• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Alternative to MS Powerpoint 2013

spidey180

Junior Member
What software did Apple use to deliver in today's event?
I need to create a similar good looking presentation(I know presentation is not about the looks, but still).

Can anyone here suggest a good alternative to MS power point?
I'm ready to pay for the software(on Windows here).
 
Anything that Apple uses will be true professional and cost more than MS PowerPoint
 
Anything that Apple uses will be true professional and cost more than MS PowerPoint

This makes very little sense and reeks of bias.

I grant that Powerpoint isn't the strongest at giving presentations, but to imply that it's somehow not "true professional" is just ignorant.

Doubly ignorant when you consider that iWork is free.*


* When you own an Apple device.
 
If you watched todays event, then you should have heard the part where they said that they used the new version of Keynote to make their presentation.
 
Anything that Apple uses will be true professional and cost more than MS PowerPoint
This makes very little sense and reeks of bias.

I grant that Powerpoint isn't the strongest at giving presentations, but to imply that it's somehow not "true professional" is just ignorant.

Doubly ignorant when you consider that iWork is free.*


* When you own an Apple device.

Let me rephrase.
Apple will have used a high end professional presentation package.
Such a package will cost more than PowerPoint does.

I am not degrading PowerPoint at all.
 
Do you have an iPad OP? You can get Keynote on there for cheap.

EagleKeeper, Apple has used Keynote to make their presentations for as long as I can recall. And they also sell it. If you get a new Mac, you get it for free now, but otherwise it's like... $20 or something I think. Considerably cheaper than a single license of PowerPoint, if you can even buy that standalone.
 
Why is Powerpoint not a viable option? I've never used Keynote, but I'm having a hard time believing that the software is the reason for bad presentations.

It's easy to make a bad presentation. Its much harder to make one that looks good. Don't blame the software, this is probably a user issue.
 
Do you have an iPad OP? You can get Keynote on there for cheap.

EagleKeeper, Apple has used Keynote to make their presentations for as long as I can recall. And they also sell it. If you get a new Mac, you get it for free now, but otherwise it's like... $20 or something I think. Considerably cheaper than a single license of PowerPoint, if you can even buy that standalone.

I stand corrected regarding the price 😳
 
I suspect lxskllr
may be willing to suggest some alternatives to try & help you. That's he & my objective...to help you.

 
Last edited:
Try this excellent presentation program, and because MagicLantern is written in Java, it can be run on virtually any platform — Windows, Linux, Macintosh, and others. This means if you create a multimedia presentation on one platform, it can be transferred and displayed on another, using the same program. And of course, it's FREE.

link


Since you're looking for alternatives to the Microsoft-proprietary, expensive PowerPoint, you ought to at leat take a look at this. I've use it; it's excellent.

They say it's released under the GPL, and then post this a bit under it...

MagicLantern selling policy
Don't even think about it. MagicLantern is free to everyone, and cannot be sold under any circumstances.

Which is unenforceable, and legally removable

7. Additional Terms.

“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.

When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:

a) Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
b) Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
c) Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
d) Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
e) Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
f) Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.

If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating where to find the applicable terms.

Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
 
lxskllr,

What's your point?

That's some EXCELLENT software, and it's free to anybody worldwide, and it plays nice on Linux and on Windows and on Apple. What more do you ask?

Are you complaining that the "license" might interfere with people seeking to making money off the programming work done by the author, Paul Lutus, and not done by them?

You IMPLY but don't make clear what your point is, although you clearly seem to be complaining.

Probably it's just because I skimmed your post too fast, but I missed your point. Facts: FREE, WORKS GREAT, PROVEN, HARMONIOUS WITH LINUX+WINDOWS+APPLE. WHat's your complaint with that?

My complaint is they use the GPL and put a non-valid rider on it. If you use the GPL you can't restrict the distribution in any fashion(aside from requiring the source code be made available), including sale. The reason I pointed it out is it makes a good teaching moment. If you pay attention you might learn something about an important license ;^)
 
Hmm, if it's GPL, wouldn't it actually be breaking the license to attempt to restrict selling it? It may simply be that the authors don't understand the license they've employed though.
 
Hmm, if it's GPL, wouldn't it actually be breaking the license to attempt to restrict selling it? It may simply be that the authors don't understand the license they've employed though.

Yea, that's my point. There's a lot of confusion regarding the term free software, even by people that should know better. Free software describes the freedom you have in how you can use it, and forbidding sale would make it non-free software.
 
Back
Top