Microsoft Office is n’t among the apps that will run natively on Intel - base Macs — and it wo n’t be until the latter one-half of 2007 , according tomedia reports . But when it does ship , Office will on the face of it be missing a feature so full of life to ill-tempered - platform compatibility that I believe it will be the origin of the end for the Mac translation of the productivity suite .
Here ’s the background . Back in August , Microsoft ’s Mac Business Unit updated Mac users on the status of its development efforts for the next version of Office . According to the software monster , affair were give out well , and we learn that there will be destitute XML convertor for current Office user to read the raw Office for Windows ’ file formats . ( However , we ’ve since teach thatthere will be a three to four calendar month gapbetween the release of Office for Windows and the availability of the Mac converters . Those could be a few painful months to be a Mac Office user in a Windows environment . ) The MacBU also noted that tens of millions of lines of code had been successfully transition to Xcode . Amidst all the good news show , however , was this little lump of coal , as we reported it then :
For those who do n’t know , Visual Basic scripting ( also known as Visual Basic for Applications , or VBA ) is the technology behind macros in the Office software . Basically , VB form it relatively easygoing to add together mechanisation and customization to Office document . macro can be used to help Office ’s applications programme do some pretty amazing thing . you’re able to make datum entry build for complex Excel spreadsheet , create your own menu buttons in Word that are tie to specific action , and even go so far as to create your own fare anatomical structure for customized program used within Excel .
Even if you ’re not a “ force user , ” you may have used VB in one of the Office apps to do something simple — it ’s very gentle to expend the Record Macro menu item to make simple macro . For example , I rely on a simple “ paste clipboard as unformatted textual matter ” macro — it spare a trip into a separate duologue loge when I just want to glue school text from the clipboard in an unformatted style . I also have a number of spreadsheets that utilise macros to good consequence , such as bring “ what if ” scenarios with mortgage , auto payments , and savings rates . Come the next version of Office , though , I ’ll have to find another way to do all those thing .
To me , while the automation features are nice to have , it ’s the fact that macros are portable across program that has helped the Mac versions of Office deliver the goods in the market . With today ’s versions of Office for Windows and OS X , macro instruction written on the Windows version will work on on the Mac version , and vice versa . ( There are some elision for very complex macro , but most macros work the same on both platform . ) In any sort of mixed - platform surround , this is a very important potentiality — calling it charge critical for many would n’t be an understatement .
There was something of an uproar when this determination was made public in August , though not as much as I was expecting . This threadon the Ars Technica forums , for example makes it exculpated that this was n’t a popular determination — using some very stiff language , I should total as a warning — and that many people were move .
Since August , however , things have quiet down — and I believe that ’s a bad thing . This is a critical exit that require attending . As a distinctive user , you might not think discontinue keep of Visual Basic in Office is that big a deal—“I do n’t apply macro , and they say they ’re pass away to tot in AppleScript and Automator support , so that should help supplant Visual Basic , correct ? “ But it is — I think this move punctuate the origin of the end of Office on the Mac .
Why they did it
allow ’s first look at the MacBU ’s position on the decision . I had hoped I would be able-bodied to talk over this with someone at Microsoft , but the caller declined to talk on the VisualBasic issue at this time . rather , the best author I ’ve found is a web log compose by a member of the computer programming team , Erik Schwiebert . The solar day after we report the news about Visual Basic , Erik posted avery detailed explanationas to why the MacBU made this sore decision . He lists a number of very adept , very technical , and very compelling reasons why Microsoft feel it had to drop VB reinforcement : complicated bequest code , exceedingly difficult to move to Xcode , very tricky C++ code used for form generation , and so onward . Erik then goes into great contingent as to how each of these issues made port VB to the next variant of Office fundamentally impossible . I am not here to debate any of his reasoning , as I lack the proficient knowledge to do that . What I am here to do is to argue that , despite the complexness of the task , the MacBU made the ill-timed decision when it prefer to unload VB from Office Mac .
As Erik himself notes in the above - linked blog entry , “ VB on the Mac exists for cross - platform compatibility . There is no other software on the Mac that also uses VB , so it does n’t help Mac Office integrate with other workflows based strictly on Apple solutions . ” He then proceeds to expend this statement as part of the logical thinking for why VB support was drip . From where I ride , though , it supports exactly the opposite conclusion : there is nothing more important to the success of Mac Office than figuring out how to support VB — and that ’s true if even it ’s a feature that not all Office substance abuser put to expend .
Why it’s so important
Very approximately speaking , buyers of Office will come down into two camps : house substance abuser and corporal exploiter . While the worldwide home user may not escape VB support in Office at all ( peculiarly if AppleScript and Automator are well supported ) , for many corporate users it will be a show - stopper on any purchase plans . Why ? Because many companies rely on Office ’s macro instruction to make it easier to create , share , and update information amongst multiple users within the organization .
believe my experience prior to joiningMacworld . In my anterior life , I was a corporate finance guy — I ferment with budgets , forecasts , new business plans , cash analytic thinking , and other such incredibly exciting thing . In other words , my working lifespan was spent in Excel . As such , I quickly learned the importance of macro instruction in get things done . For illustration , when we had to do the yearly patronage plan for our 200 - individual organization , we sent the managers an Excel budget template . But not everyone is an Excel sensation . So what to do ? I created a childlike customize form ( using a macro ) into which the user entered basic thing such as their planned hire , capital disbursement budget , and so onward . We then used another macro to take the data from the mere form and inhabit the complex spreadsheet hiding in the background signal . By build our templates in this manner , we had a tool that was sluttish enough for beginners to use , and yet complex enough to pull together the overall budget for direction . Of naturally , most of our users were on PCs running Windows , not Macs using OS X , but everything just worked — thanks to the bad-tempered - platform support in VB .
Fast onward to 2007 and the arrival of a Visual Basic - loose Office , and the above resolution is n’t possible . Having AppleScript and Automator support wo n’t do me a turn of good — no Windows drug user is going to be able to take advantage of those tools . And if I come about to be the one receiving an Excel guide with macros from a PC user , things are just as bad . The MacBU prognosticate us “ macro transparency , ” which means I ’ll be able to open , edit , and save such data file without damaging the attached macros . But I can not actuallyuseany of the macros . So forget about using your Mac to prepare your department ’s spreadsheets in a company that rely on Excel macros . Your best root , assuming you have an Intel - powered Mac , will be to purchaseParallels Desktopand a written matter of ( you reckon it ) situation for Windows XP .
To put it succinctly : Anyone who work in a multi - platform authority environs where Office macros are used will actually lose functionality if they elevate to the newest Mac Office next twelvemonth . In most troupe today , Windows is the dominant weapons platform , and the loss of VB support will take away a compelling justification for the existence of the few corporal Macs out there . No longer will a Mac substance abuser be able to say with complete trust , “ Just mail me your filing cabinet ; I ’ll be able to use them just o.k. . ” Even a Mac - only shop might not be immune from fussy - platform issues , if it deals with macro - enabled documents from Windows - based clients .
If job simply used the introductory features of Office , the removal of VB support from the next version of Office for the Mac would n’t be much more than a small-scale annoyance . However , ground on my experience and what I ’ve read elsewhere , Office macro instruction play an authoritative function in facilitate many businesses get thing done . When Macs miss their ability to employ those macros , they ’ll lose a very important justification for purchasing Office for the Mac .
What about existing files?
Users — both incorporated and home — who rely on macro instruction will be affected by this conclusion on another front . From what I sympathise , any exist Office 2004 file that practice macros will still open up in the new version of Office . Without VB support , however , those exist macros wo n’t function . From what ’s been publicly stated , it seem you ’ll be able-bodied to write an AppleScript or Automator action to replicate the functionality of the miss macros — but we wo n’t know for indisputable to what degree until the MacBU unfreeze more specific on the AppleScript and Automator support . If AppleScript is full back up within Office , to the extent that we ’ll be capable to Record New AppleScript as simply as we read New Macro today , that would sure enough help ease the transition — one can only hope . If it ’s not , then the process of recreating existing macros will be much tougher .
Keep in judgement , too , that once you change your macros to AppleScript- or Automator - free-base solvent , Windows users unfold those single file will not be able-bodied to use those macros , as the Windows interpretation of Office wo n’t know anything about them .
A lose-lose situation
For anyone mull a pricey climb such as this is likely to be — just as a mention point , an acclivity to stock version of Office 2004 cost $ 239 — you have to ask yourself what you ’ll be getting for the money . At present tense , what we know about new features is minimal — some mention of improved AppleScript and Automator reenforcement , some unexampled UI feature , a larger Excel worksheet area , and we know it will be Universal . We also know it will say and write the new XML Office Indian file data format . Beyond that , though , we know very little about the other new feature of the rising slope .
On the negatively charged side , it seems certain that the upgrade will mean that all existing macros in Office data file will no longer function . We do n’t soon make out that we can recapture all of the lost functionality , nor what skills will be required to do so . On that last point , Erik suggests inthis comply - up poston his blog :
I do n’t know about you , but selecting Tools - > Macro - > Record New Macro for certain shine me as much simpler than learning a unexampled programming language — I do n’t need to be a programmer , I just want to write and use some mere macro instruction in my projects !
Finally , to restate my main concern , the lack of VB support in the new version of Office mean that corporate Mac - using customers wo n’t have a fully thwartwise - platform resolution uncommitted . As more of these company migrate to the newest Office for Windows , this will become a large trouble for the Mac user in those companies , as they ’ll have no ability to use macro instruction in any macro - enabled Office documents .
So no thanks , Microsoft ; to me , it does n’t really matter what nifty - but - not - yet - cognise features you add in to the next version of Office . If you do n’t include support for VB , then there is but no agency Icanupgrade , even if I wanted to — too much stuff I bank on will simply terminate working if I upgrade . And while I ’m but one substance abuser , I ’m very concerned for Office Mac ’s future , as I can see many companies reaching on the nose the same conclusion .
How it might have been done
What could Microsoft have done other than ? I ’m not secluded to its business plans , tax income figures , or long - range strategy , but here ’s how I might have set about the trouble .
The first thing to bring in is that using Office in Rosetta on an Intel - based Mac is not like using , for instance , Photoshop in Rosetta to work out on a 300 megabyte bickering advertising layout . agency in Rosetta is averyusable software retinue . Speed is fantabulous , apart from some initial slowness on launch . As an exemplar , I made ashort movieof scrolling in Word on a Core Duo mini — the slowest Intel - power Mac you could grease one’s palms . The document in question is a 4 MiB 74 - page osmium X guide loaded with images that I write a few years back . As you may see for yourself , scroll speed is zippy enough :
Most Office exploiter will be doing the typical everyday function tasks — working on budget spreadsheets , typing memoranda and simple-minded account , creating presentations , and read e - post . federal agency in Rosetta handles all of these things with repose , and once the apps have launch , most users wo n’t even notice that they ’re execute under Rosetta . So while converting Office to a Universal program cortege is important , the want of a Universal version does n’t make it unacceptable to use .
give that , if I had been in charge of this project , these would have been my top three objectives , in society :
Now it ’s only possible that the MacBU ’s priorities exactly mirror mine at the start of their project . As it got into the work , however , it probably discover that port VB was incredibly hard . So after much discussion , it simply decided to drop VB , rather than risk a ship particular date slippage to get the work done . I suppose the correct thing to do would have been to annunciate to the world that the date was slip one’s mind , and then to excuse why : “ We could have shipped on time , but we would have broken every undivided macro that ’s ever been write , as well as the power to work with macro instruction from users of the Office reading of Windows . After talking to our customers , we decided that would be a dread matter to do to our node , so we ’re taking the extra sentence to get it done correctly . ” keep in mind that Office runs finely in Rosetta , I cerebrate the client would have been very take of that substance .
The big picture
So what do I consider the future looks like with the acquittance of a VB - free Mac interpretation of Office ? As buyers realise that this raw version wo n’t handle their exist macros , and wo n’t let them turn tail macro in macro - enabled files from Windows users , I think we ’re going to see a lot of sales of both Parallels and the Windows version of Office to Intel - ground Mac users . After all , if you use Parallels and Office for Windows , you will have absolute , guaranteed , 100 - pct compatibility with your Windows - using fellow employees and customer nucleotide — because you ’re using the accurate same practical program . Sales of the Mac version of Office , however , would wind up being largely relegated to Mac - only shops with limited need for outside file exchange and rest home user looking onward to some of the courteous Mac - specific feature .
If Office lose its cross - platform consultation , Microsoft is conk out to misplace sales . And if it loses sales , then it ’s decease to be less inclined to make melioration beyond key bug fixes and basic compatibility testing . That ’ll think a crippled variation of Office forallMac user — who will stop buying an app that will eventually see few and fewer substantive upgrades .
For that reason , I rightfully believe that the removal of VB support from Office marks the origin of the end for Mac Office . I fear it ’s much too belated to see any variety in plans from the MacBU , which is too uncollectible — the next rendering of Office could have been slap-up . Instead , it seems it will simply be the last major update of Office on the Mac . Here ’s skip Apple does a bang - up job with the next version ofiWorkand includes a powerful spreadsheet app in its suite — if I ca n’t have PC compatibility with macro support , I might as well use a product that ’s got a long - term future tense on the Mac .
