Slashdot Mirror
Codeweavers Releases Crossover Office
rleyton writes "Codeweavers have just announced Crossover Office, a Wine derivitive which allows MS-Office 97 & 2000 products as well as Lotus Notes to run without a Windows OS License. If it's as cool as the Crossover plugin product, then it could mean a significant step forward in Wine's progress." NewsForge got hold of a final beta copy a couple of days ago and has a Crossover Office review up already, and DesktopLinux.com has one too. This looks pretty cool, yes.
Now if a PHB tells you can't run Linux, because you need Office - tell him you'll save money by not needing a Windows license, and call still use Office.
Codeweavers rocks. Seriously this is a killer app for wine. If this works, than maybe Lindows won't be vapor.
Bias report: I am a registered (bought and paid for) licensee of the Crossover plugin. Love watching Quicktime and even tolerate Windows Media Player. I am pleased to see these folks doggedly banging away at WINE and, concurrently, identifying specific market niches that can help them bring in a few dollars.
I'm not likely to buy this one because I don't need MS Office and $55 will buy some things I do want or need...
however...
Boy, do I hope this works as well as the plugin.
Office is a major stumbling block for many people (not that it should be, just is).
More to the point: If they can run Office well enough to be worth the trouble, how much more software is just around the bend?
The reasons to resist are melting, my pretty, melting, melting...
This might keep linux in the running for a good long time; Office keeps most of the corporate world from using it.
You save around $50 for not having your OEM license on Windows (assuming you don't have the Windows license already if you are supposed to be running Office), pay $55 extra for the Crossover Office thingy and you are somehow saving money?
Yeah - that's gonna fly just great with my boss.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Well this will last until Office integratees with windows. Or they change their license to require that you ONLY run MS Office on MS Windows, to fufil DRM requirements.
Can you smell a lawsuit?
I find it ironic to be a staunch anti-windows advocate and then fire up Office 2000
It's quite a nice technology though!
I see a MS vs. Samba and AOL vs. Trillian game already starting.
I'm using it (well, testing it - you never know, the company might go for it)
I have to say it works really well, even Access seemed to work for me (although CodeWeavers say on their site it doesn't)
It was a bit wierd having access to the company's shared calendar after using Evolution for the year that I've worked here.
I don't think I'll use it full-time, but it will be useful occasionally, and I'm sure other people who have to have M$ Office will find it invaluable.
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
Of course, it's an obvious point that this will really piss off Microsoft, and they may have some legal ground to kick around on. They may be able to say, for example, that such software facilitates piracy and allows people to weasel out of the Windows license requirement in their Office (or whichever) license agreement.
OTOH, maybe the Justice Department might find that requiring a MS Windows installation when it is unecessary on a technological level is some sort of reverse bundling (i.e. forcing users to buy a copy of Windows, even though it is technically possible to use Office without it). Explotation of their (near) monopoly on office suites to sell more copies of Windows!
... "Give me a woman who loves beer and I will conquer the w
...the very excellent review of CrossOver Office at DesktopLinux.com article actually begins here.
As announced on the WineHQ-DEVEL list (why he's posting it there i have no idea):
> Since it's LGPL, the Wine code to do that will be coming
> back to Wine shortly. Please give us a bit of time;
so you DONT have to pay for it, considering codeweavers didn't do much of the work for it (Lindows did alot of the installer/font/etc stuff) WHY would you pay for it?.. Just use wine.
ALL the wine modifications which were introduced with crossover plugin were submitted back to the wine tree
Hetz (Heunique)
All I really want is Visio. Does anyone know if it works with Crossover Office?
I Think Codeweaver really are the one small company that could propell linux onto the desktop.
They have found a great way to to make money, (hey I want it), while at the same time contributing to open source software, and making Linux more and more viable on the desktop all the time.
It is not likely that any companies who do not want to run Linux on desktop is going to run it cos now Office can be run on Linux. They use Windows to have the support from MS (interesting, but true), that is also the reason they buy DELL and HP but not just any cheaper beige box. They want to be able to have a number to call when Office on Windows has a problem.
Really, a PC's life in the corporate world is perhaps 3 years. $2000 compared to the productivity lost by the employee whose salary is at least 40 times more than the PC in that same 3 year span is just not worth it.
They just don't want to take the chance. It's a pity.
geek page at KY speaks
the parent post is an AC, so it's at "0" but s/he's got an excellet point. Moderators: please mod up!
The Free desktop that Just Works
Just installed it.. works REALLY well..
Even IE 5 works well.. even with flash..
I bought the Crossover plugin awhile back.. so they're running a deal for about $15 or so off the regular price..
Codeweavers are really doing some incredible work with the wine project.
ChiefArcher
Does anyone know if this works on any of the *BSD unices?
I bought it anyway, even though I don't run MS Office that much, just to support these guys. This is really good work. But it's probably a good idea to buy it before MS shuts them down.
They get there application running on other platforms in direct competition with SO OO and all the other OS suites without lifting a finger.
Tell me again why I would support MS by running Office on my linux box?
Here's what I can't figure out: Office 2000 will run on Win95. That means that to make Office 2000 (or damn near any other product out there that runs on the windows tree) all that needs to be done is support an API that is now almost 7 years old.
One of the great claims of the OSS movement is how RAPID OSS programs are developed. Yet WINE, which is one of the larger OSS efforts out there, can not achieve this seemingly meager goal year after year.
Indeed, the only thing that seems to have kept WINE anywhere close to being on-target is the support of private companies who contribute their code back to the WINE tree. Some of these companies,like Codeweavers are decidedly on the OSS bandwagon. But others, like Corel aren't (though they did play nice with OSS, to their credit).
In the meantime, closed source efforts to port similarly complex API's succeed in much less time with far higher quality results (VM Ware anyone!).
Can someone explain how the failure of a project to hit a stationary target (the Win95 API has not changed though implimentation bugs may have) after such a lengthy period of time is anything but a proof by counter example of the grandiose claims of how much better OSS is for just this sort of development?
I really don't think a lot of people will want to run MS-Office on Linux, given the existence of StarOffice and OpenOffice.
This is very cool as a technology demenstration though. If big apps like Office run under Wine, it's a good sign for the little applications. It's no longer basic productivity tools that keep people from switching to Linux, it's the fact that you can't go into a store and pick up a tax program, or a spelling game for your toddler, and be confident it will work.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Read the review. It sounds like Office is even more unstable
on Linux than it is on Windows. For this to fly it has
to be as unstable, or if possible, more stable. Though seeing
a rock solid windows application would be sort of eerie, like
being in an alternative dimension or something.
Still, the review is of a release candidate, not the final
version. Hopefully they'll get it to be as unstable on
Linux as it is on Windows, or maybe even more stable. If
so, that will be the shot heard round the OS world. At
best this is just the hammer being cocked.
Two options: Codeweaver or this. Slashdot's too suite apps friendly for today, heh?
Real men use troff, just like Knuth intended!
Or at least LaTex.
Sheesh, if those mouthbreathers spent their time on useful pursuits rather than re-inventing the wheel, we'd have moon cities and flying cars by now.
I think Microsoft is sure to notice this one. We can only guess what their answer will be. A change in Office EULA forbidding use in Operating Systems other than the one the software is for, Windows or MacOS (but they probably can't change this for products already bought)? A cease and desist letter from their lawyers to CodeWeavers, quoting DMCA, EULAs, the Bible, the British Common Law and The Road Ahead? A cry for help to Congress to add a clause outlawing Linux, *BSD and any free OS in existence or to be developed to some law, any law, being currently discussed? Or just a "business as usual" attitude, a new marketing campaign pitching Office to Linux users?
On the other hand, judging by the test (they used RC1, not 1.0), this software still have some way to go before it can be said to be ready. But it is already a huge step forward. Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Explorer running correctly under Linux are a huge incentive for corporations willing to move their desktops to Linux. Once there, moving people to Star/OpenOffice or even the recent gobe will be just a matter of corporate policy and time for the bean counters to add up the license savings of the switch out of Windows and the license savings to be gained by switching out of Office.
While this product is probably useful to the geek Linux lover who also needs to use Office, I fail to see how this is going to make corporate users switch over to Linux. I also fail to see how this is reducing the need for Microsoft software.
Yeah, sure, you're getting rid of the Windows license...a savings of $50 or so in the OEM world. But you're still giving money to Uncle Bill for Office itself...and even in an OEM atmosphere I bet Office is a damned sight more than $50.
Making cute nick-nacks that will run Microsoft's office suite on another OS doesn't reduce Microsoft's grip on the desktop what so ever. Only a native office suite that is not purchased from Microsoft will make that difference on Microsoft's bottom line.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
So what's the point of buying the plugin?
There's a major problem I see with things like this. Most large companies have site wide licenses for MS products. This allows them to install Office or Windows on as many machines as they like with no licensing problems. Seeing as how this product (and the Crossover Plugin) require the MS products, all this does is add cost to the IT department. I say this because I'm trying to get our soon to be windows boxes converted to Linux boxes (or atleast with a Linux partition), and all options to ensure 100% compatibility increase costs. OpenOffice is a great product, but it's word filter doesn't work 100% and that's what is needed. 100% compatibility. My companies reliance on windows is a whole other issue.
Khyron
It's kinda ironic.. a few articles back we have an Office XP killer and now we have a version of Crossover that would run office.
Being able to run M$ Office under Linux is fine, but I defintely like native apps that would offer almost 100% compatible import/export filters for M$ Office files.
Take-off every
Now if only they can just get Office to integrate with Evolution and Mozilla (or, better yet, Galeon)...
"Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
Did anyone read the part that started word started in only 3-4 seconds?
:(
If only kword could start in twice that time, but it doesnt.
If you can deliver in kilo gram quantities, approximately what is the population of China?
love & light,
the CIA
Own the crossover plugin. 2 easy to break slow and in many cases inadequate. It can though be setup to use Office and Notes.
For Office tools etc. I need RELIABILITY, something the wine based 'emulators' does not and will never provide.
Linux is a must, Windows a nice 2 have and for that Win4Lin WORKS!!! and it never lets me down - apart from that it support ALL other apps I need (including CAD). I paid 40$ for that package when it came out. Netraverse still let me upgrade to ver 3 without any additional costs - now that's what I call good service for a Linux killer app.
Now I've converted a bunch of people to linux over the years, and ran linux as my main desktop for several years. But about a year ago I had to switch to Win2k. Why? Because of Office, or more specifically Outlook. I need full compatability and OWA(web access) does not always cut it. I also need to be able to send and receive word and excel docs EXACTLY as they come to me. There are no native linux products which do this perfectly. There are always formatting issues etc etc. Now with this plugin I have the potential to switch back for what I consider to be a minor cost. Considering my distro is free $50 is not much to pay. So in conclusion I'm very excited and looking forward goes back to linux full time.
BTW one thing to keep in mind is that if they can get Office running other apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Autocad etc can't be far behind. Yes native is better, but native is not coming anytime soon from companies like Adobe. So I say full steam ahead for wine.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
If I could choose between a world where only geeks ran GNU/Linux and the rest used windows, but noone used Office, everyone used free file formats, or a world where everyone ran GNU/Linux but all non-geeks used Office with .doc and the other fucking OLE-stream-formats, I'd easily choose the former.
I hate hate hate hate Office, Microsoft is using that to lock people in a hell of a lot more than they are using windows.
If Office was indeed the last app a business needed to move to Linux (and I think that's fairly common), support via Crossover may well be just what the doctor ordered. However, I don't think it's likely the decision will come down to the price of Crossover.
There are also the other advantages (security, stability) over Windows that Linux offers.
I'd like to see a comparison of stability between, say, "Office 2000 running on Windows 2000" and "Office 2000 running on Crossover on (whatever)". I don't know if it would turn out the way you think (despite Linux being more stable in general).
I don't know how much play Linux advocates are getting out of security issues right now. I think you'll need to see another big (ie. well covered by regular news channels) security breach or two before security really becomes a factor in migration again.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version? Only MS (well, depending on how courts move) really knows the answer to that.
Who knows, maybe MS will just start selling Office for Linux. Could happen...
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
...the paperclip, I'm not buying it. ;^)
.doc monopoly" statements here.]
Of course, I'm not buying it anyway. [Insert standard "no reason to further the
Curmudgeon Gamer: Not happy
I've been watching the wine lists for a while now, and I believe Notes does NOT work reliably with the current wine releases. You can apply an unofficial patch to make it work, but it's unofficial because it doesn't conform to Wine's programming guidelines (IIRC).
So you can't easily get it for free, but yes, it's possible.
Another example is Installshield. Crossover works wonderfully, but the code is a hack, and won't be accepted as-is into the Wine tree.
By buying Codeweavers products (I have Crossover myself), you're buying the "end result". While sticking with the 'Official' Wine releases gives you the "correct" code (which you may need to hack to get your apps working, then it's no longer 'correct').
CodeWeavers is bringing the reality of Windows apps on Linux, while WineHQ brings structure and discipline to the codebase.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Linux is toast on the desktop. But I do hope this works well enough for the people that have to use MS-Office and like Linux to not have to re-boot as often. It looks like those uptimes might get a little higher. I haven't purchased or used any MS products on my computer since 1995 so it won't do me much good.
Office is nice, but OpenOffice will do fine. What I need is Photoshop. Any ideas when that will work?
Folks,
it would be really useful if people would post reviews. Some short ones have been posted, but "rocks as hell"... well.
Any power users out there? Are there problems with fonts as told in the review of the beta? Can you create Access databases? Do macros/VBA programs work? Does the menu editor work? Do images in tables print well from word? Spell check? Help? Does the mouse feel right? Clipboard? Can you embed excel tables? Do ODBC connections from Access databases work? ...
Thanks!
You're already better off writing for MFC using Codeweavers than using GTK or something right now. Support for win32 drivers in Linux is less than a year away and then you'll be better off writing win32 drivers than kernel modules. In the end the UNIX model will be used in embedded systems while the windows model will be used in desktop systems, with the only differentiating factor being the kernel.
Most companies don't chase after infringers. They go after the enablers. It's called contributory infringement, and it's what the DMCA is all about.
Kind of like criminal conspiracy to catch mobsters, who never really did anything wrong.
I totally agree on both counts. Steve Ballmer has already stated that every Windows app will eventually be re-written to run in the .NET framework. And I certainly don't trust that .NET will be forever platform independant. In fact they only submitted a small portion to the standards committee. So support for the Win32 api will eventually be a moot point.
And your second point takes the words right out of my mouth as I was reading the article. I think as soon as the monopoly trials are over they will have enough wiggle room to put a requirement into the license for Office that it must run on Windows.
Developers: We can use your help.
Why, no, it doesn't.
Why you think that Windows+Office isn't
a bigger share for MS than Office alone, I
can't imagine.
This is the same problem the Wabi had, it's easy to implement the API (assuming you can get documentation to it). But emulating the behaviour behind the call is much more difficult.
Umm so you can support the company that did the actual work?! Seriously you don't have to buy it, but if we don't support companies like this then there will be NO future enhancements to wine. Obviously codeweavers has/is providing a valuable service that would not exist otherwise so why not support them?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
You brought up a good point and one I'm sure Microsoft would not want to see in the press.
You mention the $50 an OEM might pay but there is much more. Keeping MS Windows running isn't cheap and being forced to upgrade the OS and MS apps every 1.5 years doesn't help either. Let's not forget those wonderful security features Microsoft has built into MS Windows for you. That's right, you should include the cost for that virus software too. And that only catches the virus after you've been infected since MS Windows gets infected so quickly. I think it was estimated that over $10 billion dollars were lost do to MS Windows virus infections over the last couple of years. Keeping that registry fixed up isn't cheap either.
Keeping a business running on MS Windows is like keeping your car running by giving a crocked neighborhood mechanic your checkbook. You start it up and it's gonna cost ya....
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
So what's the point of buying the plugin?
I'm not exactly sure if the original post is correct that all of the code is back in the Wine tree (I could be wrong), but all of codeweavers changes are promised to make it back to wine at some point. (I'm thinking along the lines of SuSE having delayed ISO dl's and how alladin releases the open source ghostscript after their commercial version is out for a while)
And while all the wine code might get back into the wine tree, I would imagine that codeweavers wouldn't be submitting their install and configuration tools into the wine tree. With buying the plug-in you get some support, a better install system, and a company name behind it, which I know is important to the (business) "suits" who would need to be swayed to using oss applications over ms apps.
Codeweavers to release a package that allows us to run the key Adobe and Macromedia apps quickly and perfectly under Linux, and then the circle is complete; there will be absolutely no reason for us (in particular) to ever boot into Windoze again.
It would be more than useful also, for them to quickly address the problem of font control under Linux; this means creating an Adobe Type Manager® clone. Then, we will be able to gleefully work uninterupted for days on end.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
All the followups are wrong, and the original poster is wrong.
VMware succeeded for two reasons. They referenced a working implementation when building vmware (see previous slashdot story) and they are implementing an intel chip API, which contains hundreds of instructions.
The MS Windows API numbers in the THOUSANDS, if not TENS OF THOUSANDS.
That's why wine is slower. They are implementing the Windows API. Vmware implements the intel cpu instructions.
That's all fine and good, except that there's no Windows to be rebooted. Somehwere in the registry or whatever, that program's put an identifier so the next time Windows boots up, it'll run the rest of the installation program, but I don't know where that is. When I try and run the installation program again, it just gives me the same song-and-dance about needing to reboot, so I can never actually get the things installed! This is mostly the case with the "newer" MS products, like the Office 2k line.
What's nice about the Crossover Office thing (aha! this post is on topic) is that they've evidentally got an install procedure that actually WORKS, so that might be the answer I've wanted. Of course, now I'm in a position where I don't need to worry about running those MS programs, so I probably won't get it, but still. :)
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
I installed Office 2000 a couple of years ago. I seem to remember it had something built in where, if you didn't register the product, it would disable itself after 50 uses. I have no idea how they implemented it. I'm assuming that it will still be able to properly register itself even when running under Wine/Crossover? (Or I wonder if running under Crossover somehow disables the time bomb?)
People don't change to Linux because it brings too many changes. You have to adapt everything starting from e-mail, documents and ending at any special apps you may run on Windows.
If this product lets you still use Office and even run all those special apps, a change to Linux becomes a set of small changes. Change the OS first. Then gradually change more during months or years.
FYI, WineHQ _IS_ codeweavers. And if codeweavers didn't exist, wine would have died about 3 years ago. They are the only people who actually know what they are doing and are actually working on WINE. If you look at the lack of activity on the Wine-devel list, you would be pretty disturbed.
Is it just me, or am I the only one using staroffice for msoffice compatibility...
Hey, there is no reason to use this product!!! Instead of pay $54 to this product that for sure will crash more than the original windows. I'll chosse to continue to use windows. WHY??? windows is OEM on a machine, you dont pay anything STOP CHARGING FOR LINUX APP!! CHARGE FOR THE SUPPORT ONLY
favorite Linux flavor $60
Crossover plugin $55
sticking Windows up Billy Boy's ass PRICELESS!
How about this for a kludge. Borland Kylix compiles to native Linux using the Qt libraries. Qt is C++, and it has its own layer on top of C++ (Signals and Slots and the MOC), so Kylix cannot link directly to Qt. Kylix links to a C-language wrapper (looks an awful like Gnome/GTK way of faking objects) to the Qt C++ classes, and this wrapper library was generated automatically using some kind of text editing program in an effort to make sure stuff wasn't left out. But thats not all! The Kylix IDE is not (yet) written in Kylix -- it is a Windows app, and it runs on Linux using WINE, and now you know the rest of the story.
Have you looked at Kivio, from theKompany.com? This is not really my kind of thing, so I can't tell you if it will do everything you need or not...
Support native Linux ISV's!
-- Mike Greaves
Most of the messages I've seen so far seem to imply that the cost saving of not needing Windows are not enough to justify the switch for business users. My question is, would it be possible (both technically and license-wise) to install this plugin (plus office) on just one big linux server and having multiple users log-in and use it through X-windows? In this case I suppose that the savings would be greater, and you could also ensure centralized back-ups without any problem. So, would it work?
You know what would be more useful given the gobe office studio review today?
For someone to write a little engine that takes in MS office docs and spits them out in a open file format for any other application to use. (And converts the other way too). That would mean the people could switch from MS Office, the average office drone wouldnt notice the difference between Gobeproductive and msoffice - the real lock in is the file formats because there isnt yet an Open Source application that will 100% read/write them.
no sig.
So how quickly will Microsoft update its licenses requiring that Office only be run on Windows OS or release versions with undocumented 'features' that require files only found on the latest and greatest Windows OS.
And it looks like all the crossover office modifications will make it into the wine tree as well.
/ 03 /0442.html
http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-devel/2002
Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
Have these ever been tested in court? That is, requirements like "this may only be installed on a computer running a legally licensed copy of Windows," which I believe Office apps all say.
... don't want to do anything which might get us in trouble, even for modest savings in cost ...."
Even if it works, *if* these clauses hold any weight at all (and I think they're about as worthless as the "install only EnergizerTM brand batteries!" on some pieces of electronics), a lot of companies might say "oohhh
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I'm tempted to post this anonymously to avoid the inevitable Trolls and Flamebaits this will earn me... but I think I'll put my high karma to good use and stand publicly behind my opinion.
Simple fact: The Gimp, like many other Open Source programs, has a poor user interface. Unlike Photoshop, which, despite its massive feature-set, is easy for an average user to pick up, the Gimp's functions are all buried in multiple levels of right-click menus. It also uses an annoying multi-window interface that clutters your taskbar horribly. The simple fact is that Photoshop is just a lot more pleasant and easy to use.
Likewise, MS Office is a much smoother experience than StarOffice (which, admittedly, has improved by leaps and bounds since its thrice-damned 5.0 incarnation).
Now, I'm behind Open Source 100%, but I don't get so caught up in my zealotry that I lose sight of ease of use issues. If an everyday user can't sit down and use an Open Source program just as easily as they could use a proprietary one, then they're not going to want to switch. It's as simple as that.
March 26, 2002
At CodeWeavers, we believe strongly in truth in advertising. This section is provided to give you as honest a glimpse as we can provide about our product and what our Beta testers have found.
Tangible things you will get now for your money:
Software, including a fairly easy to use configuration program, that makes it possible to install and run Microsoft Office 97, Microsoft Office 2000, and Lotus Notes.
Documentation explaining how it works and how to use it, including both a nice HTML version and a printable PDF version.
If you purchase the CD version, you will get a shiny CD and printed README file. The CD version also includes complete source code for all free software components.
Tangible things you will get in the future for your money:
We will provide free upgrades to all 1.0.x customers for every 1.0.x release we provide. The 1.0.x series upgrades should resolve most of the limitations described below.
Service you will get for your money:
We will make CrossOver Office live up to our claims of what it will do, and we will make it do so on your machine, and in your environment.
While we will only be providing email support, we track each email carefully and insure that each problem receives attention. We also make sure to facilitate a customer to customer message exchange service so that you can help each other.
Intangible benefit you will get for your money:
You will be helping to provide a much needed source of income to a Free Software company that has provided a large range of valuable improvements to one of the most key Free Software Projects - Wine. For a list of what we have done, please [click here].
CodeWeavers will use the revenue from the end user version of CrossOver Office to continue its work on Wine as well as to enhance and improve our products.
What works perfectly:
CrossOver Office should install easily. You should also be able to pick and choose either Office 97/2000 or Lotus Notes, and easily and cleanly install them.
Microsoft Word and Excel should operate very well. We are even able to embed spreadsheets inside of Word documents and vice versa.
What works well:
You should then be able to launch all of the Office apps except for Frontpage and be generally productive with the Office suite.
What sort of works:
Outlook doesn't take you through it's full intro wizard, you have to manually add accounts. Outlook has numerous other bugs.
Powerpoint works fairly well, but has the occassionaly glitch.
Lotus Notes runs fairly well, but it can have display images with managed windows from time to time. It has not been tested as extensively as the other applications, and so it may also have as yet unknown problems.
There are a range of other applications that some testers have reported success with. These include Act! Turbotax, and others. We won't officially support these (yet), but they may work for you.
Font support in CrossOver now uses client side rendering, so we use True Type fonts directly. This makes font display much nicer, which is especially noticeable if you use a 125% or greater magnification. However, we are not yet using font code that is patented by Apple Corporation, and so the font display is not yet as crisp as it can be. We will resolve this problem in the very near future.
What doesn't work:
The office assistant sort of works, but when it's running, things get weird and break badly. It's fun to try, but remember to turn Clippy off when you're done.
Access is buggy, but we haven't explored it carefully. FrontPage and Visio won't run at all. Internet Explorer has lots of bugs.
What we will make work:
We will make every application in the Office suite, as well as Notes work as well as Word and Excel do. We will do that very quickly over the next few weeks, and we will provide you with free upgrades to support that.
In future versions of CrossOver, we will support other popular productivity applications. By the end of 2002, we believe that we will support most popular applications.
Some of us simply can't afford to be buying upgrades to our OS every 18 months. I personally like to put those monies into routine hardware upgrades.
If you want the OSS stuff to come around quicker, pick up GCC and start contributing. Help is always welcome. I for one wish I had the time to do that myself. Instead, I try to contribute a little time/money to existing OSS projects when I can. I feel it's a well spent investment.
Also, if KDE seems to crash on you all the time (even though I've never had it crash on me since I actively started using it over a year ago), try Gnome, Sawfish, WM or their variants. At least you are offered the choice.
Right now on the other tab I was reflecting about buying it. Honestly, just a click away.
The problem is their plugin, which I bought an licensed and it kicks ass. And more then that, it views Office documents rather nicely via the Word/Excel/Powerpont viewers.
So, shall I really cough up EUR 60 for a piece of software, that enables me to install my (legally obtained) copy of Office, SB edition and actually edit documents instead of just viewing them?
I think not.
Kudos to the Codeweavers dudes nevrtheless. This includes sales and quite likely support. I couldn't tell, since I never needed it.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I'm sorry if this starts a flame war, but products like 'wine' do nothing but extend Microsoft's monopoly and tighten their grip on all of computing. The very fact that you can now run Office on a non-Windows OS bolsters Microsoft's argument that its APIs aren't secret, and don't constitute a monopoly. Why can't you people just stop using Microsoft software? What the hell is wrong with you? Don't give me that mealy-mouthed 'ohh, but we have to, our big bad boss said so'. What a bunch of whiny spineless crap. Either you support the Microsoft monopoly (directly, financially, by giving them money), or you don't use Microsoft software. There is no middle ground, only excuses.
Ok.. that makes sense. Thanks.
It only takes minor Linux (or even Linux app) security breaches before the excuse becomes:
"Well, every OS has security problems."
and the whole issue is filed away. It's hard to sell change because change is inconvenient.
"This can help you cover your bum" is a good way to sell to managers, but it only works if public perception is overwhelmingly set in one direction. As long as managers feel MS is sufficiently covering them (or at least appearing to do so), security will be a tough sell as a reason for migration.
As long as you're doing what everyone else is doing, nobody's going to fire you.
.
Let's not stir that bag of worms...
I use both GIMP (by preference) and Photoshop, both mostly for amusement (original image creation) and photo manipulation, though have done some of each for publishing original graphics in The Daily Texan (student paper at UT Austin). I'm pretty familiar with both interfaces from years of limited, persistent but untutored use -- would call myself capable, but not a power user of either.
:)
... eh, no accounting for tastes. I've demo'd the GIMP to a lot of people, and most of them (even the Photoshop users) had only positive reactions to it. Yes, in the course of time (a month of year of use, not an hour), they would surely find annoyances as we all can / do. They're not identical; they just overlap huge areas. But I (strongly) disagree with your claim that it's "simple fact" that Photoshop is more pleasant or easier to use, or specifically, easier to pick up. No, it's not :) If it were a simple fact, I wouldn't claim otherwise.
I can't claim to speak for anyone else, but with the choice of both (which I have), I use the GIMP by preference (if it worked on OS 9, I'd use it on my Mac, too). I find the tools more logical, and I have grown to like the right-click menus. Matter of preference and familiarity, both self-reinforcing I know. I also prefer GIMP's multi-window approach, and now find Photoshops's way annoying
Yes, for certain things (CMYK is the biggest one I can think of), GIMP isn't the right choice. But for everything else
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I can't believe it! Outlook with Exchange Server works!
Finally I don't have to use vmware to read my email from my email-account at work!
This stuff is worth every buck I paid for it!
If you are going to run all Windows applications, then why run Linux?
Seriously, what is the point? Install Windows 2000/XP and you won't have to wait for these guys to make your favorite Win32 application available to run on *nix.
Just about all Slashdotters claim to support the open source movement and claim to hate Microsoft yet you're still running Microsoft applications, just under a different OS. Why not support the open source community/*nix community which you claim to love and download/buy some competing products such as StarOffice 6.0, or use AbiWord, Evolution, etc.
proton != antielectron
This isn't for my boss. This is for me. Perhaps if I really like it, it will be for some other people that I talk to.
The question is, is it even for me? I need to run Office 95, not Office 97. My copy of Office 97 is installed on another machine, so I don't have the right to install it on my Linux box. The copy of 95, however, is currently unused. But they don't say that they can run Office 95, and I'm not likely to scout around to find a copy of Office 97 to buy.
OTOH, this is one step closer to the time when the older windows games can be played. Perhaps Civilization III (I prefer Civilization to any other game, but CTP does become old). I'd say Civilization II, but there were multiple versions of that, and most of them even had trouble running on a native win95 system.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Which version works better 97 or 2000?
Whats so great about a $55 app that makes my $300 Office app run WORSE than it does on Windows?
One is raising windows on clicks. This makes it impossible to have a number of control panels that the user can easily rearrange in the order they want. The only solution is to enforce an ordering by "parent/child" (the only ordering interface provided by Windows or X window managers) which is so annoying that more than one control panel is nearly impossible.
Fortunately some X window managers have avoided the above problem or can be configured to turn it off (but not KDE, alas...). However the second problem (also on Windows) is that when you raise a "child" window the window managers insist on raising all "parent" windows to immediately below them.
The end result is that anybody trying to make a multi-window interface is forced to make every window a main window (thus cluttering the task bar, as you noticed) and trying to tell people that they need to reconfigure their window manager to get best performance.
Let me plead again with the KDE/Gnome (and MicroSoft) designers: NEVER NEVER NEVER raise a window unless the user clicks ON THE TITLE BAR of THAT WINDOW (or one of it's parents). DO NOT RAISE WINDOWS WHEN USERS CLICK BUTTONS, DO NOT RAISE WINDOWS THAT ARE PARENTS OF THE CLICKED WINDOW. And maybe get rid of NeXTstep-like "layers", I can raise the taskbar myself.
PLEASE! You are completely killing any innovations in user interface with this stupid behavior.
Is that like a HPB?
This could be a great solution for multiuser systems. Think about this: the cost of a Windows server license, combined with the cost of CAL's, combined with Terminal Server licensing, combined with Citrix licensing (if applicable) is tremendous. If you could run Linux on, say, a quad Xeon, add the Crossover Office extension, and install Microsoft Office ... you now have a multiuser installation of Office that can be shared to multiple users. You can even keep it legal by paying for as many instances of Office as you're running, and you're still saving many thousands of dollars.
Take it from me, I run boxes at a hosting center where some of our customers are ASP's. Terminal Server licensing is an absolute nightmare. Being able to share out Win32 apps without paying OS license fees would be a very big deal.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Sorry if I missed it, but which version of IE were they running? Does it support IE6 or is it an older one?
My other
Matter of preference and familiarity, both self-reinforcing I know.
You say it yourself: people are generally more comfortable with what they're used to. It's fairly safe to say that most Linux users are more familiar with single-window style applications. KDE, Gnome, and Windows GUIs have standardized on this. Documents (pictures or whatever) go inside the main window, which also includes all toolbars and the like. Options should also be reachable from the main application menu bar.
I'll backpedal slightly from my previous argument and admit that The Gimp isn't *unpleasant* to use. It's just not (in my opinion, and others I've spoken with) *as* pleasant as Photoshop. New users, for instance, often have a bit of trouble figuring out how to cut and paste, run filters, or perform any number of other advanced functions.
Of course, I've been deliberately avoiding the price issue. All of my arguments are based on the fundamental assumption that whoever is going to be using this program has several hundred dollars to blow on purchasing it. And The Gimp isn't so complicated that people can't pick it up by spending a little extra time familiarizing themselves with it. I just think they shouldn't *have* to.
Lendrick
...Of "sharing with your neighbor"!
"Hey Bob, can I borrow your Windows XP disk?"
"Sure Joe, it's even the corporate edition, so you don't need to do any of that WPA shit."
"Thanks, Bob!"
See how easy that is?
Oh, thats simple..
Take the Office 2000 CD. Got it? ok.
Compile wine from CVS. Compiled and installed? ok
Now - try to mount the CD and just run the office installer. Doesn't work ha? try again, and again, and again... nah, doesn't work...
You see - you'll need to know a lot of how to make wine run just the installer! not mentioning registering stuff, simulate rebooting, running services etc... it's a black art..
Now that we are having more and more things on Linux turn to subscription and commercial packages when will we start seeing products for Linux wind up on FTP and other warez sites?
I know everyone says they will pay to support, but come on lets get real.
75% of the Linux users I know once used Windows and when they used Windows I can say had at least some if not all non-purchased commercial software. Now they are on Linux they are going to be good and shell out money for Linux products...? Pipe Dream.
"Crossover plugin" is a bit of a misnomer. It's actually a plugin generator. It generates a .so containing a Netscape plugin that has Wine run the corresponding Windows Netscape plugin. So the code for all of the system calls needed to run the various Windows plugins supported by Crossover has been submitted to the main Wine branch, but the code to generate the Linux plugins from the Windows plugins has not.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
My only problem getting office to run with Wine in the past was that it would not install outside of Windows. Has that been fixed in this release?
"The end result is that anybody trying to make a multi-window interface is forced to make every window a main window (thus cluttering the task bar, as you noticed) and trying to tell people that they need to reconfigure their window manager to get best performance."
You are uninformed.
Wni32 has something called a "tool window" which will stay on top of its parent while still being independent.
Much better solution and tested by millions of people.
I love when I can click anywhere on the window and bring it up - I rely on this behavior.
Finally, don't forget - UNIX/MOTIF and Apple can't even come close to the wealth of experience and information regarding GUIs Windows world has collected over the years due to it being used by millions of people.
Just run it in Linux under an x86 hardware emulator.
My only problem with this, and the Crossover plugins, is that for me Wine takes several seconds before it will run anything. Primarly I think that it is doing something with fonts but say I visit a site that uses Flash, the browser will pause for 5 seconds, and then the flash animation will start. It's the same running any app under Wine. I start the app using Wine, and then 5-10 seconds later the app starts. I'm fairly sure that I must be the only suffering this, otherwise why would anyone suffer this kind of delay? Am I alone in suffering this?
I just purchased the Crossover Plugin 1.1.0 yesterday. I've been using Linux exclusively for about a year now (prior to this I had been dual booting).
My wife has been using WindowsME, and you can imagine her horror when I told her I'd like to replace her beloved O.S. with Mandrake 8.2! In order to avoid violence, I had to promise her that her Trillian, RealPlayer, and Quicktime would work in Linux. The only way I could keep my word was to purchase the Crossover plugin (thank You Codeweavers!).
I was able to replace the following apps:
Outlook -> Evolution
Word -> Abiword
Excel -> Gnumeric
Photoshop -> Gimp
IE -> Konqeror or Galeon
While the transition was not 100% smooth, I think she is satisifed. She does miss her MS Word, and her Trillian does not work 100% yet. I had no qualms about purchasing the Crossover plugin, as I believe it will support Wine development.
Now my question is, shouldn't the new Crossover Office be incorporated into the Codeweavers Wine distribution?
It was my understanding that purchasing the Crossover plugin would help improve Wine so that more Applications could be run with it. I understand Codeweavers has to make money, but I sure hope they don't come out with a Crossover Photoshop plugin at an additional $40 (get my drift?). I think application support should be added to the Codeweavers wine. I don't mind paying for Crossover Plugin, as it allows us to use browser plugins that wine does not support; however, I would not like to pay $20-50 per application for support in Wine.
I also hear that Codeweavers plans on submitting the improvements back to the Wine project, so I might just be blowing steam here. A good idea for Codeweavers is to charge the $50 for companies or for people who need support, while other people who do not need support can download the Codeweavers Wine and use that to run their MS office apps.
This product is not about saving money. It's not for people who hate MS. It's for people who like Unix or a Unix-like environment for their everyday computing but also need to use the de-facto office suite.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
Nop,
WABI managed to run Windos 3.11 and I think Windows for workgroup. Problem is - that they never cotinued to work on it to make Windows 9x working. Same as OS/2 windows support (Win32S anyone?)
Hetz (Heunique)
Simple fact: The Gimp, like many other Open Source programs, has a poor user interface. Unlike Photoshop, which, despite its massive feature-set, is easy for an average user to pick up, the Gimp's functions are all buried in multiple levels of right-click menus. It also uses an annoying multi-window interface that clutters your taskbar horribly. The simple fact is that Photoshop is just a lot more pleasant and easy to use.
:-) (same goes for gimp) But once you get used to an interface, it all comes down to which is quickest. Having used both, IMO gimp is faster to use than photoshop, except for those areas where it lacks features (CMYK, etc.)
Once you realise that the right click menu in gimp is basically the same as the menu at the top of the screen in photoshop... you realise that having a menu that is instantly under the mouse when you want it is much better than a menu that you have to track from wherever you are on the screen to the menu, and then after selecting it, move the mouse all the way back to the menu. As far as menu selection is concerned, if the Gimp was a 5 mile fun run, photoshop is a marathon.
Incidentally, I am also highly annoyed that the last time I used photoshop, it _still_ had a half MDI/half gimp interface. It was hideous to use, for someone like me who first used the Gimp.
Likewise, MS Office is a much smoother experience than StarOffice (which, admittedly, has improved by leaps and bounds since its thrice-damned 5.0 incarnation).
I agree here, though I use KOffice out of preference at present.
Now, I'm behind Open Source 100%, but I don't get so caught up in my zealotry that I lose sight of ease of use issues. If an everyday user can't sit down and use an Open Source program just as easily as they could use a proprietary one, then they're not going to want to switch. It's as simple as that.
But do not get confused between "Which interface the user is used to" and "which interface is better". An everyday user could not sit down at photoshop and draw a straight line using the paint tool
Hey guys, I don't normally post to Slashdot, but I just thought I would post my quick take... As soon as I read the PR this morning, I went to CW's site and purchased a copy. In a nutshell, this IS the standard (AFAIC) that other Linux applications should live up to. For starters, the installation was absolutely painless...No reading/sifting through a bunch of documents, Google, Yahoo, etc...Just run it, and it will take care of the rest. Not only that, but it had the ability to grab numerous Fonts directly from the Web...Very nice. More importantly...Office2000 just rocked under Linux! And one other thing I wasn't expecting...IE 5.0 installed perfectly, and ran like a charm! In the span of 30 minutes, I installed Office2k, and then configured Outlook, tried a couple of DOC files, as well as a powerpoint demo I made just last week...All worked flawlessly, and without any performance degredation. Kudos to CodeWeaver for putting together a very simple/easy to use application that simply works.
A lot of people are talking about how current Win9x/2000/XP + Office97/2000 users do not really have a need for Crossover Office, or will not save money with it. That may or may not be true, personally I think it will depend on a more case by case basis. But there are a group of people who do have a definate need for a program like this; those who have to use Linux and Office97/2000, but for whom dual-booting and/or multiple machines is not an acceptable path. I speak from experience here. In our lab at OSU we use Irix 6.3 (Unix) and RedHat 7.2 (Linux) because our highly-specific analysis programs are written only for the Unix/Linux environment and porting to windows is not possible (maybe the authors could, but highly unlikely they would ever want to, there would be no gain especially with other software and hardware issues specific to our research). But when we want to write up data and generate graphics for publication, we have to do it on our home machines or wait in line for the one old celeron PC because, to maintain compatibility with everyone else, we have to use Office97/2000. Dual-booting is not an option because our systems 1. Need to stay on at all times for everyone to use and 2. Run several servers that can't just go up and down randomaly as people need to work in Office. Therefore we need a program that lets us use Office97/2000 in a linux environment. At the moment, I have had to write all my papers on my personal P133 laptop, and having to port output and grahics files and whatelse back and forth between machines and reformat files for different systems is a serious productivity drain. A program like Crossover Office fits our needs perfectly, and I know of several other research labs in the exact same fix looking for the same solution.
So they know how to run Office without Windows, using the wine libraries.
My question is - so why can't WINE itself do this? And, will it ever be able to do it, if CodeWeavers is _selling_ a seperate product? Eg, if wine could do this for free, no one would buy the CrossOver product.
True, CodeWeavers has to have money (I suppose) - but as nice as this is, I just wonder if it being available at charge will prevent it from ever becoming part of wine itself.
If OpenOffic(and kword/abiword) would just get grammar check.... It is the only feature that makes me look through my school reports at school, rather than just print them at home. Please forgive me if I just haven't found such a feature, but I don't know enough to write it myself. It truly is the only feature that we are missing in linux office apps.
ps Thanks to all those who developed *BSD. It is wonderful for laptop and dedicated server work.
pps Linux is still the best desktop os. Tux is cooler than the BSD daemon.
I hope you are reading this.. Could you check if DirectX stuff works in Internet Explorer?
I have a customer that needs to run one site that requires Flash5 and works *ONLY* in Internet Explorer. (Probably because of DirectX) p Thanks a lot!
Funny, that's exactly the reason why I switched over to KDE1 in the bad old days. (Like you I didn't like the way Windows raises windows)
KDE can be configured that way and always could.
Since I have to run Office at work, I had to run it in VMWare. I just bought Crossover office and it is an impressive piece of code. The installation was without the slightest problems. It simulates Windows Drives, etc. and the installer manages simulated reboots for the Office installer and so on.
KDE is making great progress and KOffice is a nice attempt. But as long as I have to share Office documents with customers etc., there's no way around M$. This software is more than worth its 55$.
This makes me wonder: How long will it take until Wine supports this stuff "out of the box"?
s/Good by/Good bye/g
:)
Should have clicked on "Preview"
Yes you can - we are going to do exactly that, though not with Office, but with Notes. (we are dumping MSO for StarOffice). We will still need the Notes licenses, but no longer the windows licenses. Fuck Windows, Fuck Citrix - hello tux.
Martijn
This only works if there is an unchangable ordering of windows. As I said (and you seem to ignore) this means THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE TOOL WINDOW. If there is more than one, trying to make them not click up and hide each other requires a bogus ordering (like say "colors are more important than brushes and thus will always be on top"). This is totally user-unfriendly and has forced everybody to reduce everything to at most one overlapping window.
Furthermore, an application can raise itself if it wants to when it is clicked. This is a way perferrable because at least the option is there for it not to raise.
The current behavior of Windows is for back compatability only and has absolutely nothing to do with GUI preferences. An app can raise itself! Get it?
Also take a look at the X11 release notes from 1984!!! They specifically removed this "feature" from X10 because it made overlapping windows impossible. IE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA AND THEY GOT RID OF IT. Unfortunately Windows (and Mac and NeXT) did not study the few things X11 learned and have foisted this bad behavior on us.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with GUI studies and you really ought to think a bit before you spout garbage like that. Think again: THE APPLICATION CAN RAISE ITSELF! Got it? I hope so.
What your saying makes total sense to just about every software company making desktop apps. But you should take a look at this: Windows Desktop Product Lifecycle Guidelines. Distribution and support for Win95 ended last year, 98 and NT end mid next year, and 2000 support begins transitioning out early next year.
.NET version of Office asap. .NET does exist (my co-worker is ignorantly developing with it for one of my company's secure internet sites already). And it's distributed with WinXP. They've already dropped old Office support, forcing companies like mine to move on to newer versions. New versions at work promote new versions at home. If people can only use a supported version of Office on WinXP, I'm sure many people will upgrade.
I guarantee they will make a
MS can propogate software very fast.
Developers: We can use your help.