Third Office for Mac 2011 Beta Reveals New Icons, Splash Screens, more


Recommended Posts

Yeap. Although it isn't anywhere as bad as Transmission.

Transmission 2.0.4 is pretty snappy in regards to exiting from my experience.

Microsoft wouldn't know what fit and finish is even if it hit 'm in the face. The company is oblivious to detail.

It still isn't as bad as Apple and their refusal to add something as important as bibliographic functionality to iWork.

Transmission 2.0.4 is pretty snappy in regards to exiting from my experience.

That depends on now many files you download and how large they are. The quitting time deteriorates pretty fast.

It still isn't as bad as Apple and their refusal to add something as important as bibliographic functionality to iWork.

The way I see it iWork is still in its early stages. It's also aimed a different market. In a sense Office and iWork are a bit like Aperture and iPhoto. With the exception of Keynote, that application is amazing. But it's also the oldest one.

Microsoft wouldn't know what fit and finish is even if it hit 'm in the face. The company is oblivious to detail.

And so has Apple in the past few years, in both their hardware and software.

If Microsoft optimized their applications for a change they wouldn't need splash screens to keep us distracted while the thing is taking ages starting up.

They have splashscreens on many of their Windows applications. Splashscreens are often a nice touch.

They have splashscreens on many of their Windows applications. Splashscreens are often a nice touch.

True, and I'd sooner have a splash screen telling me what it is doing, whether it is loading or is hung because of a corrupt file or something - end users are click happy if they don't see something to show that there is activity hence the merits of having a splash screen with maybe some sort of progress bar to provide feedback.

Mail, Pages, Numbers and Keynote don't require a splash screen yet Outlook, Word, PowerPoint and Excel do?

Because Outlook, Word, PowerPoint and Excel are magnitudes more complex than the dinky toys Apple puts out. Start comparing the two when Apple implements some basic functionality like bibliographical functionality.

Word, Excel and Powerpoint load within a half second on my machine, and would load even faster without that splash screen. Maybe they should just give an option to disable it. I thought they used to do that?

Maybe for slower machines splash screens with progress text is handy, but it's not useful for me since it disappears before I can even read anything on it anyway.

Because Outlook, Word, PowerPoint and Excel are magnitudes more complex than the dinky toys Apple puts out. Start comparing the two when Apple implements some basic functionality like bibliographical functionality.

You clearly haven't used iWork.

You clearly haven't used iWork.

I have, and iWork doesn't have bibliographical functionality - and no I am not going to pay for a crappy third party application to do something that should be in the application itself. It is clear that YOU have never used iWork.

So just because Pages doesn't have bibliographical functionality, it's a dinky toy? Hmm...

Aside from that glaring exaggeration, I think you're over-estimating the number of people who actually use the bibliography functionality of Word. Most people just create their own Works Cited and do their own embedded citations.

So just because Pages doesn't have bibliographical functionality, it's a dinky toy? Hmm...

Aside from that glaring exaggeration, I think you're over-estimating the number of people who actually use the bibliography functionality of Word. Most people just create their own Works Cited and do their own embedded citations.

word does a GARBAGE job of bibliograhy. My professors would laugh at anyone who used their tool.

word doesn't a GARBAGE job of bibliograhy.

You sound like a corrupt mp3 stuck in a loop. Just because Pages lacks a very specific feature you obviously need doesn't mean the application itself is a dinky toy. At least Pages doesn't require you to launch a second major application to edit a simple piechart...

You sound like a corrupt mp3 stuck in a loop. Just because Pages lacks a very specific feature you obviously need doesn't mean the application itself is a dinky toy. At least Pages doesn't require you to launch a second major application just to edit a simple piechart...

suppose to be does**** caught me before i caught it myself ;)

:p

iWork is relatively young and you're right it lacks certain advanced features. However the applications are much better written dan the Office ones.

Because Outlook, Word, PowerPoint and Excel are magnitudes more complex than the dinky toys Apple puts out. Start comparing the two when Apple implements some basic functionality like bibliographical functionality.

And that has anything to do with launching times because...? Hell, when Microsoft put out Office 2008 Photoshop CS4 managed to launch faster than Word 2008. You don't see that happing with Word on Windows. Face it, Office on Mac OS X is still stuck in the Mac OS 9-era and performs as such.

:p

iWork is relatively young and you're right it lacks certain advanced features. However the applications are much better written dan the Office ones.

And that has anything to do with launching times because...? Hell, when Microsoft put out Office 2008 Photoshop CS4 managed to launch faster than Word 2008. You don't see that happing with Word on Windows. Face it, Office on Mac OS X is still stuck in the Mac OS 9-era and performs as such.

+1

You guys can bitch about Office when Apple gets iTunes and Quicktime on Windows right. Till then STFU.

If you want to go down that road, let's talk about Microsoft's other (former) applications on Mac OS X: Internet Explorer 5, Windows Media Player, Windows Media plugin for QuickTime and Messenger. Doesn't matter how you spin it, iTunes doesn't perform anywhere near as poor on Windows as the mentioned Microsoft applications on Mac OS X. Even QuickTime 7 Pro is pretty much feature complete on Windows compared to the Mac OS X version, we can't say the same about Messenger and Office on Mac. Also, iTunes is a free product.

Since no one in their right mind would use iTune unless they purchased an iPod or iPhone I don't consider iTunes free. I have never had any problem with Messenger on OS X, it's not "pretty" but it's never crashed on me.

I dont see people complaining about Adobe using splash screens or mentioning that fact it's got MANY more features than pages or the fact it's a business standard for a reason. If Pages was "just as good" then I'm sure companies would buy it for their Mac users because it's so much cheaper. Our company has an active ban on Keynote because we have had so many cases of a user making a presentation in Keynote then failing to convert it before giving it to others and then no one else can edit the presentation or even re-use it. 9 out of 10 times the only reason that Keynote looks more "pretty" than Powerpoint is that they assign a designer to make the Keynote presentation and when they want a Powerpoint presentation just just assign some assistant to do it. It's like complaining that a paint brush is total **** because I can't paint as good as Leonardo DiVinci.

iWork is useless to 80% of the world until PC users can edit/create files in iWork format. Until then its ONLY useful in companies that are all Mac.

Since no one in their right mind would use iTune unless they purchased an iPod or iPhone I don't consider iTunes free.

I must be crazy then. Even if I didn't have an iPhone or iPod, I would use iTunes.

I dont see people complaining about Adobe using splash screens

I complained. :p

or mentioning that fact it's got MANY more features than pages or the fact it's a business standard for a reason. If Pages was "just as good" then I'm sure companies would buy it for their Mac users because it's so much cheaper.

As you said with your company's Keynote policy, it has more to do with interoperability (and just a lack of education about the two products) than features. For a solo user, iWork works just as well as Office in most situations.

9 out of 10 times the only reason that Keynote looks more "pretty" than Powerpoint is that they assign a designer to make the Keynote presentation and when they want a Powerpoint presentation just just assign some assistant to do it. It's like complaining that a paint brush is total **** because I can't paint as good as Leonardo DiVinci.

If you gave an assistant PowerPoint and gave the same assistant Keynote, I'm betting that the Keynote presentation would still look better.

iWork is useless to 80% of the world until PC users can edit/create files in iWork format. Until then its ONLY useful in companies that are all Mac.

It's such a shame that iWork doesn't have Office document import and export capability. Oh wait...

It's such a shame that iWork doesn't have Office document import and export capability. Oh wait...

Still fail tho, I work in education and I will from time to time have a student bring in a .pages file that we can't open at all, as we have no macs on site so they have no choice but to go home and re-export the work, it just wastes people's time. All of which could be saved by Apple creating something like Microsoft have, i.e powerpoint/word viewer.

Still fail tho, I work in education and I will from time to time have a student bring in a .pages file that we can't open at all, as we have no macs on site so they have no choice but to go home and re-export the work, it just wastes people's time. All of which could be saved by Apple creating something like Microsoft have, i.e powerpoint/word viewer.

Or that student could've just exported a DOC file. You can't blame Apple because the kid didn't think before he saved the file.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Turbo Pascal was my first real programming experience more than 30 years ago at university. I mostly taught myself from the included examples and help documentation, because the university only taught the basic syntax and philosophy of Pascal, without going deeply into Turbo Pascal’s advanced features. I still remember when I discovered that I could embed assembly language directly into Pascal code, call BIOS functions, manipulate screen memory, use mouse interrupts, and control peripherals from my programs. That opened huge doors for me. Programming back then felt really fun, direct, and close to the machine. What I loved about Pascal was its readability and the almost instant compile time. Turbo Pascal was an amazing environment, but unfortunately Turbo Pascal for Windows 3 did not feel like it fully carried that legacy forward. Later, Delphi got things back on the right track after the messy transition to TP for Windows. Sadly, Delphi suffered from years of uncertainty as it moved from Borland to CodeGear and then to Embarcadero. That instability made many developers lose confidence in it, even though Delphi itself remained a powerful and productive tool. I still work with Delphi from time to time, but I definitely miss the old days of Turbo Pascal.
    • I hope this encodes in to AV1 or AV2 as currently tiktok uses h265 and h264.
    • Qualcomm reportedly in talks to build custom video chips for TikTok parent ByteDance by Karthik Mudaliar Qualcomm is reportedly in advanced discussions to provide custom chip-design services to Chinese tech giant ByteDance, the same company behind TikTok. According to a report from Reuters, Qualcomm could be involved in designing custom silicon tailored for ByteDance's massive data-center workloads. If it goes through, the deal would make ByteDance one of Qualcomm's early anchor customers for its fastly growing custom chip-design division, For years, Qualcomm was the king of making smartphone processors and modems. The company has also been moving into the PC ecosystem and other formats such as on-device AI for Android XR headsets. However, this particular deal is about Qualcomm's custom Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). For a platform like TikTok, ByteDance needs hardware that can help it ingest, process, and serve billions of short-form videos daily. Generalised hardware is no longer the most cost-effective and efficient route, which is why ByteDance is trying to develop custom Video Processing Units (VPUs). VPUs designed specifically for ByteDance’s algorithmic needs could drastically reduce data-center power consumption and improve encoding speeds at an unprecedented scale. The underlying tech behind these processors is actually from Qualcomm's recent acquisition of AlphaWave Semi, a high-speed connectivity specialist company. By combining AlphaWave’s high-bandwidth IP with Qualcomm’s architectural expertise, the company could begin mass production by the end of 2026, if the talks go through. All this also comes at a time when U.S.-China tech relations have dwindled. Escalating trade frictions between Washington and Beijing have severely impacted the export of high-end AI chips from U.S. firms like Nvidia, AMD, and Lam Research. Yet, the Qualcomm-ByteDance discussions show that U.S. tech companies are still actively seeking growth avenues and are open to doing business with China, where regulators still permit. Reuters notes that the outcome of this deal could be uncertain, and ByteDance might also seek partners other than Qualcomm. via Reuters | Image via DepositPhotos.com
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      Almohandis earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      DaviKar went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      456
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      117
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Xenon
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!