Apple Has Let the Cat Out of the Bag, Again. . . MEOW!!!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

www.apple.com

CNET Review

[Spiffor]

So ?

[yavoon]

does apple ever plan on reinstating customizability and functionality back into its product? or is like the 1 button mouse now the calling card for eternity?

[Q Classic]

meanwhile, the rest of the business world is looking at office 2003.

10.3's nice, though. but right now, it's the kinda "oh, that's nice, dear" type deal.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
meanwhile, the rest of the business world is looking at office 2003.

10.3's nice, though. but right now, it's the kinda "oh, that's nice, dear" type deal.

I personally like my notepad. uninstall office if at all possible.

[monolith94]

You can use your own non 1-button mouse on a mac.

[Q Classic]

actually, that functionality's been around ever since X came out.

and as for notepad or office...

the business world is looking at it. individuals, well, that's up to their tastes. i personally like office myself, except for powerpoint, frontpage, and access, and this new infopath thing i don't have any use for, while onenote is intriguing, but only if you have a tabletpc.

[Spiffor]

Except that it sill be even more resource-guzzling, and that it will have a richer vocabulary in the .dic file, what will Office 2003 bring?

[H Tower]

um, aren't most of these new features considered standard for winXP users?

-iChat? It's just a confrencing program
-switch to another user account without logging out and quitting current applications? I've got that.
-Customize keyboard shortcuts for the system and applications? I've got that too.

And we’re not even counting all of them. Apple engineers have spent months fine-tuning Panther, tinkering under the hood to offer you the best operating system in the world, bar none. We think you’ll agree.

What sets Panther apart from XP? What makes it the best, bar none?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Except that it sill be even more resource-guzzling, and that it will have a richer vocabulary in the .dic file, what will Office 2003 bring?

the cost will be implemented into the cost of ur new computer. so it will always bring bill $$$. beyond that tho, I imagine it will give the american economy jobs. and that will make george happy.

[Q Classic]

for the end user at his home? not much. for a corporate setting? lots, but only if you have other microsoft products that it can integrate into. something called "synergy".

for a corporation to fully use the office 2k3 system (that's what they're calling it these days) to its potential, they have to have the windows server system as well.

there's secure encryption of files (info rights management), secure im, identical outlook2003/owa interfaces, smarttags, native xml support, easy integration/import between office file formats and uploading to collaborative sites using the sharepoint server...

like i said, for the individual, well, it's up to you. i like it, but that won't stop me from using abiword.

[Q Classic]

the cost will be implemented into the cost of ur new computer. so it will always bring bill $$$.

not quite. the only thing microsoft has managed to finagle getting licensing from for all computers is windows, not office. he gets most of his money on office from corporate licensing, not end-user/consumer sales, and virtually nothing from putting it on oem desktops--mostly because when you get it with an oem desktop, you're getting the retail version.

so it won't be implemented into the cost of your new computer, is what i'm saying. only windows is.

[Q Classic]

What sets Panther apart from XP? What makes it the best, bar none?

it's mac, htower. that automatically makes it better.

[Spiffor]

You seem very knowledgeable about Microsoft's commercial strategy... You work for the dark lord, Q?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

the cost will be implemented into the cost of ur new computer. so it will always bring bill $$$.

not quite. the only thing microsoft has managed to finagle getting licensing from for all computers is windows, not office. he gets most of his money on office from corporate licensing, not end-user/consumer sales, and virtually nothing from putting it on oem desktops--mostly because when you get it with an oem desktop, you're getting the retail version.

so it won't be implemented into the cost of your new computer, is what i'm saying. only windows is.

its all an accounting wash anyway. since any cost can be suppositionally funneled through the monopoly(windows).

[Q Classic]

lol. i'm not asher, so no.

i'm a lover of all computers; right now on my short break from school, though, i'm a sysadmin, and we run a windows 2k3 network here. thinking of pushing them from office xp to office 2k3, so i went to the launch event to see what all the hubbub was about.

since we're part of the volume licensing thing, we could download the cds almost two months ago, which is what i did to install it on my home computer; we got a media kit that had the cds last month, so i installed it on my main office workstation to see if it integrated well, and it does. and now it's availible to the general public.

i only know this much about it because i've been working with it for awhile right now. ask me about their plans next year, and i won't have the foggiest.

[Q Classic]

its all an accounting wash anyway. since any cost can be suppositionally funneled through the monopoly(windows).

well, if you want to believe that...

trust me, microsoft gets most of its money on office from corporate licenses. we have to pay through the nose for "volume licensing educational select" rather than the standard one, and most of that cost goes to windows server and office. xp they seem to give away to corporations right now.

and on oems? the computers you buy from dell or compaq or hp don't have office costs integrated--the oems make more money if they sell you a retail copy, and microsoft won't license it for an integrated install, so...

[Q Classic]

hm. one thing i've noticed, office 2k3 does seem to load faster than office xp. could just be me

i do like microsoft right now, though. their latest eula for volume licensing allows for home use rights as well (even though before, one could take it home and they wouldn't be able to do much about it--it's just now it's legal).

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

its all an accounting wash anyway. since any cost can be suppositionally funneled through the monopoly(windows).

well, if you want to believe that...

trust me, microsoft gets most of its money on office from corporate licenses. we have to pay through the nose for "volume licensing educational select" rather than the standard one, and most of that cost goes to windows server and office. xp they seem to give away to corporations right now.

and on oems? the computers you buy from dell or compaq or hp don't have office costs integrated--the oems make more money if they sell you a retail copy, and microsoft won't license it for an integrated install, so...

its SOP for microsoft to use profits from its OS to fund its other "startup" programs. why is it at all rational to think that it stops there? or has to? money is liquid. and its infinitely easier to get more profit from ur monopoly than it is from anywhere else.

[Q Classic]

its SOP for microsoft to use profits from its OS to fund its other "startup" programs. why is it at all rational to think that it stops there? or has to? money is liquid. and its infinitely easier to get more profit from ur monopoly than it is from anywhere else.

i see where the problem is. what you said is that the cost of office 2003 would be integrated into all new computers. rather than sounding like what you describe now (correctly, mind you), it sounded like people would be billed for office whenever they bought a new computer, which isn't the case.

profits that microsoft earns can be used anywhere, but to say that you're paying for office when you buy windows is stretching it. not unless you want to also make the claim by saying that going to rent crouching tiger, hidden dragon, you're also paying for 50 cent.

besides, if you think microsoft gets most of its money from $299 copies of xp pro in the shelf, or from selling it through oems, you're sorely mistaken.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

Quote:

its SOP for microsoft to use profits from its OS to fund its other "startup" programs. why is it at all rational to think that it stops there? or has to? money is liquid. and its infinitely easier to get more profit from ur monopoly than it is from anywhere else.

i see where the problem is. what you said is that the cost of office 2003 would be integrated into all new computers. rather than sounding like what you describe now (correctly, mind you), it sounded like people would be billed for office whenever they bought a new computer, which isn't the case.

profits that microsoft earns can be used anywhere, but to say that you're paying for office when you buy windows is stretching it. not unless you want to also make the claim by saying that going to rent crouching tiger, hidden dragon, you're also paying for 50 cent.

besides, if you think microsoft gets most of its money from $299 copies of xp pro in the shelf, or from selling it through oems, you're sorely mistaken.

=D. it is a bizare accounting argument. but when a monopoly exists it becomes a lil clearer IMO. crouching would only pay for .50 if it was in the companies interest for some reason(which is a lot harder to think of then in the MS case).

[Nubclear]

Oh. How nice.

[Q Classic]

=D. it is a bizare accounting argument. but when a monopoly exists it becomes a lil clearer IMO. crouching would only pay for .50 if it was in the companies interest for some reason(which is a lot harder to think of then in the MS case).

ok, whatever. believe what you want. i don't know how it is where you are, but where i am, when someone says they paid for something, it means they either received a good or a service, or divine (and not-so-divine) retribution got to them.

if you wanted to look at it the way you're describing, you could in essence say that you're paying your own salary. not that there's anything wrong with that, but it's just odd.

btw: office is actually more profitable for microsoft than windows is because of the corporate situation. windows licenses are cheaper than office licenses--the reasoning, i guess, is at redmond they figure that it's better to have everybody using windows (so it's cheap), and then make up the lost money on the stuff they use on top of it (office). it's kinda like how the console gaming industry works: the console's cheap; the money's made on the game licensing.

[Grrr]

I must say I like the licensing with Office 2003.

You have home use rights on corprate copies, and acadamic editions are legal for three installs.

[mrmitchell]

For being little plastic discs, they sure do have *****y licensing schemes.

[Asher]

If all you were buying were little plastic discs, perhaps you meant to buy CD-Rs rather than software.

[mrmitchell]

cd-rs cost $0.25 / disc

office costs $150+...definitely about $50+ / disc.

I wasn't complaining so much about the cost as about the liscencing that finagles that you assume complete liability and risk without being able to use the disc as you wish.

Of course, if Microsoft wants to assume liability over all the data I lose every time it crashes, then I'll gladly let it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wasn't complaining so much about the cost as about the liscencing that finagles that you assume complete liability and risk without being able to use the disc as you wish.

Well you don't have to accept the license, do you? You could always... not buy it?

[monkspider]

Or you could join a ring of software pirates, that sounds like the best option to me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well until you get busted .