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.
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...
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 $55 extra for the Crossover Office thingy and you are somehow saving money?
Yeah - that's gonna fly just great with my boss.
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
Well this will last until Office integratees with windows. Or they change their license to require that you ONLY run MS Office on MS Windows, to fufil DRM requirements.
I'm using it (well, testing it - you never know, the company might go for it)
I have to say it works really well, even Access seemed to work for me (although CodeWeavers say on their site it doesn't)
It was a bit wierd having access to the company's shared calendar after using Evolution for the year that I've worked here.
I don't think I'll use it full-time, but it will be useful occasionally, and I'm sure other people who have to have M$ 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
ALL the wine modifications which were introduced with crossover plugin were submitted back to the wine tree
Hetz (Heunique)
Not running at the moment. Will run soon I guess (check Codeweavers web site)
Hetz (Heunique)
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.
Interesting point, but you neglect to recognize the fact that Office is written by MS. Most every non-MS written app that can run in Win95 I've been able to get to work in wine with not much of a headache. DirectX is a little shaky still, but aside from that...
The thing about MS applications is that they have full access to the APIs, even features that may not have been documented for some reason or another. It is hard for a project like wine to create a environment when there might be API calls to functions that aren't documented outside of MS. All this said, I have never tried Office 2000 under wine, (don't have it) but Office 97 seems to work under wine...
I would say wine is an exceptionally successful project considering the scope of the problem they have decided to address.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Now just because you're working for a company doesn't mean that you can't be doing OSS development, and I think that OSS development is still a much more "productive" way to develop software, because in addition to the employees you've got working on the software, you'll cultivate a base of external coders who are excited about the project and care about it, too.
For people NOT on a company payroll to develop software, I think OSS is really the only way to go. Would Wine be doing any better if the volunteers decided to close the source and keep it to themselves? I suspect it'd be much further "behind" than it is right now (although I'm sure the Wine developers would object to the word "behind" there; sorry guys).
It's not the development model that's holding the software back; it's the available time to do it in. (How's that for a bold statement? <g>)
Al Qaeda has ninjas!
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...
One thing to note about VMWare is that it could care less about the Windows API, it is just providing an x86 box on top of x86, passing native calls when possible, so it can happen to run windows.
Wine is in no way analogous to vmware except in how end-users tend to use it. VMWare can't be used, for example, to port a windows app to native code (ala winelib).
A comparable project to vmware is plex86 (www.plex86.org). Though it lacks the spit and polish of VMWare, they have had less time to develop and have made great progress in their relatively short life.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
> all that needs to be done is support an API that is now almost 7 years old
This is absolutely false. The very act of installing Office 2000 on Win95 extends the Win32 API. When you install, you not only get Windows Installer added to the system, you also get updated version of DLL's installed under your WINDOWS directory.
What kind of Application installs OS updates without informing the user or giving you a choice?
Perhaps you never noticed why mouse scroll wheels started working in all sorts of dialogs and whatnot even if you never installed Intellimouse? The answer is that Microsoft applications routinely extend the OS and API.
Lastly, the WINE team has never said their target is to emulate the Original Win95 API. Even if they had done that, they would be dependant on the new DLL files, the same as Win95 is today.
You can bet that Microsoft hasn't been helping the WINE coders any, by supplying decent documentation for instance. Reverse engineering something as complex as Windows is no mean feat. And programs like Office and IE 4+ essentially patch the OS when they're installed, by inserting DLLs and other code deep into the system. Running WinHelloWorld.exe is one thing; running IExplore.exe is something entirely different.
Think back: how many times did Microsoft have to push back the release date of Windows 95? And they're Microsoft, for goodness sake, the guys with a gazillion programmers chained to desks in the subterranian levels of Big Bill's Zoo of Death(tm). I think WINE is making decent progress as it is.
Of course, I wouldn't complain if they got the job done sooner rather than later...
Nope. VMWare only implements the BIOS and a framework to proxy between Windows and the PCI, IDE, etc. busses. VMWare doesn't emulate Windows, it runs Windows. No mean feat, either, but it's a totally different approach."Anything is better than IE, and you can quote me on that." -- Wil Wheaton.
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.
-1 (Malinformed)
Sure, it's easy to say how writing an API should take less than 7 years, and easy to say that the Wine Project is failing by missing that target, but it's a moving target. The API changes, and when reverse engineering an API, there are multiple right answers for the limited tests they have the resources to do.
Say a program uses APIs 1-50, but only 25% of them. In order to make that program work, you only need 50 APIs 25% done. Not too bad. And, maybe your solution doesn't collide with other variables too badly. Now, when you take that up to 50%, you might start to get some collisions, realize that, while a certain program functioned using an API before, it was based on two assumptions that were both wrong and happened to cancel each other out.
It's 7 years old (and being extended with every release). It's undocumented (at last check Microsoft denied there were undocumented API features, but the Wine project happened to be documenting them on the way through their implementation).
It's not easy to hit an invisible moving target.
Probably not. I have anti-aliasing on my Linux desktop (which looks incredible thanks to the Xft hack - much better than anything I've seen on Windows so far) but I don't see any anti-aliasing on Crossover Plugin when I start it. From what I can tell, Windows and Linux handle fonts in a completely different manner.
Perhaps it is possible to write an AA plugin for Crosssover, though...that would be sweet (even though it still won't look as good as my hacked gdkxft fonts...)
I'm still going to buy this, mind you. StarOffice is great, but sometimes I just need total compatibility (and also it loads faster).
Reminder: find a new sig
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.
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
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
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!
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.
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.
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!
Hi, I was a tester...
Fonts problems - due to Apple patents, the fonts hintings are off - a simple workaround would be to recompile freetype with fonts hinting on (read the README.UNX inside the freetype package), and copying it to the cxoffice/lib. This should give you same look as in windows.
Access - is pretty problematic right now - its slow. Wait for 1.0.1 (or you can buy crossover office today and get the free upgrade) for the fixes.
Macros/VBA stuff - works perfectly.
Clipboard - you'll need to install an old DLL (mfc42.dll) to the cxoffice/support/dotwine/fake_windows/Windows/ directory and then it will run (will be fixed in 1.0.1).
Excel tables, embedding - works.
ODBC connection - cannot test due to Access running problems (read my first part).
Hetz (Heunique)