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.
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?
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
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.
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!
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