×

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!

CodeWeavers Releases CrossOver 6 for Mac and Linux

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the like-liquid-happy-in-my-veins dept.

153

jeremy_white writes "I'm happy to announce that we've shipped version 6.0 of CrossOver, for both the Mac and Linux. We have a full changelog available; highlights are are Outlook 2003 and support for games, notably World of Warcraft and Steam based games. I can attest that World of Warcrac...er craft is the most well tested application we have ever supported. It's exciting to watch the Wine project progress — it's a great and growing community of developers (which is a good thing, as we're now all too busy grinding Honor in Alterac Valley to keep up our pace of contributions :-/)."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

153 comments

piss ass (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17546586)

:D irc.gamesurge.net #w4r

And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (2, Informative)

dopeydad (754822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546664)

These people continue to piss me off. They keep coming out with releases that support more and more games, and completely ignore the small business market that's clamoring to run QuickBooks. (Yeah, I know, SQLLedger, etc. are available, but QB is the accounting software used by most accountants, and that's who I need to exchange my data with...) I had high hopes for CodeWeavers 3 years ago, but now I think they're doomed to fail due to bad direction from their management.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (4, Informative)

rainman_bc (735332) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546744)

but QB is the accounting software used by most accountants,

I'd say more accountants work with Peoplesoft, SAP, Great Plains, AccPac than QuickBooks. The world is ripe with accounting software out there, and Quickbooks isn't the only thing, not even close.

Many accountants yes. most? Now you're just talking out your arse.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

dopeydad (754822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547090)

I'll qualify my statement: most accountants who cater to small businesses. Obviously those other packages are more widely used by big firms, but for the small mom & pop businesses, QB is likely the most common.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (4, Interesting)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546754)

I don't think I'd ever pledge QB support. That gets you into a position of liability with people's money. You can always use vmware or parallels (depending on what system you're on) to get a full windows environment in which to run quickbooks. Frankly, I wouldn't trust wine for something like that.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (4, Insightful)

curious.corn (167387) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547886)

No way. All software providers explicitly deny any responsibility for damages deriving from the use of their product. Ever read an EULA? Why would you trust running your business on native windows (at most you could claim a refund for the OS license) and prentend liability from a third party?

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548220)

No way. All software providers explicitly deny any responsibility for damages deriving from the use of their product. Ever read an EULA? Why would you trust running your business on native windows (at most you could claim a refund for the OS license) and prentend liability from a third party?

Microsoft just tells you that software that works with windows will, well, work with windows. No shit. But if you make a claim that quickbooks will work with wine, that arguably makes you responsible if it doesn't. Oh, you might win your court case... if you can afford to sustain one.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (2, Informative)

cygtoad (619016) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548526)

I run Quickbooks 2000 with Crossover Office with minimal issues.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

w1mp (210200) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546782)

First quickbooks needs to stop sucking and using ie's xml processing.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546862)

Why run the windows version when they sell a native mac version [intuit.com] ?

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

pdbaby (609052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546998)

In fact, not only do they have a Mac version today, but they've had a Mac version for over 3 years!

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

contrapunctus (907549) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547674)

Quicken on mac is very different than quicken on windows (the mac version sucks). I wonder if QuickBooks is also different on different OSs.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17547164)

The guy is clearly a Linux user; he talked about looking at Crossover 3 years ago, at which point there was no Mac version. Crossover is only available for x86 systems.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (2, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546884)

They probably have more clamor for the games. The fact is that most accountant types probably don't care enough about switching to a Mac that they ask for this. They are either stuck on the PC and happy there, or stated on a Mac and use something else.

You could use Parallels (especially with the new Coherence thing), although I realize that's quite a bit more expensive.

PS: Tried any of the free Parallels replacements like QEMU or the Cocoa QEMU port?

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (3, Interesting)

Alternate Interior (725192) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547332)

I don't think there is a parallels substitute. I've tried numerous virtual machines on Windows and Linux, and some of the old PC emulators in the PowerPC days. Coherence mode puts Parallels so far ahead of anything else. I only adopted Parallels over Christmas but it took less than a day to realize how much better Parallels is than any emulator or even bootcamp. I'm sure I've now been labeled a shill or something, but I'm not. I'm just a guy who happens to be a big fan and has seen what else is out there.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (2, Interesting)

teletype (40064) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547506)

PS: Tried any of the free Parallels replacements like QEMU or the Cocoa QEMU port?
Well, it's hardly a Parallels "replacement". It's still considered alpha-quality software, for one thing.

QEMU by default is a virtual machine emulator. They do have what they call the "QEMU Accelerator", which is available for Linux on x86 and x86_64, which provides proper virtualisation, more akin to what VMWare and Parallels are doing. That is to say, it runs most code on the host processor directly, without emulation, which as you know, slows things down a lot.

I've been watching the "Q Project" [kju-app.org] , which I'm pretty sure is the OS X/Cocoa QEMU port you mentioned. They have a module called "Virtualizer", which is similar in scope to the QEMU accelerator, but it's still in development.

And, the hardware support within the VM is still not really close to that in the commercial solutions.

So, I wouldn't consider it a viable alternative to VMWare or Parallels just yet. Anyway, Parallels for MacOS costs less than $100US, and is worth every penny, for those folks that need to run Windows apps now and then, but don't want to dual boot every time, and don't want to spend the money for a dedicated Windows machine.

Plus there's just something I find amazing about seeing a 6.5" square Mac Mini run two modern, resource hungry operating systems at once, without breaking a sweat.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (2, Insightful)

Night Goat (18437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547534)

That's a good point. If you're using Quickbooks, you're going to be spending a lot of time, maybe even the majority of your time, in Quickbooks. And at that point, who cares what the OS is. You're not dealing with it except as a foundation. Not to mention that you'd lose any support from Intuit by running on Linux. The day you need support from them, you're going to be happy you have it.

(Intuit's support department blows, by the way. I'm not endorsing it. I have gone through hell every time I have had to call them.)

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

arkanes (521690) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546900)

They don't ignore small business, they follow the direction of their customers and the community. Quicken works fine under CrossOver, for example. If people want QuickBooks, then more than 12 people should say something. And more than 4 people should pledge something, and more than zero people should post known issues or bugs.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (2, Informative)

dopeydad (754822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547124)

I have pledged, and the last time I looked at their community page, QB was in the top 15 or so applications, and has been for a few years.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (0, Flamebait)

EntropyXP (956792) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547036)

Why in the 'F' would an accountant use a Mac? That's like wiping your ass with silk.

Don't bitch unless you've tried (5, Informative)

shystershep (643874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547474)

Several version of QuickBooks are listed as 'bronze' [codeweavers.com] , meaning they will at least install and run. If you look under 'known issues,' do you know what you see? Nothing.

If you want to run QuickBooks under Crossover, try it. If it has a problem, then tell them about it.

now I think they're doomed to fail due to bad direction from their management.

Somehow I suspect you're just trolling. If you knew anything about Codeweavers, or had even tried the software, you should know that they determine which applications to support based on customer demand. Granted, some apps are probably too difficult to be worth the effort, which would be a judgment call, but by and large their 'direction' comes from the bottom up rather than dictated by a pointy-hair type.

Re:Don't bitch unless you've tried (3, Informative)

dopeydad (754822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547830)

There's no known issues, because no one runs it.

I'm not trolling -- I actually paid the $39 a couple of years back when it looked like they were making progress. QB runs, but not well -- lots of little graphic glitches and refresh issues that make me nervous when I'm entering financial data...

So, I have tried. Can I bitch now?

The problem... (2, Insightful)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547966)

There's no known issues, because no one runs it.


If no one runs it, how can anyone know that it doesn't run?

I'm not trolling -- I actually paid the $39 a couple of years back when it looked like they were making progress. QB runs, but not well -- lots of little graphic glitches and refresh issues that make me nervous when I'm entering financial data...


But if you did run it and experienced these issues, why are there no known issues? Is it possible that maybe you didn't report the issues, and are complaining because no one has addressed the unreported issues?

Clearly, the problem isn't just no one trying to run it that is why there are no reported issues, its that the people who do run it—people like you—don't report their issues in order to get them addressed.

One reason that games probably get more attention is because people are more willing to experiment with games. Which means, issues get reported and, therefore, can be fixed.

So, I have tried. Can I bitch now?


But it doesn't seem to me that you have tried what the GP said you should try, specifically: "If you want to run QuickBooks under Crossover, try it. If it has a problem, then tell them about it."

If you had, it would either (1) you would have no problems, and not be complaining here, or (2) there would be reported issues.

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (5, Informative)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547496)

Uhhh, because QB works? I've been using QB on Wine for many years - ever since Corel Linux, which was hellingone way back, what 2000?

Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548124)

If QB is critical to your company then either have a box dedicated to it or dual boot with Bootcamp. The impact of an undetected bug screwing up your financials is, IMHO, too great a risk to warrant using a product such as CrossOver.

Isn't it worth the few hundred bucks for a low end Windows box plus a second internal HD for backup to be sure your data is safe?

I like my Mac as much as the next guy but sometimes you just got to go with the most straight forward lower risk solution.

Or how about SOLIDWorks / Autodesk Inventor / ... (1)

Xiph1980 (944189) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548722)

I'd rather have support for the mainstream CAD programs like those in the subject or CATIA, Unigraphics....

I'd love to steer clear of Windows, but I'm just still bound to it sadly :/

Pssst - VMWare + Quickbooks is better (2, Insightful)

Bitsy Boffin (110334) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548912)

I ran QB (Pro 2003) under CrossOver for some time, but it's finicky to get it installed there was a certain order to follow and some registry entries to add in manually as I recall. It had a couple of display issues (the buttons at the top of invoices sometimes got partially hidden for example), and sometimes wouldn't start up, you'd have to try several times, but on the whole it worked well-enough to use, and I did so for about 2 years.

But now I run QB under a VMWare virtual machine which I specifically created (and trimmed down) for Quickbooks and Quickbooks alone. And it has a couple of pretty good advantages...

1. Easy to backup your entire accounting environment, just write the VM to a DVD every now and then. That way if something goes bang, grab the last backup DVD, download the last backup QB data from your offsite, and you are literally running again with the exact same environment in seconds.

2. Can be run on multiple machines. Quickbooks as you know needs to be activated over the internet when you install it, which means that you can't realy install on multiple machines (say your desktop and laptop), with this setup that's no issue, copy the VM to the other machine, fire up the free VMWare Player, and away you go, as far as QB knows it's running on the exact same system.

Sure, the main disadvantage is that it takes more space because of the windows install in the VM, but really in this day and age who cares if it takes another 300 meg.

ObQuestion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17546672)

Who is Honor?

i just purchased an iphone today (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17546716)

i am disappointed in the way it feels inside my anus. i called the mac store to ask them how to get it out and they just laughed at me. the mac store in san francisco of all things! how come i can't get homosexual tech support for my homosexual self and for homosexual hardware?

RACISM!

Can I do the following under OS X then? (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546738)

OK, so let's say I'm able to get OS X to authenticate against my Windows 2000 Active Directory...will Outlook 2003 have any trouble connecting to our Exchange server, or is that something completely unrelated? I realize that Entourage exists (I have Office for Windows & Mac), but let's say that I would prefer to use Outlook 2003 for add-in support.

Re:Can I do the following under OS X then? (1)

geekboybt (866398) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547352)

They're completely unrelated, but you should be able to use Outlook 2003 with your Exchange server just fine, IIRC.

Re:Can I do the following under OS X then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17547906)

Completely separate issues. You don't need to be hooked into AD to get Outlook to login. Pass the username as such: [DOMAIN]\[user].

This is how I access my work email on my laptop using Outlook on Parallels.

Macs on a Domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17548552)

Completely separate issues. You don't need to be hooked into AD to get Outlook to login. Pass the username as such: [DOMAIN]\[user].

This is how I access my work email on my laptop using Outlook on Parallels.
Same here, I have been using Macs as well as Windows clients on corporate networks for years without logging onto a Domain and I have had no problems. I can access all network shares, all printers, Entourage and Outlook have no problems accessing Exchange servers and when I am using the Mac this all gets done without using Parallels. If there is any way to block access to Exchange servers from nodes not logged onto a Windows domain I have yet to run into anybody who implements it. There is one thing I have not tried yet which is running Lotus Notes 7 under Crossover. Effectively the Windows support crew at work doesn't know that either my Mac or my Windows work station exist and I can't say I mind.

Re:Can I do the following under OS X then? (1)

mjwx (966435) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548774)

Getting one of those god awful Macintosh machines to talk to a win 2K or 2K3 domain is relatively easy. MS even has a document explaining how to do it (sorry I don't have a link) just ignore the bits about setting up mail.

I don't know about using crossover office to run OL 2003, according to the site it runs but I'm still waiting for an Intel Mac to actually test it on. This would be good for me as we own a marketing company as a subsidiary and we'd like them to use exchange features like free/busy.

Disclaimer: I prefer Windows over Mac but Windows cant hold a candle to Linux, I don't make the decision where I work (if I did this shop would be pure Linux), I just have to make everything work together.

Re:Can I do the following under OS X then? (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550522)

I had very strong doubts, because Outlook+Exchange integration is an overdesigned house of cards with numerous dependencies, a nightmare for IT admins everywhere, but I decided to search on Google anyways:
http://toastytech.com/guis/wineo2knotes.html [toastytech.com]
Looks like they got Outlook 2000 working. They had to copy some rpc related dlls from a real Windows system, among other things.

Great Just what we need (5, Funny)

Reed Solomon (897367) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546804)

This is all part of microsoft's plan to bring Kernel and Driver development to a halt. Mark my words. This can't be good.

Heh (1)

andreyw (798182) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546826)

Mentioning WoW in the article summary was not the most useful thing ever, considering the native client for OS X (Not Linux, granted... - but if you're mentioning the benefits of Wine on OS X and Linux, pick a piece of software that doesn't have native ports for either platform, duh)

Re:Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17548070)

First.. being able to World of Warcraft on Linux is a pretty big deal, enough to warrant top slot on a press release.

Second.. There are certainly benefits to being able to run the Windows version, even on the Mac. Many if not most third-party mods, add-ons etc. are Windows only.

Mixed impressions (5, Informative)

gsasha (550394) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546832)

Just downloaded and installed it. Works OK, will try Office 2003. However, it still has done nothing for international keyboard support :(. Pretty much unusable for me as I use 3 different layouts.

Re:Mixed impressions (1)

roscivs (923777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547410)

Can't you just change layouts using X? (Or whatever desktop environment you have sitting on top of X?) Or does WINE do something funky so that X remapping doesn't take effect inside of WINE applications?

Localized versions of Office? (1)

colourmyeyes (1028804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547644)

Yeah, no love for that - and also, can you use localized, non-English versions of MS Office on it? The Russian version of Office 2003 is a mix of Cyrillic characters in some places and character-substitute boxes in others.

Re:Mixed impressions (1)

spazimodo (97579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550346)

I've been using the 6 Beta with Office 2003 for a little while - it works OK except for the one thing I really need - Outook 2003 RPC over HTTPS support. I switched back to Outlook after finally getting sick of Evolution taking 20 minutes to sync and let me start working with messages and it's the last significant app that I have to boot up a Windows VM for. I will have to grab the full release to see if that made it in.

Cedega Mashing (5, Interesting)

QueePWNzor (1044224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546850)

I'm almost completely sure I know why he mentioned WoW: Cedega is advertising it. In case nobody knows: WIne used to have a BSD lisence (open source but not viral.) Transgaming took their code, renamed it Winex/Cedega, closed-sourced their developments, and got WoW to work. There is clearly residual anger, but Crossover has been foucusing on office rather than games, so they've been out of the picture...until now. Cedega will now have honest competition, and where the market share goes, nobody knows! Congrats: Wine must finally be getting somewhere! (It's been long enough)

Re:Cedega Mashing (4, Interesting)

spiritraveller (641174) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547050)

In case nobody knows: WIne used to have a BSD lisence (open source but not viral.) Transgaming took their code, renamed it Winex/Cedega, closed-sourced their developments

Last I checked (a while back), WineX was open source. You could install it from CVS, and for a short time, you could install in Gentoo using Portage.

However, Crossover Office is closed source. It has contributed to the wine project, but it's certainly not covered by the GPL, and the codebase diverged at the point when wine went to the GPL.

I don't see why there would be anger. They are just two business competing with each other. They both got their start the same way.

Re:Cedega Mashing (2, Informative)

Arondylos (141298) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547358)

That's not really true - Cedega discloses their source code for some parts (e.g. their direct3D code), but the license used is not at all an Open Source (or Free Software) license. But ignoring that, some essential parts (like the copy protection implementation) are not provided except in binary form. To be fair, their agreement with the copy protection software company probably doesn't allow source disclosure of those parts.

Crossover Office does have provide the code used in their version of Wine: have a look at http://www.codeweavers.com/products/source/ [codeweavers.com]

Re:Cedega Mashing (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547362)

There's an open-source version of Crossover also.

It's called Wine.

CodeWeavers works on Wine, and sells a paid, supported edition called Crossover. Need proof? Go to winehq.org, and click the "paid support" link

You are wrong (4, Informative)

Per Abrahamsen (1397) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547640)

WineX is free software, Cedega is not. It is a derived product covered by a non-free license. Something the WineX license allows

Wine is not GPL, it is LGPL, a much more liberal license than the GPL. It allows non-free derived products, as long as the Wine part of the derived product is still LGPL, and replaceable by the user. You can download the source of Wine part of CrossOver (it is no longer called CrossOver Office) by clicking on the Source tab at their home page. You can also get the source code for several other none-Wine components of CrossOver there.

The two businesses did not get their start the same way, CodeWeavers never made proprietary improvements to Wine. TransGaming did, which is why Wine changed license. CodeWeavers and other contributers were tired of the uneven competition between contributers and leeches that the old BSDL license encoruage. The true genius of the copyleft licenses is not high ideals of the FSF they were created to promote, but that they create a level playground for competing companies to cooperate in. "You can get my contributions, only if I can get yours".

Re:Cedega Mashing (2, Informative)

swillden (191260) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547994)

Last I checked (a while back), WineX was open source. You could install it from CVS, and for a short time, you could install in Gentoo using Portage. However, Crossover Office is closed source. It has contributed to the wine project, but it's certainly not covered by the GPL, and the codebase diverged at the point when wine went to the GPL.

This is incorrect. The facts are:

WineX is open source, licensed under a BSD-style license. Cedega is a closed source application based on WineX. There are WineX additions and enhancements in Cedega for which no source is released, such as parts of Transgaming's DirectX support.

Wine is open source, licensed under the LGPL. Crossover Office is a closed source application based on Wine. Because the LGPL requires it, Crossover Office provides full source to the version of Wine used, including all additions and enhancements. Only the "shell" that helps with installing and configuring apps is closed source.

I don't see why there would be anger. They are just two business competing with each other. They both got their start the same way.

The difference, and the reason there was anger, is because Codeweavers contributed all Wine improvements they made back to the Wine project, while Transgaming withheld important improvements, keeping them entirely closed. Codeweavers, and other Wine developers, didn't appreciate Transgaming not playing "fair", so they changed the license to one that requires changes to be contributed.

Re:Cedega Mashing (4, Informative)

Compholio (770966) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547120)

Congrats: Wine must finally be getting somewhere! (It's been long enough)
Wine has been getting somewhere for a long time, the reason DirectX was so stagnant for so long was because Transgaming promised to commit their DirectX code. The community is not interested in duplicating work unless it's necessary to make things better, so everyone was really upset when the promised DirectX code disappeared into thin air.

Re:Cedega Mashing (2, Informative)

HiThere (15173) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547354)

One significant difference is that Transgaming advertises that Cedega runs Civilization3, and CrossOver doesn't. Transgaming is lying.

Well, perhaps it does work on some systems, but it sure didn't work on mine, and they gave me less than no help. This is the more annoying as they had it working a year or two ago, and then dropped it.

CrossOver doesn't advertise running as many of the programs that I'm interested in (not many, mainly games or VERY old), but they don't appear to lie about what they do run.

Re:Cedega Mashing (1)

at_slashdot (674436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547606)

Civ 3 works, but it sucks so much that's almost not playable. Interesting that you see all the map from the begin without the fog-of-war.

IE? (2, Funny)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17546916)

Yes, but does it run IE7... that's the real question I have... Firefox has been running a little to stable under WINE

Re:IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17547094)

You do realize that Firefox is available for Linux, right? Please don't tell me you're running Win32 Firefox on Linux with Wine...

Re:IE? (1)

Lord_Sintra (923866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547180)

Why would you need to use Firefox with WINE? Can't you just use the native version?

Firefox in Wine is a good idea (1)

ChameleonDave (1041178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548186)

This person may have been joking about running Firefox with Wine, but in reality there can be good reasons for doing so. For example, there are plugins (notably Flash) that don't have the same support for Linux as they do for Windows. However, personally, I think that if I am going to go so far as to emulate a Windows browser on Linux, I might as well go the whole hog and make it IE.

Re:IE? (2, Informative)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549034)

I used Win32 Firefox under whine for a little. One reason: Flash 9. I kept running into Flash 8+-only sites and also got tired of never having the audio and video synchronized. I don't do this any more since the Flash 9 beta for Linux works quite well.

Re:IE? (2, Interesting)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550306)

used Win32 Firefox under whine for a little. One reason: Flash 9. I kept running into Flash 8+-only sites and also got tired of never having the audio and video synchronized.
You could just run the Windows version of the Flash plugin under crossover. It's right in the install menu for heavens sakes!

I think the ability to run plugins under crossover (while using a native browser) has existed since version four of crossover.

Re:IE? (1)

Zonk (troll) (1026140) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550760)

Well, I could pay for Crossover and have the plugin in my Linux browser. Or, I could apt-get install wine and use the Win32 version of Firefox for free. I chose to go with Wine.

Re:IE? (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547192)

You're kidding right?
1). There is a native Firefox port for GNU/Linux.
2). The IE7 installer validates your Windows install/license before it will install. Good luck installing it!

IE7 on linux (1)

august sun (799030) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547324)

it's coming! [tatanka.com.br]

Re:IE7 on linux (1)

grolschie (610666) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547726)

None of those windows are IE7 instances. With IE7 the entire interface has been changed from previous versions.

Re:IE7 on linux (2, Informative)

ChameleonDave (1041178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548098)

You're right and wrong. Wine has trouble reproducing the whole IE7 interface on Linux, so what you see there is the IE7 engine within an IE6 window. That means there is no tabbed browsing, but as you can see from the CSS implementation, the important features of IE7 for web developers are there. Give the ies4linux project a couple more months and they will have full IE7 support.

Re:IE? (1)

choongiri (840652) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547220)

Firefox under wine? Why would you even contemplate such a thing?

Re:IE? (1)

sconest (188729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548096)

For the benefit of having Flash 9 and/or better sound synchronization with videos in Flash (now it's less useful since Adobe released a beta of Flash 9 for linux)

Re:IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17547256)

Firefox? In Wine? Firefox has native ports to just about every major operating system (Win, Linux, OS X).

Re:IE? (1)

friedman101 (618627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547342)

Why would you run firefox under wine? It's available native to any operating system it can compile under (Windows, OSX, Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc)

Re:IE? (1)

Seismologist (617169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547434)

I was just kidding about the IE7, and firefox... I haven't even used IE in 2 years now. But, theoretically firefox should work just fine under wine, haven't tried it though...

Re:IE? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17547888)

I was just kidding about the IE7, and firefox... I haven't even used IE in 2 years now. But, theoretically firefox should work just fine under wine, haven't tried it though...
It works fine under wine on my gygwin install running on wine.

Re:IE? (1)

Myen (734499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549764)

I think I have you beat, Firefox (trunk) can even compile on wine with some patches :)
(... with make 3.80; there's some bad interaction with make 3.81)

Can Linux do everything Windows can? (1)

hey (83763) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547162)

This makes be wonder if Linux do everything Windows can.
In other words, are the some things that the WIN32 API needs that Linux can not supply.
Like some of DirectX perhaps?
Just wondering.

Re:Can Linux do everything Windows can? (2, Interesting)

mandelbr0t (1015855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547618)

x86 Linux can certainly do everything Windows can. Under the hood, they both do the same thing: they boot up a kernel, install system hooks at vital memory locations and provide a mechanism to execute arbitrary binary code. Dynamic runtime linking will pull in binary code that has been provided with the OS (the Win32 API in your example). Ultimately, a Linux machine will be able to exactly run (N.B. not emulate) a Windows binary when binary libraries ported to Linux exactly duplicate the functions in all of the APIs available to Windows.

Of course, that's sort of like hitting a moving target. But Microsoft can't move too fast or they alienate their own customers, giving Linux a pretty decent chance of duplicating all but the newest additions to the API. New applications are always designed using the latest API, even when the new API isn't necessary (i.e. the Microsoft API mutates for the sake of mutating to prevent competitors from keeping up). Apple wins the proprietary game here; if Microsoft didn't want other OSes running their binaries, they should have gotten a proprietary hardware deal too.

mandelbr0t

Re:Can Linux do everything Windows can? (2, Informative)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549162)

x86 Linux can sort-of do everything Windows can. Some caveats:

1. There might be performance hits because of design differences between the OSes. The simplest example is a performance problem with Cygwin (a Unix compatibility layer for Windows): forking processes on Unix is a fairly lightweight task these days, light enough that it's used to create multithreaded applications. On WinNT there is no fork() and creating processes is very expensive; there's kernel support for multithreaded applications but the mechanism is totally different. Because process creation is so slow, fork() in Cygwin is very slow. So if you run, say, Apache under Cygwin you'll get awful performance (as I understand it Apache 1.3 performed badly under Windows for this reason and Apache 2 is much better).

2. HDCP. Trusted Computing.

3. Windows software that requires access to hardware that Linux doesn't have drivers for isn't going to work very well. Most hardware is pretty well generalized, but there some practical cases where lack of driver support could get in the way.

Furthermore, AFAIK there's nothing really stopping anyone from writing a WINE-like program for emulating Mac apps; in fact, since OS X is a Unix it would probably be easier. There just isn't much interest; I'd guess that's just because there's not much Mac software that people want to run on other Unixes/Windows/VMS/Plan 9/EROS/etc.

Re:Can Linux do everything Windows can? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17547772)

LOLROFLMA no! LUNIX is far behind windows in terms of crash support and exploitable vulnerabilities enhancements. LUNIX cant even run the best windows programs [newsforge.com] . and even who wants to use a operating system where INet explorer and MSN doenst work, and theres not even a defragment program lol. plus command lines are for old geezers who probably have false teeth gui is the new thing.

UM, GET WITH THE TIMES!!

lol

Re:Can Linux do everything Windows can? (2, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548254)

No, Linux support for win32 viruses, trojans and spyware is terrible. Kazaa and Bonzi Buddy will never run properly on Linux.

Oh great. (4, Funny)

Sneakernets (1026296) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547206)

Cue millions of little stupid youtube videos titled "******** running on a MAC POWERBOOK using Crossover".

Oh wait. They're already there.

I see that it has been tested with AMD-64 systems (3, Interesting)

Rick17JJ (744063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547348)

I have used CrossOver Linux in the past to run Office 97 and Adobe Photoshop 7 under an earlier version of Red Hat Linux. I later used it to run Office 2000 under Linux instead. It worked pretty well and I was happy with their product. I haven't yet tried using it under the 64-bit version Ubuntu 6.10 Linux on my AMD-64 computer. I see that the Codeweavers web page says that it does work with 6.06/6.10 and that they test under both 32 bit and 64 bit systems, so I plan to give it a try. The idea of possibly running a Windows only Plugin for Firefox is also kind of intriguing.

Re:I see that it has been tested with AMD-64 syste (1)

phrostie (121428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548226)

Cool, i was wondering about that, but didn't see where it listed 64 bit systems.

Re:I see that it has been tested with AMD-64 syste (1)

cHiphead (17854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548466)

I used it for Counterstrike:Source and Warcraft 3 without issue on Ubuntu 6.10, but I found that sticking with the x86 and NOT a 64bit version works better all around for app support.

Gee. wizz ... (0, Troll)

Qbertino (265505) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547460)

... what a crappy website. You'd expect a company that makes most of it's sales over the web to built a site with a design and style from this millenium. Makes my eyes hurt just looking at it. And those bottles with the tacky lable and the glasses? A hint at wine, I know. But what are people suposed to think? We are a company of drunkards or what? ... Gosh, my mom can do better marketing than that.

World of Warcraft on a Mac New? (1)

Andrew Nagy (985144) | more than 7 years ago | (#17547812)

Is the WoW part really only big for Linux? I've been using WoW on my Mac for a while now since the installation discs work for both PC and Mac.

Re:World of Warcraft on a Mac New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17548004)

That part is for the linux crowd blizz has always been good to the mac folk

Re:World of Warcraft on a Mac New? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549754)

Not really. WoW has been running fine for a year or so on wine.

come on quicken! (2, Interesting)

DaveJay (133437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548036)

I've gotten my wife to switch to Firefox, Thunderbird, Picasa (now supported via Wine libs on Linux), OOO, and lots of other stuff -- but she'll never give up the Quicken. Come on, make Quicken run "Gold" (instead of "Silver" or worse) and you'll have a sale faster than you can sneeze.

iTunes support (2, Informative)

AusIV (950840) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548066)

For quite some time, I paid attention to CrossOver because I thought they might provide a descent solution to iTunes on Linux (the last piece of Windows software I was able to shed before making the switch). They advertise iTunes support, but they only support up to iTunes 4.9, which is almost completely useless as of 7.0. iTunes 4.9 on Crossover doesn't update iPods, and since 7.0 came out, the Music Store won't authorize music on anything less than 6.0.

Re:iTunes support (2, Insightful)

Laur (673497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548616)

They are aware of this and specifically mention it in their "truth in advertising" section: http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/truth _in_advertising/the_real_dirt/ [codeweavers.com]

"What sort of works:
iTunes 4 will install and run, but you are prohibited by Apple from using it with the iTunes store, which severely constrains its usefulness. We hope to support a newer version of iTunes in a future release of CrossOver."

Audible Support (1)

ISoldat53 (977164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17549058)

No iTunes 7.0 or Audible.com support. Kind of makes my iPod useless under Linux for listening to audiblebooks. These are the last apps that I run that require Windows. I wish either Codeweavers would support Audible.com or Audible would support Linux.

Re:iTunes support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550264)

If Apple was concerned more with customer satisfaction than with DRM, you'd be able to just download songs and play them or copy them to your iPod, with no proprietary iTunes app sitting in the middle to limit your options.

Tried it on Mac (1)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548244)

I don't care about Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc. They all have Mac versions. I went through the compatibility list to see if I could get a couple of my fave Windows freeware apps like WinAmp and WinSCP. Both said they'd been successfully installed and run under CrossOver Office, but I guess that's just on Linux. On my MacBook Pro, they both exited with errors during the install.

I wonder, though, if there's some leftover crust from trying DarWine that's interfering with Crossover Office.

I think I'll wait for version 6.1 and see how the early adopters have fared with troubleshooting and workarounds before I invest more time in this. Definitely won't invest $59.95 in it.

- Greg

No .NET runtime support yet.. (1)

cowmix (10566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17548358)

Many apps require the .NET CLR.. and CrossOver/Wine still don't do that..

Arg!

Re:No .NET runtime support yet.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17549776)

Mono perhaps? 1.2 is supposed to have the Winforms 1.1 api working at least...

first E4ost (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550284)

That they sideli8ne

What's it do that Wine doesn't do? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17550438)

From the CodeWeaver web site:

"Every single product and service we have ever offered has returned all of the changes and improvements made to Wine back to the Wine Project." From the CodeWeaver web site:

"Every single product and service we have ever offered has returned all of the changes and improvements made to Wine back to the Wine Project."

I have used Wine to run a few Windows apps with pretty good luck. What value does CodeWeaver add to Wine? why would I choose CodeWeaver over a vanilla Wine install? Their web site basically says that their software allows you to run Windows apps, but that's what Wine is for. In other words, they are not very clear in distinguishing themselves from Wine. I have used Wine to run a few Windows apps with pretty good luck. What value does CodeWeaver add to Wine? why would I choose CodeWeaver over a vanilla Wine install? Their web site basically says that their software allows you to run Windows apps, but that's what Wine also says. In other words, they are not very clear in distinguishing themselves from Wine.

Street Atlas USA (1)

Micah (278) | more than 7 years ago | (#17550884)

GPS street nav software is one of the lesser mentioned needs for the non-Windows world. Not even the Mac has anything decent in this area (surprised the heck out of me when I tried to find one recently).

It's listed as "untested" in Crossover's DB. Sure wish someone would test it and report.

I actually recently tried it under Wine 0.9.28, and the result was encouraging. I could browse the map. But some parts of the UI did not work right. It only crashed if I clicked a certain tab.

I'll be getting a laptop soon, and it looks like I'll have to buy a Windows license *only* for this app. I'd love nothing more than to pay Codeweavers instead of Microsoft, but I'm not sure if that's possible.

Performance? (2, Interesting)

Dissectional (528344) | more than 7 years ago | (#17551102)

Does anyone actually [i]use[/i] this? Its all good and well reading the slew of predictable comments, though I'd actually like to hear from people using this new build on some of the chunkier applications - namely WOW and Steam Powered games (HL2).

I ask as I'm curious about performance. Granted Wine and related projects can 'run' many of these games, thats pretty much the end of it. Performance is usually stunted at best, with the Windows equivalent blowing it out of the water. If anyone here is actually using this product, it would be nice if you'd share your experiences in the performance department. Last I tried Wine, it was nothing more than an impressive proof of concept as far as games were concerned.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...