MS Office on M1 Mac vs. MS Office on Intel Windows PCs

[jlc1978]

I can understand your skepticism, but the review is not entirely subjective, despite the lack of hard data. There is definitely an objective factor there.

I simply disagree with that, the lack of objective data makes any conclusion subjective.

It is not, as you say, that one may prefer one over the other. I have heard many people mention that Office for Windows is far better than Office for Mac. I have read reviews mentioning that as well. I have never, even once, read or heard anyone mention that Office for Mac is better than Office for Windows. If you want hard data, just collect all the reviews and comparisons that prefer Office for Windows over Office for Mac and vice-versa.

Reviews, absent data, are subjective, no matter which conclusion you draw. Part of the review issue is if someone already uses Office/Win likely already has a bias for it simply because they’d are used to it; just as a Mac user would be biased towards a Mac. I, for example, created an 8 page file on Win Office that checked in at 56K on C:. Moving it to my Mac, it checked in at 57.1K, even after I opened and saved it in Word for Mac; so there was essentially no difference in file size. YMOV.

In addition, I am not claiming the Mac version is better, just that I have not found the Win version to be clearly better as you claim. In the end, it’s a subjective conclusion.

Plus, look at the chart I made on top of this thread (the first post). I opened several files on Microsoft Word for Windows and for Mac, and on other word processors as well. Word for Windows uses far less memory than Word for Mac. I followed the same method in opening all the files in all software listed. You may replicate this at home and I doubt your conclusions will be much different.

File size is not necessarily relevant to the overall user experience; nor does file size mean higher load times if different file systems are used By the OS.

Anecdotally, despite having relatively complex spreadsheets with VB code and complex function calculations I have seen no difference in Win or OS X versions; nor with word and a complex file that imports over a dozen graphs generated in Excel.

Even in the absence of hard data (which exists or can be created), it is not that the analysis is entirely subjective. Even subjective arguments have some degree of objectivity, even when they cannot be measured by numbers. And the objective conclusion is that Office for Windows is better than Office for Mac.

If an argument has no data it is subjective. In addition, even if there was data (which there isn’t) there is the question of is the data relevant to the argument made. In an case, your conclusion is subjective, not objective.

As has been said, in the end “better” is a subjective determination based on an individual’s preferences. Someone who wants to use a Mac and not deal with Window’s UI can say teh Mac version is better; because it is what they want and meets their needs. A Windows user will find their version better. Neither is wrong. YMMV

 

[Thunderbird]

Yes, Apple is not interested in making office applications. Perhaps Apple has found out it simply cannot compete with Microsoft in this field.

According to Microsoft, Office is used by over one billion people worldwide. That far exceeds the number of Macs in operation. It may even exceed the number of Macs ever sold. So, Apple cannot even have the scale necessary to compete with Microsoft in the office applications market.

Apple is a $2 trillion company and certainly has the resources to make a compelling office suite. However, Microsoft is also a $2 trillion company and Office is part of its core business. Apple cannot beat Microsoft in this field and it will not even try. Look at how miserably Microsoft failed when it tried to compete in Apple's businesses: it wrote off over $7 billion when it acknowledged that the acquisition of Nokia did not bring the desired results. Apple is not going this route.

Not even Microsoft can justify spending the same amount of money on Mac applications as it does on its Windows counterparts. Microsoft can throw a ton of money in developing and improving Office for Windows, as millions of users will either buy the next version or keep its subscription. The amount of Mac Office users is much lower, so resources are probably more limited as well.

Apple is focusing on other things. Just look at Apple's website. In each webpage dedicated to different Mac models (Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro), Apple shows images of applications running. In the pictures, Macs are usually running applications dedicated to photo, video, or music playing or editing, or videoconferencing, or browsing the web. I could find one picture of an iMac running Pages and another one of a Mac mini running Keynote. And both Pages and Keynote were running alongside other applications, focusing on the versatility of the Macs instead of its prowess with office software.

Now, just do the math. There are over 1.5 billion Windows users and over 1 billion Microsoft Office users. That means that about 2/3 of Windows users should probably be using Microsoft Office as well. This is not the kind of use that Apple shows on its website. Apple shows Macs as providing a graphical and colorful experience, editing photos and videos and music, and not running office applications. The message seems clear to me.

This is a very good summary of the current situation regarding Mac vs Windows software. Apple has no doubt decided not to fight MS in the office app space, and instead has simply focused on making their Macs home entertainment computers for photos and videos. But for a while, back in the 1990s-2000s with the switch to Intel (and the ability to boot and run Windows natively), it looked like Apple was poised to make Mac hardware a kind of universal machine for running all kinds of OS, VMs, and software. Those were exciting times. However, it looks like Apple is now moving away from that direction and locking down their hardware even more, by creating their own silicone and preventing any parts upgrading at all. Going forward, other OS's like Windows will only be available within VMs.

I'm just saying if they wanted to, Apple with its clout could take a run at MS Office and develop its own better version of an Office suite. Or failing that, at least just make Office for Mac identical to Office for Windows. I bet there are a lot of people who would like to use Macs exclusively for running everything, including MS Office natively, but don't find the current office software options on Macs to be ideal. Just think of how many more Macs Apple could sell if they could strike a deal with Microsoft to make a native identical feature parity MS Office suite for Mac? I could be wrong, but with the current direction of completely locking down Mac hardware, I don't see Mac hardware (especially iMac) sales growing. I see it shrinking.

As for publishing, when I went to school for technical writing, the instructors encouraged us to use FrameMaker or PageMaker rather than Word for long form projects. I do notice Word can sometimes get unstable at 100+ pages. Nowadays I think a lot of authors and project managers are turning towards apps like Scrivener for long form manuscripts. Most publishing house editors will ask for submissions in either Word, or a more basic text form like rtf, since they want to do their own DTP layout design for printing, and want to avoid converting documents. I've never heard of an editor requesting submissions in Pages.

 

[jlc1978]

I'm just saying if they wanted to, Apple with its clout could take a run at MS Office and develop its own better version of an Office suite. Or failing that, at least just make Office for Mac identical to Office for Windows.

No doubt, but the question is why? To make a seroiuos run would cost a lot of money for an uncertain payback. To make a dent would require compatibility with MS Office simply because it is the defacto standard, limiting Apple's ability innovate lest they make files incompatible. They can get a much higher roi on other products, so they focus resources tehre.

I bet there are a lot of people who would like to use Macs exclusively for running everything, including MS Office natively, but don't find the current office software options on Macs to be ideal.

I would venture a guess most Office users don't use features beyond the main ones so either version would meet their needs; and make a buying decision on price or other factors rather Office. Thus the opportunity for increased sales is not all that great.

Just think of how many more Macs Apple could sell if they could strike a deal with Microsoft to make a native identical feature parity MS Office suite for Mac?

Probably not enough to notice.

I could be wrong, but with the current direction of completely locking down Mac hardware, I don't see Mac hardware (especially iMac) sales growing. I see it shrinking.

Mac have never been about open standards, even when they had expansion slots. I think Apple is more interested in phones/tablet/cloud as the future than PCs.

 

[StoneJack]

I suppose user cases will vary. Many users will not notice much of a difference as they make only casual use of Office.

One difference that strikes me, though, is how much heavier Mac Office is to run compared to its Windows counterpart. I have several anecdotal examples of this.

it is because Windows is heavily optimized for Office (or opposite)

 

[Thunderbird]

No doubt, but the question is why? To make a seroiuos run would cost a lot of money for an uncertain payback. To make a dent would require compatibility with MS Office simply because it is the defacto standard, limiting Apple's ability innovate lest they make files incompatible. They can get a much higher roi on other products, so they focus resources tehre.

Every decision involves an uncertain payback. Yes, it would need to be MS Office compatible. I don't see these things as barriers.

I would venture a guess most Office users don't use features beyond the main ones so either version would meet their needs; and make a buying decision on price or other factors rather Office. Thus the opportunity for increased sales is not all that great.

Even so, the advanced features are there in case you need them. And anyone who uses MS Office will probably at some point need one or two of those advanced features. This and compatibility would be the main reasons for going with MS Office. Being the defacto standard means anyone wanting word processing is going to seriously consider Word. Perfect alignment with a billion user base seems like a no-brainer for increased sales.

Mac have never been about open standards, even when they had expansion slots. I think Apple is more interested in phones/tablet/cloud as the future than PCs.

Mac has been about open standards since the 1990s. It's only recently that they've been locking everything down.

 

[StoneJack]

Mac has been about open standards since the 1990s. It's only recently that they've been locking everything down.

Mac had all proprietary ports and etc until 1998 when they adopted USB and IDE for bus. Since they are opening and supporting many open standards.

 

[jlc1978]

Every decision involves an uncertain payback. Yes, it would need to be MS Office compatible. I don't see these things as barriers.

The ROI would likely be lower than other investments and thus makes no sense.

Mac has been about open standards since the 1990s. It's only recently that they've been locking everything down.

The Mac has been locked down in various ways since its introduction; whether it’s requiring special tools to open one, proprietary buses or soldered components. Even when they have used standard interfaces, not all Macs of the same vintage used them all the time. They also had their own standards, such as ADB.

I guess our definition of “open standards“ differs, I consider it to mean the basic design is such that you can replace items with industry standard components, not merely conforming to certain standards in say i/o ports. Apple, with rare exceptions, has never made it easy or designed a machine for upgrades, unlike the IBM PC world. YMMV

Mac had all proprietary ports and etc until 1998 when they adopted USB and IDE for bus. Since they are opening and supporting many open standards.

Didn’t they use their own implementation of the NuBus in the 90’s?

 

[StoneJack]

Didn’t they use their own implementation of the NuBus in the 90’s?

yes, they did, and then gradually moved to common standards starting from USB, actually were one of first to adopt USB. USB is a common standard no matter how you look at it. IDE is also common standard (for connecting hard drives), no matter how you look at it.

 

[polyphenol]

I am a recent convert to MacOS, and a long-term Microsoft Office user, I have a considerable number of documents in Word format. That is the biggest single problem in changing to Pages or anything else.

I have found Word to be speedy on my M1 machines. Though I consider things like time to rebuild a full and large Table of Contents of a document consisting of hundreds of pages more significant than the megabytes used or time to open them. Much faster on the Mac. (Opening time seems acceptable for all my documents.)

I can't compare a recent PC, as I haven't got one, but it certainly seems faster in every way than the two Windows machines I regularly use - on the same documents.

For a single document: On MacOS, it shows using 375 MB, on Windows about 195 MB. But, when left totally untouched for several minutes, the Windows PC shows Word using 10 to 23% of the processor. Whereas Activity Monitor shows around 2% on MacOS.

Latest 365 Word on both machines - Windows is fully up-to-date Windows 10.

 

[skaertus]

I simply disagree with that, the lack of objective data makes any conclusion subjective.



Reviews, absent data, are subjective, no matter which conclusion you draw. Part of the review issue is if someone already uses Office/Win likely already has a bias for it simply because they’d are used to it; just as a Mac user would be biased towards a Mac. I, for example, created an 8 page file on Win Office that checked in at 56K on C:. Moving it to my Mac, it checked in at 57.1K, even after I opened and saved it in Word for Mac; so there was essentially no difference in file size. YMOV.

In addition, I am not claiming the Mac version is better, just that I have not found the Win version to be clearly better as you claim. In the end, it’s a subjective conclusion.



File size is not necessarily relevant to the overall user experience; nor does file size mean higher load times if different file systems are used By the OS.

Anecdotally, despite having relatively complex spreadsheets with VB code and complex function calculations I have seen no difference in Win or OS X versions; nor with word and a complex file that imports over a dozen graphs generated in Excel.




If an argument has no data it is subjective. In addition, even if there was data (which there isn’t) there is the question of is the data relevant to the argument made. In an case, your conclusion is subjective, not objective.

As has been said, in the end “better” is a subjective determination based on an individual’s preferences. Someone who wants to use a Mac and not deal with Window’s UI can say teh Mac version is better; because it is what they want and meets their needs. A Windows user will find their version better. Neither is wrong. YMMV

Well, there are so many things that cannot be measured by numbers and that are not entirely subjective. If there is a consensus on a certain topic, it may mean that, although there may be some degree of subjectivity, there may also be some component of objectivity that is not or cannot be measured by hard data. There is a common bias in the sense that something that cannot be measured by numbers is totally subjective and therefore can go either way.

So far, I have seen people either claiming that Office for Windows is better than Office for Mac, or people claiming that they see no difference for their particular use. I am yet to identify people claiming that Office for Mac is better than Office for Windows.

There is a lot of subjectivity on that, of course. Some people feel that the Windows version is faster. Others notice the extra features in the Windows version. Some users just think they are both the same for their work. It is all subjective. But I think there may be some degree of objectivity when virtually nobody claims, in their subjective analysis, that the Mac Office is actually better.

Just that.

This is a very good summary of the current situation regarding Mac vs Windows software. Apple has no doubt decided not to fight MS in the office app space, and instead has simply focused on making their Macs home entertainment computers for photos and videos. But for a while, back in the 1990s-2000s with the switch to Intel (and the ability to boot and run Windows natively), it looked like Apple was poised to make Mac hardware a kind of universal machine for running all kinds of OS, VMs, and software. Those were exciting times. However, it looks like Apple is now moving away from that direction and locking down their hardware even more, by creating their own silicone and preventing any parts upgrading at all. Going forward, other OS's like Windows will only be available within VMs.

I'm just saying if they wanted to, Apple with its clout could take a run at MS Office and develop its own better version of an Office suite. Or failing that, at least just make Office for Mac identical to Office for Windows. I bet there are a lot of people who would like to use Macs exclusively for running everything, including MS Office natively, but don't find the current office software options on Macs to be ideal. Just think of how many more Macs Apple could sell if they could strike a deal with Microsoft to make a native identical feature parity MS Office suite for Mac? I could be wrong, but with the current direction of completely locking down Mac hardware, I don't see Mac hardware (especially iMac) sales growing. I see it shrinking.

As for publishing, when I went to school for technical writing, the instructors encouraged us to use FrameMaker or PageMaker rather than Word for long form projects. I do notice Word can sometimes get unstable at 100+ pages. Nowadays I think a lot of authors and project managers are turning towards apps like Scrivener for long form manuscripts. Most publishing house editors will ask for submissions in either Word, or a more basic text form like rtf, since they want to do their own DTP layout design for printing, and want to avoid converting documents. I've never heard of an editor requesting submissions in Pages.

Office for Mac clearly evolved over the years and now the main apps have many of the same features as Office for Windows does. But not all apps are available for Mac, and I suppose bringing Access or Publisher to the Mac ecosystem would not be an easy task. Plus, Office for Windows is very optimized to run on Windows; I guess it would be hard for Microsoft to achieve something similar on the Mac platform.

You are right that publishers use other software such as FrameMaker for long-form projects. But Word is the market standard, and no publisher, at least here in Brazil, will ever refuse a document received in .docx format.

Apple has its own iWork suite, which is fairly compatible and does a good job, although it is still basic in many respects.

I do not think the Mac market share will shrink with the M-series processors. I think it will expand. The M1 processor is a huge deal and differentiates Macs even further. Macs will hardly touch the market share of Windows, as they do not meet the required price points, but they will sell a lot. The M1 iMac has no equal, the M1 MacBook Air is very compelling at $999, and the M1 Pro/Max MacBook Pro is everything many users wanted.

No doubt, but the question is why? To make a seroiuos run would cost a lot of money for an uncertain payback. To make a dent would require compatibility with MS Office simply because it is the defacto standard, limiting Apple's ability innovate lest they make files incompatible. They can get a much higher roi on other products, so they focus resources tehre.



I would venture a guess most Office users don't use features beyond the main ones so either version would meet their needs; and make a buying decision on price or other factors rather Office. Thus the opportunity for increased sales is not all that great.

Every decision involves an uncertain payback. Yes, it would need to be MS Office compatible. I don't see these things as barriers.



Even so, the advanced features are there in case you need them. And anyone who uses MS Office will probably at some point need one or two of those advanced features. This and compatibility would be the main reasons for going with MS Office. Being the defacto standard means anyone wanting word processing is going to seriously consider Word. Perfect alignment with a billion user base seems like a no-brainer for increased sales.

Yes, Apple has very little to gain by making its own office suite. It cannot compete with Microsoft in this field. Office is core for Microsoft. Apple has iWork, which is some sort of watered-down office suite with a different approach. Mac users may either use iWork or Microsoft Office, and they hardly need anything else.

It is not like Macs will take over the enterprise market if Apple just makes a decent office suite.

I am a recent convert to MacOS, and a long-term Microsoft Office user, I have a considerable number of documents in Word format. That is the biggest single problem in changing to Pages or anything else.

I have found Word to be speedy on my M1 machines. Though I consider things like time to rebuild a full and large Table of Contents of a document consisting of hundreds of pages more significant than the megabytes used or time to open them. Much faster on the Mac. (Opening time seems acceptable for all my documents.)

I can't compare a recent PC, as I haven't got one, but it certainly seems faster in every way than the two Windows machines I regularly use - on the same documents.

For a single document: On MacOS, it shows using 375 MB, on Windows about 195 MB. But, when left totally untouched for several minutes, the Windows PC shows Word using 10 to 23% of the processor. Whereas Activity Monitor shows around 2% on MacOS.

Latest 365 Word on both machines - Windows is fully up-to-date Windows 10.

This is very interesting.

What is the configuration of your two Windows machines? I tried Office for Windows and Mac on the same computer. If you try them on different computers, the results will vary. The speed of the M1 processor may make up for any bloat of Office for Mac.

 

[SalisburySam]

We have a multi-device subscription to Office 365 or whatever it is called today. It gives all of the Office apps to our PC’s and most of them to our Apple devices. I use a 2017-vintage iMac and 2020-era iPadPro with both Office and Pages/Numbers/Keynote. For what simple things I do, I much prefer the iWork suite over Office for ease-of-use for the quick-and-dirty stuff I do. For anything needing compatibility or deep-dive complexity I’ll use Office. Both Office and iWork provide very useful tools for my needs and one suite does not supplant the other. It’s great to have options.

All that said, what I’d really like for the iMac/iPadPro is an equivalent to Microsoft’s Access app. Over the years I’ve used that for personal databases that have proven very useful to me, including some to support volunteer organizations I weave in and out of. I haven’t really understood why Microsoft didn’t include a Mac version of Access with its Office suite, but they don’t. So far I’ve tried to use Ninox with mixed results. FileMaker is a possible option but their licensing terms and costs are not rational for me.

Again, it’s nice to have tools available that meet my various needs, and will operate on my preferred iMac/iPadPro platforms.

 

[Thunderbird]

The ROI would likely be lower than other investments and thus makes no sense.

You don't know that. Besides, even if the ROI is 'lower', there would still be a return.

I guess our definition of “open standards“ differs, I consider it to mean the basic design is such that you can replace items with industry standard components, not merely conforming to certain standards in say i/o ports. Apple, with rare exceptions, has never made it easy or designed a machine for upgrades, unlike the IBM PC world. YMMV

My original point was that Apple has 'locked down' hardware and OS, by which I meant non-upgradability and no longer hosting Windows natively on Bootcamp (at least with Apple silicone). I wasn't talking about bus or port standards.

 

[jlc1978]

You don't know that. Besides,

No, but given the cost of developing a competitor and MS’ huge user base I’d say it’s a pretty good guess.

even if the ROI is 'lower', there would still be a return.

However, if the return is less than that of the investments then they should forgo the opportunity. One always needs to look at the return vs alternatives when making an investment decision. If you don’t hit your hurdle rate then skip the investment; except is some special case. Going up against MS and spending a lot of money is not one of tehm.

My original point was that Apple has 'locked down' hardware and OS, by which I meant non-upgradability and no longer hosting Windows natively on Bootcamp (at least with Apple silicone). I wasn't talking about bus or port standards.

As I pointed out, upgradeability has never been a key feature of Macs; and running Windows is not, IMHO, a open standard even if I agree they’ve pulled that feature. We can just agree to disagree on that point.

For Bootcamp, my guess is they did it simply to try to get some switchers from PCs some comfort level while they learned the Mac.

 

[Thunderbird]

Office for Mac clearly evolved over the years and now the main apps have many of the same features as Office for Windows does. But not all apps are available for Mac, and I suppose bringing Access or Publisher to the Mac ecosystem would not be an easy task. Plus, Office for Windows is very optimized to run on Windows; I guess it would be hard for Microsoft to achieve something similar on the Mac platform.

Windows can run natively on ARM (though currently I think it's mostly through emulation). So it's up to Microsoft to make it happen and allow licensing. The current incompatibility with Apple ARM isn't entirely Apple's fault. But if the two could come together and make it happen, I'm sure it would increase Mac sales. And as ARM desktop computing power increases in the future (i.e. M2, M3, etc) I could even see Windows on Apple ARM making Hackintoshes obsolete.

Yes, Apple has very little to gain by making its own office suite. It cannot compete with Microsoft in this field. Office is core for Microsoft. Apple has iWork, which is some sort of watered-down office suite with a different approach. Mac users may either use iWork or Microsoft Office, and they hardly need anything else.

It is not like Macs will take over the enterprise market if Apple just makes a decent office suite.

You're probably right in that in order to even begin spreading their own improved Office Suite, Apple would need to somehow penetrate the business computer market much more than they do now. The problem is, unlike with Microsoft, a business would have to buy a whole new Apple machine simply to get the Office Suite. And with Apple's prices, I don't see that happening.

In the meantime, the least Apple could do is get Microsoft to make Office for Mac feature and GUI identical to the Windows version. I don't understand why they haven't done this. Most people want the real Windows deal.

 

[Thunderbird]

What is the configuration of your two Windows machines? I tried Office for Windows and Mac on the same computer. If you try them on different computers, the results will vary. The speed of the M1 processor may make up for any bloat of Office for Mac.

How did you do it on the same computer? Do you have a Hackintosh?

 

[jlc1978]

How did you do it on the same computer? Do you have a Hackintosh?

I do it with Parallels running ARM for Windows.

Windows can run natively on ARM (though currently I think it's mostly through emulation). So it's up to Microsoft to make it happen and allow licensing. The current incompatibility with Apple ARM isn't entirely Apple's fault. But if the two could come together and make it happen, I'm sure it would increase Mac sales. And as ARM desktop computing power increases in the future (i.e. M2, M3, etc) I could even see Windows on Apple ARM making Hackintoshes obsolete.

It’d be nice but I think neither side is really interested in making it happen. I’d settle for MS not breaking WindowsARM on emulators.

In the meantime, the least Apple could do is get Microsoft to make Office for Mac feature and GUI identical to the Windows version. I don't understand why they haven't done this. Most people want the real Windows deal.

I‘m guessing most Office users find teh current versions sufficient so there is no real pressure to develop 200% feature compatibility and spend the time and money for something only a tiny percent of the installed base would use.

 

[Thunderbird]

I‘m guessing most Office users find teh current versions sufficient so there is no real pressure to develop 200% feature compatibility and spend the time and money for something only a tiny percent of the installed base would use.

And I'm guessing most MS Office users have the windows version on Parallels or still keep a windows PC/laptop. I doubt Office for Mac is a big seller for Microsoft because of the slowness and lack of full features. It wouldn't take much to make it feature identical. Microsoft already has a development team dedicated to Office for Mac.

 

[skaertus]

How did you do it on the same computer? Do you have a Hackintosh?

No. I used an Intel Mac with Bootcamp.

 

[skaertus]

Windows can run natively on ARM (though currently I think it's mostly through emulation). So it's up to Microsoft to make it happen and allow licensing. The current incompatibility with Apple ARM isn't entirely Apple's fault. But if the two could come together and make it happen, I'm sure it would increase Mac sales. And as ARM desktop computing power increases in the future (i.e. M2, M3, etc) I could even see Windows on Apple ARM making Hackintoshes obsolete.



You're probably right in that in order to even begin spreading their own improved Office Suite, Apple would need to somehow penetrate the business computer market much more than they do now. The problem is, unlike with Microsoft, a business would have to buy a whole new Apple machine simply to get the Office Suite. And with Apple's prices, I don't see that happening.

In the meantime, the least Apple could do is get Microsoft to make Office for Mac feature and GUI identical to the Windows version. I don't understand why they haven't done this. Most people want the real Windows deal.

If Windows could run natively on Apple Arm chips, the M1 Macs would be absolutely killer machines. Microsoft is not making it happen, but Apple seems to be doing little effort as well.

As for developing its own improved office suite, you are right. Apple will not be able to enter the business market. Most businesses already run Windows and MS Office, and rely on them. They have support for Windows and MS Office. They will not change overnight to Apple even if it released a killer office suite. Plus, an Apple office suite would have to play along with MS Office, which is the market standard, and therefore would be unable to bring any new killer features. I do not see how Apple, even spending tons of money, would cause a dent to Microsoft's domination in this market.

 

[skaertus]

And I'm guessing most MS Office users have the windows version on Parallels or still keep a windows PC/laptop. I doubt Office for Mac is a big seller for Microsoft because of the slowness and lack of full features. It wouldn't take much to make it feature identical. Microsoft already has a development team dedicated to Office for Mac.

I think Office for Mac is a good seller for Microsoft. But just do the math.

There are reportedly over one billion people using an Office product, according to Microsoft. That figure may be tricky, but it is still a lot. According to Microsoft, in August 2021, there were 300 million commercial paid seats of Microsoft Office 365. I am not sure how Microsoft is counting this, but it is still a lot.

According to Apple, there were 100 million active Macs in use in 2018. I am also not sure how tricky these figures are.

But, even if all Macs in use have Microsoft Office installed, they would represent only a minority of all Office users. Given the Mac user base, it simply does not make sense for Microsoft to employ the same level of resources in the development of Windows and Mac versions of Office.

 

[jlc1978]

And I'm guessing most MS Office users have the windows version on Parallels or still keep a windows PC/laptop.

Considering Office365 comes with both and Parallels is an addition 95$, I doubt it.

I doubt Office for Mac is a big seller for Microsoft because of the slowness and lack of full features.

I think the Mac version probably contains all the features 95% of the users need so there is no real difference day today. I’m not sure where you get the slowness idea as I have never noticed any difference. Since most users are probably relatively light users I doubt they do either.

It wouldn't take much to make it feature identical. Microsoft already has a development team dedicated to Office for Mac.

Money. That takes time and would require additional talent dedicated to that versus simply maintaining the existing code base. MS could vary well look at how often features are used and decided teh costs of programming and maintaining features 1 or 2 % of users would use isn’t worth it.

 

[Thunderbird]

Considering Office365 comes with both and Parallels is an addition 95$, I doubt it.

Both what? Not sure I understand.

I think the Mac version probably contains all the features 95% of the users need so there is no real difference day today. I’m not sure where you get the slowness idea as I have never noticed any difference. Since most users are probably relatively light users I doubt they do either.

From the OP who tested both versions. I don't know which users are light or heavy users, but I'm sure most would welcome full features.

Money. That takes time and would require additional talent dedicated to that versus simply maintaining the existing code base. MS could vary well look at how often features are used and decided teh costs of programming and maintaining features 1 or 2 % of users would use isn’t worth it.

Adding the remaining features and touching up the UI are small things the existing development team could do. If you asked current Office for Mac users, I bet most would say they'd like to have the rest of the features.

 

[Thunderbird]

I think Office for Mac is a good seller for Microsoft. But just do the math.

There are reportedly over one billion people using an Office product, according to Microsoft. That figure may be tricky, but it is still a lot. According to Microsoft, in August 2021, there were 300 million commercial paid seats of Microsoft Office 365. I am not sure how Microsoft is counting this, but it is still a lot.

According to Apple, there were 100 million active Macs in use in 2018. I am also not sure how tricky these figures are.

But, even if all Macs in use have Microsoft Office installed, they would represent only a minority of all Office users. Given the Mac user base, it simply does not make sense for Microsoft to employ the same level of resources in the development of Windows and Mac versions of Office.

So if there are a billion Office users, and 100 million Mac users, and if all Macs in use were to have a full featured identical Windows version of MS Office upgraded and installed, that's 100 million more sales of Office for Mac. Even though that's 10% of 1 billion, it's pretty significant.

 

[skaertus]

So if there are a billion Office users, and 100 million Mac users, and if all Macs in use were to have a full featured identical Windows version of MS Office upgraded and installed, that's 100 million more sales of Office for Mac. Even though that's 10% of 1 billion, it's pretty significant.

That is the full size of the potential market. Not even iWork, which is free, is installed in 100% of the Macs.

Plus, Microsoft is pushing consumers and businesses towards purchasing a Microsoft 365 subscription. In many cases, a company buys a Microsoft 365 subscription so the worker can use it on a PC at work and on a computer (which may be either a PC or a Mac) at home. The fact that the user may use a Mac at home instead of a PC, or how good the macOS version of Office is compared to the Windows one, does not interfere in the decision of the company to purchase Microsoft 365.

 

[jlc1978]

Both what? Not sure I understand.

Mac and Windows version of Office365.

From the OP who tested both versions. I don't know which users are light or heavy users, but I'm sure most would welcome full features.

One piece of anecdotal evidence based on a subjective opinion. I also use both and have seen no difference, but that also is one anecdotal piece of evidence; and of course subjective. I did test load times of teh Win and Mac versions of words, and found teh Mac version loaded about 2 seconds faster on an M1 MBP than under Parallels; not enough to make a difference and probably writhing the margin of error if a ran a lot of tests.

As for file sizes, they are not representative of the performance in actual use.

Adding the remaining features and touching up the UI are small things the existing development team could do. If you asked current Office for Mac users, I bet most would say they'd like to have the rest of the features.

The question is how many actually use them and would pay for tHem? Saying they want something and paying for it are two different things.

So if there are a billion Office users, and 100 million Mac users, and if all Macs in use were to have a full featured identical Windows version of MS Office upgraded and installed, that's 100 million more sales of Office for Mac. Even though that's 10% of 1 billion, it's pretty significant.

A few points:
1. Not all Mac owners would buy Office.
2. Some percentage already have Office so you’re looking at marginal sales Beyond that base. The number is likely much smaller than 10% and not enough to make it worth pursuing.