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

    • Which finger's fingernail are we talking about? I can see how not having this info can lead to massive differences in interpretation.
    • This Chinese company is reportedly developing a feature Apple and Samsung can only dream of by Hamid Ganji While companies like Apple and Samsung have been relatively conservative with their devices’ battery capacities in recent years, Chinese manufacturers have taken the competition to the next level by introducing significantly larger batteries. However, the latest report from China suggests that a local company may already be developing a smartphone with a whopping 14,000mAh battery. Chinese leaker Digital Chat Station claimed on Weibo that a smartphone maker is developing a device with a 14,000mAh battery. If true, it would be the largest battery ever used in a smartphone and could, in theory, provide up to a week of battery life on a single charge. The leaker did not reveal the name of the company behind the device, but there are some clues. This week, HONOR unveiled the X80 Pro Max in China with an 11,000mAh battery and 90W wired charging support. The company also launched the Honor Win in January, which packs a 10,000mAh battery. HONOR, a former subsidiary of Huawei, has a proven track record of developing smartphones with unusually large batteries. However, other Chinese brands, including Xiaomi, have also launched devices such as the Xiaomi 17 Pro Max with 7,500mAh batteries. Though Chinese users on Weibo also believe the company behind the new battery is HONOR. Interestingly, Digital Chat Station said the device with the 14,000mAh battery weighs around 220 grams, making it lighter than the Apple iPhone 17 Pro Max (233 grams) and slightly heavier than the Samsung Galaxy S26 Ultra (214 grams). The iPhone 17 Pro Max currently packs a 5,088mAh battery in eSIM-only versions, while the Galaxy S26 Ultra features a 5,000mAh battery. Neither device is expected to see a dramatic increase in battery capacity in its next-generation successor. So when it comes to battery comparison, Chinese brands are unbeaten. HONOR smartphones are currently available in the EU, but the Chinese brand has no official presence in the United States due to restrictions imposed by the U.S. government.
    • Qualcomm takes on NVIDIA with new Dragonfly CPU and AI chips by Pradeep Viswanathan Microsoft, Google, Amazon, AMD, Meta, Apple, OpenAI, and several others have been developing their own chips for AI infrastructure. However, NVIDIA still remains the dominant player in the market. Today, Qualcomm announced a major expansion of its data center infrastructure portfolio to better compete with NVIDIA. The new lineup includes the Qualcomm Dragonfly C1000 CPU, Qualcomm High Bandwidth Compute technology, the Dragonfly AI300 inference accelerator, new connectivity products, and custom silicon solutions. Qualcomm claims that this new lineup improves performance per watt, token throughput, and total cost of ownership for AI data centers. The Dragonfly C1000 is a new data center CPU built with Qualcomm’s custom Oryon cores. This chip will feature more than 250 cores, frequencies above 5GHz, and a chiplet-based design. Qualcomm claims that this new C1000 can deliver more than 2x better performance per watt compared to existing server CPU offerings based on specifications. The Dragonfly C1000 will support PCIe Gen 7 with more than 2TB/s of connectivity, along with CXL, advanced RAS features, and both air and liquid cooling. Qualcomm expects the Dragonfly C1000 to be commercially available in 2028. Additionally, Qualcomm and Meta announced a multi-year, multi-generation agreement under which Qualcomm will supply Dragonfly C1000 data center CPUs for Meta’s next-generation server fleet. Qualcomm also announced High Bandwidth Compute, a new near-memory computing architecture designed to address AI’s memory bandwidth bottleneck. HBC Gen 1 will debut with the Dragonfly AI250, which is expected to sample in mid-2027. The AI250 will deliver 133TB/s per card, an 18x increase in effective memory bandwidth compared to the AI200 with LPDDR5X. The new Dragonfly AI300 with HBC Gen 2 is a rack-level AI inference platform from Qualcomm. Qualcomm claims that the AI300 can deliver 4x to 8x better performance per watt compared to existing GPU-based architectures based on memory bandwidth per watt per card. The Dragonfly AI300 is expected to be available in 2028.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Meta Plast earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      461
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      136
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!