Well, right at the moment, Microsoft is planning and designing Mac Office
2010. In large-scale software development, the Planning and Design teams
begin work on the one after next long before the development and testing
departments have finished producing the next version.
Yes, I have seen software vendors kill products at the very last minute, but
not Microsoft, if I remember. Their forecasting and market planning is
usually pretty good: they won't normally start work on a product they do not
eventually bring to market.
So I think we can take it as near-certain that there will be a "Mac Office
after the next one". Whether that will be in 2010 or a little later we will
all have to wait to find out.
The disappearance of Windows Media Player is another of those
extraordinarily silly pissing contests between Apple and Microsoft.
Microsoft would like to add the iTunes formats to WMP, Apple would like to
add the Windows Media Player 10+ formats to iTunes. But neither company
will give the other a licence to do so, so we get this absurd stand-off.
Internet Explorer is a different argument: Bob's correct: it doesn't make
money. On Windows they can justify the cost because it forms the display
engine for the Windows user interface. In a sense, they HAVE to build it in
order to make Windows work, so they might as well put some serious effort
into making it work properly.
However, it IS a lot of work to build a full-featured browser, and it needs
to be very tightly integrated with the operating system in order to make it
safe and fast. Given the degree of OS integration required, the work they
do on Vista won't carry over to the Mac. They would have to write a new one
for the Mac. And Apple is already doing that, with Safari. Given that Mac
users already have the choice of Safari or FireFox, it would seem silly to
try to convince Microsoft's shareholders (basically: your pension fund and
mine...) to throw a lot of money at giving Mac users another expensive
full-featured browser.
Just my Two Renminbi worth...
The articles seemed to imply now that Macs are capable of running MS XP
or VISTA that the thinking is that its really pointless to have two
versions. Does Sound Plausible.
I'm hoping everyone is wrong I don't relish the idea of having to
operate Windows. My previous run in with windows (3.3.1 and 95) was
pretty.
--
Don't wait for your answer, click here:
http://www.word.mvps.org/
Please reply in the group. Please do NOT email me unless I ask you to.
John McGhie, Consultant Technical Writer
McGhie Information Engineering Pty Ltd
http://jgmcghie.fastmail.com.au/
Sydney, Australia. S33°53'34.20 E151°14'54.50
+61 4 1209 1410, mailto:
[email protected]