MS Office 10 for OS X

B

benp

iB
I just recently got M$ Office for Mac OS X..but I havn't gotten to use it yet cause I haven't been able to restart into Mac OS X abut I will tell further on if it still needs work and it is cocoa not carbon I guess thats a good thing meaning less bugs running it under X....
 
That's not a valid reason. There are Carbon apps that work in Classic Mac OS, and there are Carbon apps that don't. The developer decides how he's going to develop his app (what type of Carbon app he is going to create). Another example of an OS X-only Carbon app: MS Internet Explorer 5.1 (the one that comes pre-installed with X).
 
So... carbon apps don't always work in OS9. Office 10 was made for OS X, but it was not rewritten in cocoa becuase it would have taken too long. So it was carbonized for X and they added alot of X Only features therefore it will not run in OS 9.
 
Originally posted by benp
yes it is because I can't run it under classic
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. IE 5.1 under MacOSX can't run under classic, but it is not cocoa. It is clearly stated in M$ that it is carbon. All carbon compiler under ProjectBuilder can't run under classic.
 
Hey guys, you know our great mac os x finder? guess what? Carbon! Go ahead and try it under classic. Awww, doesn't work? Too bad
 
All those carbon apps that don't work in 9 are a _good_ thing: this means that those apps are made specifically for OS X. If Carbon apps are well-designed (= with X in mind, not simple "ports"), they don't have to be less good than Cocoa apps. Carbon apps should be made to work in X _first_, afterwards developers can look into Classic compatibility.

(I believe that the X Finder in its current (10.0.4) state of development is a poorly written Carbon app - that's what causes the slowness.)
 
I know this calls for idle speculation, but...

Why do you suppose they did not build the Finder as a nice fact Coco applicaiton?

Do you think they have re done this to make it faster in 10.1?
 
On the Apple forum, a programmer stated AGAIN and AGAIN (since most people still think that Carbon is slower than Cocoa) that a properly written Carbon tool can be as fast as a Cocoa app. What made me wonder was that he said "as fast". This implies that Cocoa still may be faster. But most OS X programmers state that in termes of speed, there is no difference between X-only carbon and cocoa applications. I have never programmed anything huge under OS X, allthough I am a Mac addictive (Cube with Cinema display says it all ;) all my programming takes place on a WIntel-machine, so I can really only tell what I heard all over the net. My "feel" of is that Cocoa apps just seem more responsive. Compare IE 5.1 PR to (X-only carbon) to Omniweb! Compare the Finder to other Cocoa apps which deal with files. They seem "smoother". Not that graphics and FX heavy, but it just feels a bit faster.

The reason WHY they made it carbon? Don't know! Compatibility problems with the already existing OS X? (the server OS which now got the Aqua interface). An unfinished Cocoa framework when they started programming the Aqua WM? Easier programming under Carbon? Nobody knew how to programm Objective-C? (just a joke).
 
Two most stated reasons on the web why Finder is Carbon app:

1/ at the time work on the Finder started certain things that the Finder needed were unavailable in Cocoa

2/ Apple wanted to show 3rd party developers that Carbon was good enough to use it for an essential part of the system software

Don't know what the real reason is. IMO it's a bit strange the Finder is Carbon since they had a Cocoa file browser in X Server 1.0.
 
MS Office 10 for OS X is a Mach 0 Carbon application, meaning, it uses Carbon as it's primary API, but also makes calls that fall outside of the Carbon spec to better take advantage of some new OS X features (UI issues mostly).

The reason OS X's Finder is lame right now has nothing to do with it being a Carbon applilcation. It's sluggishness is due to lack of optimization. Apple got OS X running and out the door as fast as it could, and to cut corners they opted for stability over speed, and not both, as they should have aimed for. This will obviously be addressed with 10.1.

Carbon and Cocoa are both API's. One isn't faster than the other. The big benefit you are going to get with Cocoa is that your application development time should be shorter due to the development tools available. Your advantage with Carbon is that if you already have an app made for OS 9 (or OS 9 is part of your intended audience), you can make your app run on both. But just because your app is Carbon doesn't mean that it will run on both OS 9 or X. A Carbon application might have some specific calls to OS X that might prevent it from running on 9.

Hope this clears it up...

Cheers,
SerpicoLugNut
http://www.macosxcentric.com
 
Compare IE 5.1 PR to (X-only carbon) to Omniweb!
Click to expand...

This is an argument for the responsiveness of Cocoa apps? Omniweb's UI is dog slow, by Omni's admission. Try clicking a link while a page is loading. Watch this movie - http://homepage.mac.com/rezedit/owd/

OW is great, but its speed & responsiveness are not any of the reasons.

The reason WHY they made it carbon? Don't know! Compatibility problems with the already existing OS X? (the server OS which now got the Aqua interface).
Click to expand...

The Finder in the already existing OSXS was Cocoa (Yellow Box.) They had to rewrite it for Carbon.

An unfinished Cocoa framework when they started programming the Aqua WM?
Click to expand...

Cocoa is/was certainly far more finished than Carbon is/was.

What I think happened is the first version that was demonstrated - the one that only had column view, the one that didn't have a desktop, the one that didn't remember window positions, the one that caused an immense furor that Apple was 'killing the Mac' because it didn't have these things - that was a Cocoa version, and it caused a panic at Apple, such that they completely scrapped that Finder and started anew.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top