Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Public Betas For CrossOver Mac and Linux

kdawson posted about 8 years ago | from the new-wine-in-mac-bottles dept.


Jeremy White writes, "I am happy to announce that we have put up a new version of our public beta of CrossOver Mac as well as an equivalent public beta of CrossOver Linux. For Mac users, this release includes fixes to Internet Explorer, fixes for many cases where programs would crash when run (e.g. Microsoft Office 2000 and similar older applications), fixes for Outlook 2003, and a range of other improvements. For Linux users, the big highlights are support for World of Warcraft and many Steam based games (including Half Life 2 and Counterstrike), as well as support for Outlook 2003. Version 6 also represents a major improvement in the core of Wine since version 5 of CrossOver, so you may be pleasantly surprised as you try running unsupported applications."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I don't know why people bother... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298357)

... when Parallels [] just works.

(see, I can do a Slashvertisement too) :)

Re:I don't know why people bother... (5, Informative)

finkployd (12902) | about 8 years ago | (#16298391)

Because parallels requires you run a complete copy of Windows, where as wine doesn't.

Re:I don't know why people bother... (4, Insightful)

BritneySP2 (870776) | about 8 years ago | (#16298407)

Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.

Re:I don't know why people bother... (4, Informative)

MustardMan (52102) | about 8 years ago | (#16298427)

Uh, because parallels has the extra overhead of running windows XP, doesn't support 3d acceleration, and uses up more hard drive space? Just a thought.

Disclaimer: I use and enjoy parallels, but there is plenty of room for alternative approaches.

Re:I don't know why people bother... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298737)

If you already use Parallels, then maybe you can help us out here. Is the cost of MS Windows included with Parallels or do you have to buy that separately?

Re:I don't know why people bother... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298807)

you musta buya ita separately!

Re:I don't know why people bother... (5, Funny)

MightyYar (622222) | about 8 years ago | (#16299419)

You have to buy it separately. Fortunately, the prices are quite reasonable. The last time I was in Penang, I bought Windows Professional for 8 ringgit (about US $2). I don't know what the prices are like in the US. There was no activation necessary, but for some reason I have trouble using Windows Genuine Advantage.

Goddamnit Mods... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299563)

It's funny!

Re:I don't know why people bother... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16300275)

You have to pirate that separately.

Please don't buy it.

Umm... (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 8 years ago | (#16298561)

I don't know why people bother ...... when Parallels just works.

...Half Life 2?

MOD ABUSE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299137)

Sheesh. Ask a legitimate question to spark a useful discussion, and you get labeled Troll. WTF. Some people provided good answers (3-d acceleration, not wanting the full Windows running). I wanted to hear more. What the hell is wrong with that? Someone from Crossover (or maybe just a WINE fanboy) get too pissy at the idea of a fair discussion?

FWIW, my reasons for generally choosing virtualization over API emulation include:
  • Emulation of a closed API is prone to error - the people writing WINE have done great things, but ultimately they can't know how a call is supposed to behave in every single situation. What if it doesn't work like it was intended, and corrupts my data?
  • Running under hardware virtualization gives me the benefit of running the real thing (tm). Any bugs in the API are solely the responsibility of MS. More importantly, any undocumented features that programs rely on are guaranteed to work.
  • The virtual machine gives Windows a sandbox within which it can run. I like having any potential damage from a rogue program contained within that sandbox, rather than giving it access to my entire system.

Can we have a real discussion, or am I wasting my time here?

Re:MOD ABUSE (2, Insightful)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about 8 years ago | (#16299839)

Sheesh. Ask a legitimate question to spark a useful discussion, and you get labeled Troll.

No question was asked, legitimate or otherwise. What was posted was dismissive and sarcastic. It was subsequently demonstrated to also be ignorant. Apparently a moderator or two took that to be willful ignorance, which would indicate trolling.

Re:I don't know why people bother... (2, Insightful)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | about 8 years ago | (#16299707)

Here's the reasoning:

1. Some of us are opposed to Window usage in all its forms. I hate Microsoft, and choose not to support their business practices, because I do earnestly believe they conduct bad business.
2. Native Hardware access. Wine'd applications can directly access interfaces, while Virtualized applications can only access virtual interfaces. This has implications when it comes to Network Performance and OpenGL/Direct 3D software. Half Life 2 will never work as well in Parallels as in Wine.
3. Environmental integration. Wine applications come a great deal closer to "native" than running inside a Parallels window.

Valve's anti-cheat system (5, Interesting)

iknowrobocop (934493) | about 8 years ago | (#16298389)

As complicated as Valve's anti-cheat system is (checking various dlls, etc.) I'm not willing to risk testing my Steam account on Counter-Strike Source until I know for sure I won't get banned for "hacking" because of a bug in the compatibility layer. I can't find any info on this offhand.

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (1)

joe 155 (937621) | about 8 years ago | (#16298541)

I wouldn't have thought that you would get banned for doing it, at worse if they thought that your were cheating they might get in touch, maybe suspend your account for a little while (I highly doubt more than a week). If you really want to know before just ploughing in though you could e-mail them and ask if it will work or if there would be any issues, after that even if it does show up you could get in touch and explain.

Give it a go!

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (2, Informative)

dwandy (907337) | about 8 years ago | (#16298669)

Well, *apparently* you can get banned [] from WoW and no amount of esplainin' helped.
...(at least the last time I read what was there they maintained that they were getting kicked off for running under's too long-a-read to see if that's changed.)

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (2, Informative)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 8 years ago | (#16299017)

You can only get banned from Valve by an automated system. There's only been one mistake in the history of the VAC and that was an MP3 player that was part of a lot of cheats. It was fixed.

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (1)

generic-man (33649) | about 8 years ago | (#16299219)

That guy got banned because he used a programmable keyboard, not (primarily) because he used WINE. "So, if anything, let this be a warning: even if Blizzard states that programmable keyboards are OK, you will get banned if you use them, depending on the situation."

From what I've gleaned, Blizzard hasn't issued a formal statement in favor of or opposed to WINE. In this case, however, it looks like the programmable input device did him in.

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (1)

lordofthechia (598872) | about 8 years ago | (#16299849)

More specifically, he got banned for "unattended gameplay":

"Thank you for explaining your situation further, however the fact still remains; your character was found interacting with the surroundings unattended and the advantage gained from this is a clear violation to both our Term of Use and a common sense of fair play."

I still honestly think blizzard should have given him a warning (after all, essentially destroying 3000 hours worth of work because you took a shorcut for a little bit is a tad harsh). But wine was not the reason at all. Likely someone saw him fighting a mob, came back an hour later, he was still fighting the same mob, talked to him and he didn't respond, GM sent him a tell - GM got no response.

In all fairness though, he should have sent his emails to logitech, they were the ones who made the keyboard that they advertised as "Great for WoW" but still got this chap banned.

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16300371)

....essentially destroying 3000 hours worth of work...
What an absolute waste of time playing any game for 3000+ hours.

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (2, Interesting)

daranz (914716) | about 8 years ago | (#16298835)

That's not really a bug in the compatibility layers. Stuff like Punkbuster, and, I assume, VAC demand full access to the operating system (that's why you gotta run games with PB with admin rights). If there is no actual operating system, they automatically consider that you're messing with something. They're paranoid that way.

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299363)

idsoftware's Quake 3 and Quake 4 both use punkbuster and will run just fine as a regular user on linux. (The native ports anyway)

linux / wine noob question, pls help (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298405)


i am wondering if anyone has run the program "ableton live" ( [] ) under the WINE API especially with tools like crossover.

thanks very much as a large contingent of the music production community would like to know if this is feasible.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (0, Flamebait)

lakeland (218447) | about 8 years ago | (#16298445)

Well, why don't you find out and post back to the compatibility database?

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

MustardMan (52102) | about 8 years ago | (#16298509)

Didn't you read the "im not willing to risk my account to test this" bit? If they think you hax0red their servers, they may or may not be willing to return your account to you - many gamers value their accounts more than they value contributing to some company's compatibility database.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

MustardMan (52102) | about 8 years ago | (#16298533)

Disreguard parent post - I'm an idiot and thought the GP was replying to a different post than he actually was.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298521)

because im hoping that out of the hundreds of thousands of people who read slashdot, one of them is not obnoxious and has relevant experience to share.

you and the open source you are advocating can go to hell if the attitude of everybody who is new to it is like yours.

if anybody else has some insightful comments with actual data that they feel like sharing, i'd be most appreciative.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (0)

lakeland (218447) | about 8 years ago | (#16299035)

Rather than answer post random requests on random forums, the Wine and crossover people nicely organised a database of what works and what doesn't. Every program that people who care about sharing have tried is in that database. If your program is listed there you can look it up and if it isn't then it means nobody only lazy bitchers care about your program.

If I spent my time looking up a program I don't care about and tried it out for someone like you who is too lazy to try it yourself, and I then post it on ./, then you and maybe a few others you tell or who happen to read the ./ article will know. Alternatively, I could post it to the place where it belongs and everybody who comes along afterwards will get to see if it works or not. What do I gain out of doing that? A little Karma for helping my fellow man. What would you gain from doing the same thing? The same Karma, and you'd have a working program if it works. Plus you'd get the whole job done faster than me since you already know how to use the program.

I contribute a lot to open-source projects. I do it by sending patches when I fix a bug, by entering things into compatibility databases when I try them out. I do not do it by looking for people bitching on public forums and helping them out. For a minimal amount of extra effort when I do a job, I help a number of other people. Sometimes just one or two, sometimes hundreds.

I don't know you and I don't owe you anything. You've asked me and everybody else -- out of the kindness of our hearts -- go and try a program for you so that you won't have to bother. I suppose you'd like someone to go to work for you so that you won't have to too? Do you need your backside wiped? I'm sure we could find somebody here who won't mind doing it.

This program, whatever it is called, matters to you. So how about you contribute a bit by seeing if it works just like thousands of people before you contributed by seeing if the programs they care about work. Or the other thousands of people contributed even more by getting their programs to work. You might even see some contributions of mine there while you're at it.

Open Source saves me a shitload of time and money and it is going to continue to do so. If you want to save a shitload of time and money, you can join in. Alternatively you can go to hell as you so eloquently put it.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | about 8 years ago | (#16298663)

I'm sure he'll be happy to once he finds out an answer. Comments like yours aren't helpful here. I too would like to know the answer to this question.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

Blimey85 (609949) | about 8 years ago | (#16299079)

The answer of course, is 42. ;)

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (0, Redundant)

lakeland (218447) | about 8 years ago | (#16299113)

As I said to him. Find out, post the answer to the compatibility list, and we'll all know.

If you care about this program, it is what - 20 mins work - to run the installer in wine and see. Add in 5 mins for adding it to the database and you've spent half an hour finding out something you wanted to know, and helped your fellow man and that anonymous coward.

Now, I have better things to do with my time than trying out programs I don't use. For the programs I do use, you'll find my compatibility reports listed along with everybody elses. There is what, about a million windows programs? I can easily enough blow half an hour on the half-dozen I care about and if everybody else does the same then we'll cover every program.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

commodoresloat (172735) | about 8 years ago | (#16299415)

uh-huh. Thing is, maybe someone else has already tried; there's no harm in asking, and possibly saving oneself the half hour that someone else already put into it. Nobody was ordering you to do it. If you don't use Live, he wasn't asking you to try it just to answer his question.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (2, Informative)

Drooling Iguana (61479) | about 8 years ago | (#16298913)

You could check the Wine Application Database [] and see if it's listed. Not sure if Crossover has an equivalent.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

chris_eineke (634570) | about 8 years ago | (#16298965)

Music studio software requires the lowest audio latency possible. You can achieve low latency by circumventing the built-in sound system in Windows using ASIO or Jack under Linux. One small problem with the Linux kernel is that its task scheduler isn't exactly optimized for low latency work. But, people have contributed to the kernel to make low-latency audio feasible (Con Kolivas, Ingo Molnar, et al.) so that issue is becoming less and less important.

While I think that Wine is able to run those audio apps, I don't think it has implemented interfaces for ASIO and other low-latency sound APIs. Give it a try and report back to the Wine Application Database on WineHQ.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 8 years ago | (#16299377)

I don't know if Wine has implemented ASIO (as on Windows), but it does have a Jack backend.

Regarding music studio software, why not just use a free one for Linux in the first place?

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help (1)

corychristison (951993) | about 8 years ago | (#16299075)

I just tested it under Wine 0.9.21. The install went very smoothly. But launching the application fails on a "page fault" error.

Note that Wine 0.9.21 is not the lastest version, it may work in newer versions, but there is no guarantee. :-)

Awsome! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298433)

Now I can eat some nice windows shit on my fine linux china!

Hmmm (3, Interesting)

Nos. (179609) | about 8 years ago | (#16298437)

It seems that Crossover targets people already running windows apps, and thus already with a windows license (okay, not all people have one, but go with me on this). So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?

Re:Hmmm (4, Informative)

petard (117521) | about 8 years ago | (#16298565)

So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?

Windows Activation. When you install a Windows XP or later OS on a new machine, you have to activate it. The activation will fail, and you'll have to call MS and ask them real nice to let you activate it anyway.

Furthermore, if your windows license is OEM, MS may not let you move it to a different machine. So you need to purchase a new Windows license for your new virtual machines.

Re:Hmmm (1)

koreth (409849) | about 8 years ago | (#16298751)

I've installed XP on virtual machines (Parallels on my Mac, for example) using my XP license key and it has activated just fine.

Re:Hmmm (1)

petard (117521) | about 8 years ago | (#16298923)

I wonder what the difference is between your license key and mine then. I had to sit on hold for 20 minutes waiting for someone at the MS phone support center before mine could be activated.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299277)

I've had the same problem and I was told that MS only allows for a certain number of electronic activations for a given copy of XP before requiring you to call in every reinstall thereafter.

Re:Hmmm (1)

atsabig10fo (857922) | about 8 years ago | (#16299669)

i thought you were allowed only one installation of windows--so you'd be violating the license if you had it installed both on its own and under vmware?

Re:Hmmm (1)

petard (117521) | about 8 years ago | (#16299719)

I removed it from the first machine and installed Linux there prior to installing it under the VM, so I was abiding by the terms of the (retail) license. But I still had to call to get activated.

Re:Hmmm (1)

atsabig10fo (857922) | about 8 years ago | (#16300583)

i'm just wondering-- if i want to install it on linux then i need two copies?

Re:Hmmm (2, Insightful)

chroot_james (833654) | about 8 years ago | (#16298679)

How did you get to use vmware for zero cost?

Re:Hmmm (1)

caseih (160668) | about 8 years ago | (#16299759)

VMWare Player. Add in a text editor and Qemu to create disk images and you've got a virtual machine. Cheap and very effective. Or just use vmware-server (free edition) to create disk images.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298859)

For one, you won't be donating CPU cycles to your VMWare. Then also it'll run with much smaller requirements. Since you would actually have to run the entire Windows(tm)(r)(c) suite with VMWare or Xen. Ofcaurse it integrates much more nicely with your host OS without the use of Shared folders (VMWare feature to share files between Host VM). The big drawback being that most Windows virii seem to have trouble getting that whole Wine thing running. Or, as to quote something I saw somewhere [] :
"Oh sure, I could manually forward these viruses to the folks in my address book, but where's the fun in that?"

Then last but not least it's always nice to help the CrossOver guys with your support to make sure they go to make something, or apparently a crud load of stuff, that does actually run on linux.

Re:Hmmm (1)

mjrauhal (144713) | about 8 years ago | (#16298877)

Less integration, more overhead, esp. in 3d (though vmware seems to be doing some work in that area).

Plus, it's not all for existing Windows boxes. Some will be happier buying a new Windows-free one if they don't lose a critical app. And there's always resale of your old license, at least in sane jurisdictions...

Re:Hmmm (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298909)

At my work (we are part of an institution with upwards of a hundred thousand seats) the monthly fee paid for an Exchange account confers the right to download and use Microsoft Outlook 2003 for free. It does not include the right to download and use Microsoft Entourage 2004 (the Mac "equivalent" client Microsoft makes for connecting to its Exchange server). So unless you want to spring for a license to Entourage 2004 (and its own set of compatibility problems *ahem* Microsoft anti-trust *ahem*), you are stuck with a copy of Outlook 2003 you cannot use on your Mac. Most Mac users at our site do not have a Windows license. So this crossover office thing could be useful for some of our users.

Speed (1)

BeeBeard (999187) | about 8 years ago | (#16298957)

So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?

If you hate waiting to boot a whole other OS from inside your OS, then Crossover is the way to go. If you just need a couple of apps to run under Linux, and really don't need the memory overhead associated with running more than one OS at once, then Crossover is again the way to go.

And let's not forget what's mentioned in the post...gaming! Wine/cxoffice/cedega have gotten good enough to where you can run most popular Windows games under Linux with few issues. Last I heard, DirectX with a Windows guest OS under VMWare was still a very sketchy proposition. You certainly can't run most modern 3D games under VMWare.

Why Crossover/Wine? (1)

Darkforge (28199) | about 8 years ago | (#16299293)

I'm assuming (for this discussion) that you actually want to run Linux/OSX in the first place. [After all, you could just use that Windows license and run Windows (e.g. in dual boot); for running Windows applications, that works pretty well! :-)]

With that said, if you are going to run Linux, the biggest advantages of CrossOver/Wine are:

1) 3D Gaming: Xen/VMWare don't support 3D graphics hardware. (The latest version of VMWare has an unsupported switch you can turn on [] , but it doesn't work too well.) If you want to use your fancy 3D graphics card in your Windows games under Linux, you'll need CrossOver or Wine or something like it.

2) Performance: CrossOver doesn't emulate or virtualize anything... as a native implementation of the Win32 API, it performs at native speeds. (In some cases, it actually performs faster than real Windows.) This is especially important for gaming, but other applications can also benefit.

3) No boot times (I guess this is just another aspect of performance)

4) You don't have to waste time transferring files from your VM to your real box; one filesystem means the files are right there on your hard drive.

That's the gist of it. Crossover lists out their key differentiators [] in a much longer table that basically says the same thing.

Re:Hmmm (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | about 8 years ago | (#16299503)

In addition to what other people have already mentioned (speed, convenience, less overhead), perhaps security? I don't know if CrossOver gives you better security than real Windows (and I'm convinced I'll never know), but it's just possible.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299579)

What I am wondering is -- WINE is free, right? -- so why not run WINE under Linux in one of the recently made-free VM soft... oh, wait... nevermind. Those VM making bastards have only released free versions that run under Windows. Doh!!

Revised question: Has anyone gotten WINE to work under a Linux version that runs natively on Intel-based Macs?

Re:Hmmm (1)

LeRandy (937290) | about 8 years ago | (#16299865)

What if...

a. You don't want Windows hoovering GB of drive space and RAM just to run Office?
b. You want to run Windows software seamlessly with Linux software - not on a different VM
c. You are trying to reduce your licensing fees, or don't want to buy OEM Windows on your new PCs, and currently have OEM Windows on the old PC.

The market they are making the big push into is companies, governments and schools switching to Linux desktops, not home users.

For these people, the point of moving to Linux desktops is to reduce their costs. So they won't be forking out for Windows Licences.

Typically these people are 90% happy with OpenOffice. However, they may have management software, or current database systems that would be expensive to port to Linux (or Mac). Crossover Office provide software that means they don't need to change their existing systems. It also means that Linux desktop users don't have to switch to another "screen" (Windows Terminal Server, VM, etc.) to use this "Windows" software - a nice friendly icon can be placed on the corporate menu, which works just like the one in the start menu.

Most importantly, though, Crossover Office comes with a full Support Contract, unlike WINE, making it corporate-friendly.

Also, office PCs don't come with high-spec hardware suited to VMs. Businesses particularly seem to skimp on the RAM - something that is essential if you are using VMs.

As to the personal user...

For power users, like myself, it is very rare that I need "Windows" for anything. Once in a blue moon I need to access a site that's IE only. BUT In some areas, Excel is far ahead of the others. So I need Excel for some tasks. Impress also has problems with some Powerpoint files.

I don't fancy spending £100 on a new Windows Licence (my old one is OEM, and thus stuck on my old - and dying - PC)
I do need Office and IE occasionally.
At £25, Crossover Office saves me money, and lets me do almost anything MS Office on Windows can do.

Re:Hmmm (1)

aussersterne (212916) | about 8 years ago | (#16300045)

Because CrossOver is so much faster and more convenient that it puts the rest to shame. I have VMWare and use it when I have to. But if I had to choose between one of the two, CrossOver wins hands down.

Defend America: +1, Patriotic (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298505)

Stop the Child Molesters [] .

Yours patriotically,
Kilgore Trout

whine? (0)

User 956 (568564) | about 8 years ago | (#16298511)

Version 6 also represents a major improvement in the core of Wine since version 5 of CrossOver, so you may be pleasantly surprised as you try running unsupported applications.

With all these improvements, I would have guessed we'd see the end of wine, not just an improvement.


Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298559)









I wonder (1)

TemplesA (984100) | about 8 years ago | (#16298619)

if it's just the Valve games?
For instance, would Ritual's Sin: Emergence work with this? Sin uses the same gameplay physics and engine as HL2 as far as I know... How about HL2 Episode one? And why only Steam/Valve games?

I see WoW, but that's about as entertaining as watching the State of the Union address...
Come on. It's Slashdot.

Intel Mac Only (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 years ago | (#16298717)

So BFD. Doesnt help us Gx people at all.

its just wine on iFBSD .. so what?

Re:Intel Mac Only (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298785)

Come on, what do you expect? Of course it won't work on G4's. Wine stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator.

Re:Intel Mac Only (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 years ago | (#16299299)

Ever hear of Darwine? It was to port wine over to the G series. But it lost steam when jobs moved to the dark side and sold out.

Oh, and i could care less what the f-ing acronym means.

Re:Intel Mac Only (1)

Weston O'Reilly (1008937) | about 8 years ago | (#16298833)

"its just wine on iFBSD .. so what?" Question asked, question answered. Very useful if you have an Intel Mac.

Re:Intel Mac Only (0, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 years ago | (#16299341)

Well, i dont. I wont, so its a totally useless product.

Re:Intel Mac Only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299451)

You are aware that other people in the world have different hardware configurations than you do, right?

Consider the possibility that Crossover isn't intended for you, but for other people. (Yes, they really exist. I mean, Slashdot can't be entirely computer-generated, can it?)

Other people? (0, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 8 years ago | (#16300035)

No.. Really? Other people actually exist?

Well, regardless they are worthless waterbags to me, so who cares if they have chosen to use a flawed configuration? I dont care about them, and I am all that matters.

Re:Intel Mac Only (1)

rkanodia (211354) | about 8 years ago | (#16299599)

In other news, gasoline is a totally useless product, because I don't own a car.

Re:Intel Mac Only (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 8 years ago | (#16299291)

I'm actually going to try to run wine on a G4, at some point. The plan is to install a Linux and get that working first, then qemu. I believe qemu can emulate a CPU for user-level apps, thus meaning I should be able to run an x86 wine, under qemu, under my ppc Linux. And then run a Windows app under that.

Re:Intel Mac Only (1)

leamanc (961376) | about 8 years ago | (#16299789)

Good luck with that. IF, and that's a big IF, you ever got that to work, it would be slower than molasses rolling up hill.

Re:Intel Mac Only (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 8 years ago | (#16300027)

But still faster than running Windows under qemu. Also, if OpenGL worked (also a big if), I could play games which are graphically intensive but light on the CPU.

And it was a pretty old game I wanted to make this work for.

Re:Intel Mac Only (1)

sonicsft (195337) | about 8 years ago | (#16300043)

Actually the Darwine project already has a lot of the PPC/qemu stuff implemented. [] (opendarwin is shutting down, so I think most of their docs are being merged into the winehqwiki, [] )

I didn't even think to start investigating wine on a mac until after my iBook g3 died and apple announced the Intel macs. I got a MacBookPro back in March and it was not a trivial operation to get regular wine compiled. But crossover is a simple to install as dragging the application to the you harddrive. Halflife 2 works, although I didn't try to playonline, but I did install via steam and it is playable.

Re:Intel Mac Only (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16300545)

I used to have a powerpc G4 untill the motherboard died before that I ran Yellow Dog (basicly redhat for the PowerPC mac). Virtual PC the app I needed that was Windows only, Arc GIS ran at nearly native speed. Then again since ArcGIS is so slow anyway I probably didn't notice . You might also want to checkout [] internet is a known area they have some tricky issues-but so many other things worked I was fine.

Re:Intel Mac Only (4, Informative)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 8 years ago | (#16300051)

WINE doesn't work on PowerPC machines because WINE doesn't translate instructions, only function calls.

I sort of get it... (3, Insightful)

Thumper_SVX (239525) | about 8 years ago | (#16298767)

OK... games. That's one place the Mac seriously lacks. But having been a Linux geek for years before becoming a Mac geek this year, I've found the game situation to be almost a smorgasbord compared to what I had under Linux. Plus, of course on my MBP I can use BootCamp if I really get a hankering for Windows games... and it works damned well.

I also use Parallels for those 1 or 2 Office type application I have left that I need Windows for.

Which brings me to the part I don't get. Office? Why? When you're got Office 2004 (slow on the Intel architecture in my opinion), or fantastic and well-rounded free solutions like OpenOffice... why on Earth would you want Office 2000 running on your Mac? Besides, that'll just look UGLY on OSX compared to the rest of the desktop.

If you're determined not to pay for Office 2004... great... NeoOffice is compiled for OSX natively, looks native and runs well (slow to start, but about the same startup time as Word 2004 but with all the apps there). If you're using Office 2000, then document compatbility is not a problem. Hell, if you've migrated to Mac then honestly the hard part of transitioning is over; learning the new OS. Apps are easy by comparison.

Sorry... I do see a need for this for the gamer... but this is one Mac user who won't be buying.

Re:I sort of get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298887)

"Plus, of course on my MBP I can use BootCamp if I really get a hankering for Windows games... and it works damned well."

Um, a standard linux PC dual-boots windows perfectly, yet you bring this up as though it's something that's improved since you switched to a Mac?

AFAIK the only difference is that a) boot camp will burn the drivers to a CD for you and b) you just paid $2000 to run windows.

Re:I sort of get it... (1)

Saint Stephen (19450) | about 8 years ago | (#16298899)

Yeah, cause god knows you can't dual boot into Windows on a Linux computer! Thank god for bootcamp.

Re:I sort of get it... (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 8 years ago | (#16299105)

the mac hardware also sucks for games $2000+ system with no sli / cross fire
desktops with laptop video cards

Re:I sort of get it... (4, Funny)

mkiwi (585287) | about 8 years ago | (#16299191)

Besides, that'll just look UGLY on OSX compared to the rest of the desktop.

You are truely a convert :-)

Re:I sort of get it... (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | about 8 years ago | (#16299431)

Why Office?-- I can think of a couple reasons. First, Office 2004 doesn't really necessarily have all the same features and everything as Office 2003. It fits better with the OS, and you might like it better, but I've had Word documents, for example, generated in 2003, where the formatting wasn't the same in 2004 for Mac or OOo.

Also, Outlook is a big deal. Entourage is getting better, but they didn't even have Exchange support until about a year ago, and it still isn't quite up to snuff. It's ok, more or less, but IIRC, it doesn't support stationery, which as obnoxious as stationery is, I've had that be a deal breaker for some users. Also public folders don't always work correctly, and it isn't connecting through MAPI, which depending on your perspective, may or may not be a good thing.

So what I'm saying is, there are reasons. Having IE6 on your Mac is good for those annoying occasions where you run into an IE-only site. For example, when you want to use your Exchange server's webmail with all the bells and whistles.

Is it worth it to run these apps in Crossover? Not for me. I really like NeoOffice a lot, and it's a universal binary to boot. But yeah, I can imagine someone wanting to run Office 2003 in Crossover, and I like having the option.

Re:I sort of get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299439)

OpenOffice for Mac is horrible.

First off, NeoOffice is both very slow and still poorly integrated. It also runs on an old core of OpenOffice, which lacks a lot of features. The official port is faster but...

The entire thing runs under Apple's X11 frontend, which is alright for a lot of applications, but is grossly dysfunctional for something as heavily used and relied on as an Office suite. It isn't integrated *AT_ALL* (it can barley cut and paste text), looks like *SHIT* compared to most OS X applications (still retains it's drab, grey look), and it's hard to use due to it's reliance on X11 (the save feature, for example, is inexcusably nonstandard and hard to use even for me, a knowlegable Linux/OS X user).

The worst part is really X11. X11 itself needs to be installed off the OS X Tiger CD (it isn't installed by default), and produces applications that don't fit in with the rest of OS X at all. A good example would be how the menu is on the Window itself, ala Windows/Linux, while the Mac OS X toolbar has the X11 menu on it. Along with that, it's very easy to accidentally quit X11 and loose all your work. I stopped using it when I lost hours of schoolwork to this problem.

On Windows, OpenOffice is just as good compared to MS Office. On Mac, it just sucks. And that really got me anrgy, especially as I paid for my $100 copy of iWork that, quite frankly, wouldn't be neccecary if the Mac developers of OpenOffice had put in a little more then 5 seconds of work.

Re:I sort of get it... (2, Interesting)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | about 8 years ago | (#16299817)

Have you tried the new beta of NeoOffice? It's much, much better. The "Aqua" port.

Re:I sort of get it... (1)

Firehed (942385) | about 8 years ago | (#16299541)

Office is negligable in situations like these. Office 2004 for Mac works great - hell, it's far better than any Windows version I've used. It may be running under Rosetta emulation since it's not a UniBin (last I checked), but so what - 99% of office users just need to type stuff, not do anything that's demanding in the most remote sense of the word. While I agree that OpenOffice would be a great alternative, it was still very iffy last I tried on the Intel Macs, though by the looks if it, it's been improved since I last tried anything with it. Parallels works superbly for any 2D stuff I need to do that simply can't be done in OS X (which is almost nothing at this point, at least with how I use my system), and native gaming would be a godsend for me, though probably not for my games (a Parallels-esque expanding partition would be awesome, since I have no idea how much space games tend to take up now... my Steam install was nothing short of mind-bogglingly massive with only two or three of my dozen-or-so available games installed).

Mind you, I don't game much anymore, but I'd really like to be able to put that x1600 in my MBP to good use.

Re:I sort of get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16300245)

Take me for example. I currently own a Windows version of MS Office. I don't use it much, but when someone sends me an attachment in MS Office format that doesn't convert well, I have to use it. I'm thinking of buying a MacBook. Thanks to Codeweavers, I won't have to re-buy Office. Why would I want to buy software TWICE that I don't even want, and only use because I occasionally have to?

It's not for everyone, granted. But it's certainly for me.

I have to ask... (4, Funny)

mhore (582354) | about 8 years ago | (#16298791)

Why for Intel processors only? Is it that hard to compile their sources for PowerPC? I can't seem to find any answers to that.


Re:I have to ask... (5, Informative)

jrcamp (150032) | about 8 years ago | (#16298879)

Because WINE is not an emulator. It's an implementation of the win32 API. Windows binaries are x86 so they have to run on an x86 platform if they are to run natively. That's why you can run 3D games with it--there's no overhead involved so they can run at their native speeds.

Re:I have to ask... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299165)

this is half wrong. wine is not an emulator, sure. but the win32api runs on more than just x86. not all windows binaries are x86 binaries. reskit/archi.mspx []

> Windows NT runs on ... Intel 486 or higher processors, MIPS R4000, Digital Alpha AXP, or PowerPC processors.

Re:I have to ask... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299315)

>Windows NT runs on ... Intel 486 or higher processors, MIPS R4000, Digital Alpha AXP, or PowerPC processors.

Ok. Show of hands... how many of you are running Windows NT 4.0 on a non-x86 architecture, and want a version of WINE to run those apps on Linux? [the room fills with silence]

Windows USED to run on other architectures, but nobody cared, so it was dropped.

Re:I have to ask... (1)

wangmaster (760932) | about 8 years ago | (#16298885)

Wine stands for wine is not an emulator.

It relies on the ability to natively execute x86 code. It's basically a binary compatibility tool consisting of a program loader that loads and executes windows binaries and uses a set of custom native libraries that perform the same function as the DLLs would under native windows. It wouldn't work on PPC architecture since that architecture is not able to natively execute x86 code.

Because of this, you are executing native code, without the performance loss of an emulation layer.

Re:I have to ask... (1)

JazzyJ (1995) | about 8 years ago | (#16298891)

WINE isn't an Emulator - just like it's name says.

It presents a win32 api and binary loader for windows binaries. It doesn't translate the x86 code to anything, it runs it natively and provides the function calls the windows programs expect.

That's why it's intel only. x86 binaries don't just magically run on ppc.

WINE Is Not an Emulator (1)

pavon (30274) | about 8 years ago | (#16298897)

WINE is a program that re-implements the windows system libraries, allowing you to run unmodified windows programs, without owning a copy of windows. It is not a hardware emulator, and therefore only works on the platform that the original program was compiled for. And they can't recompile the source to WoW, or MS Office, or any of the other apps, because they don't have the source to those apps. There are people that have gotten WINE to work inside an emulator, but at that point you are better off just running windows itself inside an emulator (like Virtual PC).

Re:I have to ask... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | about 8 years ago | (#16299329)

In theory, with a lot of work, they could compile Wine for PPC. I believe the Darwine project did this originally.

And run PPC Windows apps.

Since Microsoft doesn't sell a Windows for PowerPC, this makes Wine+PPC wholly useless. It makes sense if you want to recompile your Windows app with Winelib to run on your Mac, but that's also pretty useless -- if you have the app's source, why not port it properly? Why not write a WXWindows app in the first place?

For running an x86 app on a PPC, you need an emulator, not just Wine. I think it may be possible to run a modified qemu that only runs a single app (not a whole OS, thinks it's part of the native OS, etc), and run Wine under that. It would, however, be at least as slow as, say, VirtualPC or qemu anyway.

Lots of reasons for Crossover (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16298903)

It's not just for Office or for games. I've used Crossover for years and it lets me stay under Linux yet run applications that may never be ported to Linux. There are a lot of applications that work great - and it sounds like that list just got even bigger. Stuff that isn't even listed on the Codeweavers website.

I agree witht he other poster about OpenOffice - it works great. But there are also some occasions (more rare now than before) where running a real MS Office app was required. Not having to reboot into Windows (I run dual boot) was very very nice.

Just my two cents. I think Crossover Office good stuff and there are lots of other reasons to run it besides MS Office, Internet Explorer, or games. The same will hold true for the MacOS.

Gotta love it! (2, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 8 years ago | (#16299109)

Crossover office and Linux... together making undereducated windows admins STFU once again when they say "but you need windows to run the important applications!"

Under 5.0 I ran EVERY vertical application we had at work perfectly. I demonstrated a 100% functional and far lower maintaince + TCO laptop to management that gained applause and support from everyone except the CTO... he nixed the project claiming compatability issues...

Compatability with his friends who still worked for Microsoft and were his technical advisors.

Oh well, I was able to prove to several people that linux was viable on the desktop :-)

Skype (1)

abigor (540274) | about 8 years ago | (#16299907)

Hey, has anyone tried the Windows version of Skype under Crossover? Skype for Linux sucks - it is ancient and is missing certain features. I use Skype daily for my work, under both Linux and Windows, and I'd love to get the Windows version running under Linux. Does anyone know? I checked the Crossover database, and it's not there.

Re:Skype (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#16299969)

I've run the Windows version of Skype on Ubuntu under Crossover 5.x. It worked, but not 100% reliably.

Will crossover Mac spur Windows ports? (1)

Teilo (91279) | about 8 years ago | (#16300141)

Now that the gents at Codeweavers have done such fabulous work (and believe me, running x86 Office natively on a Mac is a HUGE deal for me since I still make lots of money doing Access programming), I wonder if we will see any companies using the OS X port of Winelib. I know that there were a trickle of Windows vendors porting to the Linux version of Winelib (Corel comes to mind), but let's face it: OS X has a vastly larger chunk of the desktop market than does Linux. (No criticism here from me; I use all three all the time.)

No CrossOver for me! (2, Insightful)

Ice Wewe (936718) | about 8 years ago | (#16300281)

This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed.

Re:No CrossOver for me! (1)

fuzz6y (240555) | about 8 years ago | (#16300641)

I guess you'll need one of those things that Wine Is Not.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?