carbon and Cocoa. "

geeman89 said,

Did you even read over all the replies you got? As someone else has stated, in the second link it clearly says:

"At last year's WWDC, Steve Jobs announced that Leopard would support 64-bit computing across the board: not only on the Unix command line as in Tiger, but also in Carbon and Cocoa. "

your troll-fu is weak young one....

Fair enough, it's better to wait until it's perfect rather than release it and have it riddled with bugs and issues generally. Good call Microsoft.

Chasethebase said,
Fair enough, it's better to wait until it's perfect rather than release it and have it riddled with bugs and issues generally. Good call Microsoft.

+1. Also, has anybody heard whether they're bringing Macro's and VBA back to Office 2011? It was a huge pain in my rear for all of my Mac users that upgraded to 2008 suddenly to realize they couldn't open any of my workbooks.

vaximily said,

+1. Also, has anybody heard whether they're bringing Macro's and VBA back to Office 2011? It was a huge pain in my rear for all of my Mac users that upgraded to 2008 suddenly to realize they couldn't open any of my workbooks.

I think I remember reading somewhere that they were, but I forget where.