Slashdot Mirror
Win4Lin 5.0 Reviewed
uninet writes "About a month ago, NeTraverse contacted OfB Labs with an early release copy of Win4Lin 5.0, the follow-up to the already impressive Win4Lin 4.0 released in May 2002. Win4Lin, for those not familiar with it, offers near-native (or better) speed "virtualization" of a Windows box so that one can run Windows 9x (95/98/Me) inside GNU/Linux."
Win4Lin 4.0 has been renamed to Win4Lin 5.0 Full-Speed!!!!
I'm willing to pay for one of these windows-emulation packages when they finally get some 3D going, which is why I _really_ want Windows at this point. What's stopping them from doing this?
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
one of the toughest challenges a piece of software ever faces, the upgrade installation mode
I can think of several stress filled things a program may have to do. I'm not sure the upgrade installation mode ranks as the "toughest". Maybe it's difficult to get perfect...
yet you think it's unreasonable for people to criticize these coders who blatantly copy Windows
This is a virtualization program. A bit like VMWare... you still have to obtain (ahem) a copy of windows.
why would I want to run the any of the 9x-based Windows? 95 is pretty aweful (compared to what is available now); both 98 and Me have a pretty bloated feel. Unfortunately, the article does not seem to mention any of the new Windows, XP and 2K, which are arguably the best and therefore most desireable. Does anyone know if 2000/XP can be run?
How about running Linux on Windows? Then maybe people would be more inclined to test the waters of the Linux world. Think of it as a way to migrate users off of the M$ titty.
Life is not for the lazy.
...offers near-native (or better) speed "virtualization" of a Windows box...
Surely you're not suggesting that some tree-loving hippies can generate faster code than the world's biggest software maker? Quick, subsidise Microsoft so that it can compete more fairly! Better still, pass a law to make open source illegal!
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
It looks like one of the most important new features is Winsock 2 support.
Check out Transgaming. They support a variety of DirectX games, including some 3d games iirc. They do this through extending wine to support DirectX. What I don't know is if they feed changes back into the mainline Wine. I do know that CodeWeavers do, but they don't support DirectX...
On the other hand, the age old question is that if Windows emulation works SO well on Linux, then will there ever be a commercial market for native Linux apps? I'd rather see native ports of these various apps/games, and I hope emulation is simply a stopgap...
It kills VMWare speed-wise. Boots up in about 15s on my old P-3 800MHz box.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of things people need Windows (or other specific operating systems) for.
There's no Linux equivalent to Microsoft Money, for example -- not something that can connect to my bank automatically and get statements and process transfers without having to import and export qif files. Same with Microsoft Streets&Trips -- there's simply no equivalent.
I can't connect a Linux box to my work's VPN either -- there's no working client.
And if I managed to do so, what would I use to connect to the Exchange server to get my emails and appointments?
Then there is, as the previous poster stated, the issue of games. Linux games are few and far between, especially 3D games.
Oh, and watching DVDs? (Legally, that is)
That said, there's similar cases where Unix-like systems can offer what Windows can't. cygwin helps, sure, but that's just like running a Windows emulator under Linux.
The real problem I see with the product is that Windows 9x isn't going to be supported for much longer, and new software more and more often require an NT5+ based OS (Windows 2000/XP/2003).
In which case Windows 9x compatibility won't help too much...
Regards,
--
*Art
On a related note, how come there are no Linux emulators for Windows? Is it because Windows has better alternatives to any Linux program, or is there some sort of GPL patent issue?
You can run linux in vmware in windows in vmware in linux in vmware in windows in vmware in linux in vmware in windows in vmware in linux in vmware in windows in vmware in linux in vmware in windows in vmware in linux in vmware in windows in vmware in linux in vmware in windows in vmware in linux.
And from what I understand, you can do this in windows too.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Well, when I used Win4Lin (up to 3.0) it was fairly fast and efficient. The one concern was that it modified the kernel and that it was necessary to run this through a modified kernel in order to have access to your Win4Lin sessioms.
;)
It performs well. I used it to have access to GUI tools on my Linux box then so that I could administer a DB on the Linux box through Samba (same PC w/GUI interface then on Windows). Windows acted like a different host on the machine and it worked flawlessly for me but, as always, YMMV.
It's a lot faster than VMWare, but only supports 98 and ME, whereas VMWare supports all of that and 2000, XP Professional.
For those who want that sort of thing, it can also fool your users into thinking they are running Windows through their terminal server sort of applications. No games - No 3D - No DistractiveX though. If you want that, you should dual-boot or better yet - buy Linux games and stop buying Win based stuff.
Of course, games are what Windows was made for anyway - it doesn't really have the security needed to be taken as a serious business platform by anyone who really has to support their stuff. They would much rather have something stable and reliable that doesn't fall over quite so easily.
Just an honest opinion and my two centavos.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
What coders who copy Windows? You do realize that to install Win4Lin, you need to already own a Win9X CD. You go through the entire Windows installation process, including loading the Windows CD and typing in a valid product ID code. An entire standard Win9X installation is created on your PC, it just happens to live in a Linux file system.
Funny that you bring up SCO. Win4Lin is based on a DOS-virtualization technology called "merge" that SCO has also used. Here is a summary I found of its very convoluted history. (Google cache; real page is broken.)
Yeah, it's bad to comment on sigs, but I had to laugh...
"DISCLAIMER: The views expressed hereafter are not necessarily those of MENSA, which I am only a member of."
How about "of which I am only a member"?
LOL!
Uh... hate to break it to you, but game developers aren't going to release their games for Linux regardless. The market is just too small. Every developer who has released anything for Linux has done so for one of two reasons: 1) to provide a dedicated server package only, since Linux makes an excellent server platform and you don't have to deal with graphics in a dedicated server, 2) Because they want to.
It makes absolutely no financial sense to release a game for Linux -- the market is too small, the market you're going after (individuals running Linux as opposed to corporations) is too hostile to commercial development, and the graphics support is generally completely different from what you have available in Windows (yeah, it's the same if you write for OpenGL, but there's a helluva lot more support for writing DirectX).
Yes, I run Linux. I also run Windows. Linux makes for an excellent server, an incredible development platform, and it's just fine for web surfing, but I still wouldn't recommend it as a desktop replacement to the average user, nor as a gaming box. Windows is a mediocre server, fine for web surfing, a decent development platform (obviously better than Linux if you're developing for Windows exclusively, but I'm a Unix coder so I'm biased), and a great gaming platform. Use the platforms where they perform well... if you want to use any single platform for all tasks, well, you're going to have gnashing of teeth whenever you hit the weak spots.
The obvious question is, how do you solve those weak spots, and I don't have a really good answer. But as far as gaming goes, I do suspect the answer will be improve Windows emulation, not try and woo developers over to Linux. It's a harsh reality.
Pros:
VERY fast. About 95% of the speed of a real Windows installation. In some cases faster, such as startup/shutdown, both of which are near-instant.
VERY easy to install. Run the graphical installer, it downloads the neccesary kernel patch (needed to make Windows think its running on top of DOS instead of Linux), installs everything. Reboot, and you're done.
VERY compatible. I've yet to find a program that runs on a normal WinME box that won't run on Win4Lin WinME.
Good networking support. You can have your Win4Lin install connect to your LAN (via a virtual NIC).
Cons:
Programs seemed to crash more often in Win4Lin than in actual Windows. This may be fixed in 5.0.
Windows doesn't get to use a lot of your hardware. Mouse, keyboard, CD-ROM, sound (thru your linux drivers), printers (thru your linux drivers) and serial ports are accessible. Almost anything else (scanners, other USB toys, etc) are not. May be improved in 5.0.
Clipboard isn't consistent between Linux and Windows. May be fixed in 5.0.
No 3D, and only limited DirectDraw. Not much can be done about this.
Yeah, so it's not perfect, but it definitely beat the hell out of VMware or any other similar programs.
I am astounded at the backlash the readers of ./ have vented at Netraverse. You people have never tried the product, but are willing to make unfounded claims about its speed and ability. I have used Win4Lin since the release of version 4, and I can tell you why you would use it, how it runs, and why it is cool:
I use it to encode videos in DivX format. DivX.com is the partner with one of my clients, and they do not have a encoding app for my mac, and the linux version is not as flexible (CLI) as the windows codec. So I run Adobe Premiere, Virtual Dub, and DivX 5.0.2 from within Linux! Prior to Win4Lin I had to reboot my machine to get into win2k for encoding. This has saved me so much time and frustration it is amazing. Also, I can simply back up the windows related directories (which are installed in my home folder on linux) and then I never have to install windows again, I can just install Win4Lin and restore the directories complete with programs, file associations, and serial numbers!
Win4Lin is fast! I noticed an incredible speed difference with windows 98 on a PIII 533 with 512 MB RAM! The OS booted in seconds even with Linux running with all of the bells and whistles of KDE (most of them anyways). Windows 98 is much, much snapier. And if it crashes (win98), I can easily kill the process and restart it in seconds! No rebooting, no headaches.
Finally, if you, as a geek, can not see the inherent coolness of running a virtual OS at higher than native speeds from within Linux, then you are no geek of mine... I have messed with WINE for years, hours of frustration to get the most basic apps working... but for a nominal fee (sometimes closed source is okay) I can get more work done, spend less time in windows, save my uptime, and forget about rebooting headaches! Have you ever tried to emulate win98 with VirtualPC on a mac?!? If you need windows, and your apps require speed, Win4Lin is the way to go. Period.
Ideally, Win4Lin would be open source, but these people have coded an incredible piece of software which was, to me, well worth the licensing fee! I don't need the true bloat of win2k or XP (nor do I need the EULA headaches!) all I need is a few win32 apps (for encoding video) and win4lin pulls this off for me with relative ease. No you can't play games, but shouldn't you be working anyways? Honestly, the waste of doing this with win2k or XP is obvious. If you just need the apps, you usually won't need all of the services and overhead that come with the latest versions of windows. Win98 runs most programs (albeit somewhat unstable) very quickly, it is solid in the sense that Linux isn't going to be brought down with it, it boots like a madman, and it does just about everything I need.
Quit being cheap, buy a copy and try it out. The support is very responsive, they have an active mailing list, and it actually does what the company claims. A successful Linux only vendor who provides support, upgrades, and a useful product. This is a model for other vendors regardless of OS!
..but I still can't sell this to the Big Wigs upstairs.
Why? Because Windows 98 is on its way out. All of our proprietary software runs in Windows 95/98, but the new version coming out next month uses Windows 98 and up ONLY. I expect next year (or maybe 2005) it will be phased out much like Windows 95.
Let's face it, not one new machine built today comes with Windows 98 SE. And let's not get into the train wreck that was ME.
What I'm saying is we can't deploy linux on a large scale, even if it will run on our propriety software, until I know it will last at least 3 years (the usual PC-replacement development cycle).
So while I'd love to get this up and running for The Powers that Be, until something that's even more advanced and is guaranteed to support Windows 2000 or XP only apps comes along, no endorsement here can be made.
Of course, the irony is that were we to support this and purchase it for our organization that it would fund the win2k/xp only program support, however, just giving it the once over, what about USB devices such as WinCE devices (yes, a lot of execs do use them...my Tungsten T is the one palm of the whole place), printers, et al. Plus all the weird hardware that my org. relies on, such as high load scanners.
And if you've had any time in sys admining, vendors love to blame things like odd operating systems if their buggy software doesn't work the first time out.
Sigh. I push Linux every time I can around here (I'm the resident Linux Guy of the IT dept.), but it's just not there yet.
I mean, if you want to use Windows applications, just install the Windows that came free with your computer. For the cost of Win4Lin or Wine, you can get a whole nother hard drive to dedicate to Windows, and it will be fully compatible.
Yes, but that means you have to dual boot... I stopped doing that a decade ago. It was a PITA, and you lose state -- if I'm working on something in one window, and need to work on something else, I shouldn't need to reboot. I often leave 3-4 windows up with development stuff (code, running programs, log files, etc) while going off to do other stuff. If I have to reboot in order to do "other stuff" then I have to quit out of any files I'm editing, close all my windows, and reboot... odds are I won't remember precisely where I was in the coding cycle when I come back to it unless those windows are still present.
It would be even worse if the documentation for the project (largely in Word docs, some in a wiki) meant I had to reboot everytime I wanted to view the latest copy.
Dual booting is a kludge IMO.
On a related note, how come there are no Linux emulators for Windows? Is it because Windows has better alternatives to any Linux program, or is there some sort of GPL patent issue?
Nice troll.
It's because the Linux/Unix/POSIX APIs are clearly documented and well known (which is not true for the Windows libraries). In fact, Windows uses most of the very same system calls. Many Linux programs are portable and can be compiled not only on other Unix systems, but also on Windows. Cygwin is a port of the basic Unix libraries and a boatload of Unix utilities, along with an X/Windows Server, to Windows... there are also cross-compilable graphics toolkits like Qt that help in porting graphical apps.
The better bit is particularly funny... the best Oracle client I've used is TOra, which was originally developed for Linux and cross-compiled to Windows. The best MP3 tagger I've found is EasyTag, only available on Unix systems. Most of the better programming tools are Unix oriented, with backports to Windows (if ported at all).
Almost all (Windows) 3D nowadays is either DirectX or OpenGL. I'll ignore the former for a moment and stick to OpenGL. How hard can it be to 'emulate' a glVertex3f call? Ok, I'm not saying it is trivial, but it must be a lot easier than the average Win32 API call. I mean, the function already exists anywhere you have OpenGL.
Back to DirectX or rather Direct3D... although this uses COM interfaces, the functions available are pretty similar to those in OpenGL. Now there will be a number of 'slow' functions (loading a large texture), but these will always be slow. A little more overhead won't make a huge difference. There are only a few functions (vertex, texture coordinates, normals etc) which get called really often. It is here that optimization efforts should be directed. Not easy, but should be easier than the entire Win API.
I will admit to ignoring the problems of X being a network protocol rather than a graphics one. I suspect that to reach optimal frame rates you wouldn't want to run DirextX games in an X window on another terminal over the network. But unix has always done well at allowing multiple 'terminals', so do it that way.
You've got that all wrong! SCO licenses the technology from NetTraverse, not vice versa. It doesn't use any SCO code and you do them a disservice for claiming otherwise.
Sorry for shouting, but this is getting crazy! People are slamming NeTraverse for using SCO technology and are even calling to boycott NeTraverse. That is simply untrue. Below is a quote from Jim Curtin, the CEO of NeTraverse: "Win4Lin is not built on technology licensed from SCO. SCO licenses technology from NeTraverse as an OEM and packages the technology on their UNIX platforms under our name "Merge". We do not license anything from SCO (nor do we need to)." People should check their facts before posting accusations and calls to boycott. They (the posters) have done NeTraverse and the Slashdot community a grave diservice. Instead of boycotting Win4Lin, maybe the posters should go out and by a copy to make amends for the mis-information they've spread and the harm they've done. Dcnjoe60 NOTE: I have no affiliation, whatsoever with NeTraverse, Win4Lin, Jim Curtin or SCO. I just think the record should be set straight on this one issue.
Folks,
;-)
Win4Lin is not built on technology licensed from SCO. SCO licenses technology from NeTraverse as an OEM and packages the technology on their UNIX platforms under our name "Merge". We do not license anything from SCO (nor do we need to). From time to time we have used wording on our web site and in our literature that is accurate but perhaps on a quick read might be misconstrued. The comment "Win4Lin Terminal Server 2.0 is derived from proven technologies developed for Unix® based operating systems over the last 15 years, most notably those of SCO® (Caldera®), under the product name of Merge(tm)" is meant to convey that our technology has been in use on SCO variants of UNIX for some time - not that it is based on SCO technology. SCO Merge (or Sun Merge, or whatever Merge) is our product.
Rather than try and clarify the language on our web site, we will be taking it off
I hope this clears up the misinformation.
Jim Curtin
CEO NeTraverse
I'm just wondering: Couldn't you push Linux for the things that Linux is good for? Get two or three machines for starters, just running the servers?
Then get one to two for work, and on those put Win4Lin. Argue that as a supplement, it's better. Then when someone wants to be using MS Word, they'll think "Fast or slow? I'll pick fast."
Next, start pushing hiring decisions in favor of those who know how to use and program Linux, where their spare time could be used to help script and such.
Doing it this way, you could argue that the company depends less on any one system, and is more resilient for surprise customer requests.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I have Win4Lin and will no longer use it.
The Kernel modifications necessary to run it are too much to keep up with. Everytime you upgrade you have to either wait on them to build a kernel or patch the kernel yourself. And they do not come out with new patches quickly. And they only seem to support the kernel that ships with your linux distribution.
It's a shame that they seem either not able to or refuse to incorporate their patch in the kernel. If they did then this would be a very cool package. As is, it works fine, just locks you into the shipping kernel or a home patched kernel to use it everytime you upgrade.