Slashdot Mirror
Codeweavers Releases CrossOver For Intel Mac
dbialac writes, "Codeweavers, one of the major players in the Wine Project, have released their first beta of CrossOver for Mac. I've downloaded it and played around with it and though there are glitches, it does seem to run programs' standard features quite well."
The top 3 most-ranked apps on their compatibility list are Office 2003, iTunes, and... Lotus Notes 6.5.1+.
To whoever is tasked with trying to make Notes run... on Linux... on a Mac...
We feel for you man.
CrossOver Mac will be the very best way to run your Windows applications on your Intel based Mac. It will let you install and run Windows programs as though they were native, all without having to buy or run a copy of Windows itself.
In other news, the guys over at CherryOS have announced that they have a new product...
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Well, at least you know your public loves you even if you can't get that particular piece of software to do what you'd like. Personally, I never get much attention when I'm installing software, but then maybe I don't do it with enough verve and flair.
The price you pay covers 6 (or 12 depending on which plan) of support and updates. Past this period, you can still download software you were allowed to but not new software.
Support is quite good. As opposed to almost any other company I know, they speak English and Hacker (Unix meaning off the word) not corporate (or maybe they know that language, I never initiated a conversation in it). And support also covers fixing any bug that prevents your apps from running if they were garanteed to work.
Slashdot anagrams to "Sad Sloth"
I recommend a minimum of eight pieces of flair.
Mathematica for Mac OS X is universal.
Seriously?
.NUT client-side proprietary extensions)
;-)
;-)
What do you mean? Lots of people use Macs for business, or *want* to use Macs for business. Usually (this is assuming an IT department who is reasonable, and more and more actually are), it boils down to one or two business critical applications that are Windows only. Some of the most common ones are:
* Microsoft Outlook (because Entourage is 98% of the way there... and that's not 100%)
* Microsoft Project
* Microsoft Visio
* Microsoft Access (and custom databases that have become "business critical"
* Internet Explorer 6 (with all its bastardized VBScript and
* CAD tools (Pro/E, SolidWorks, etc).
VM solutions like Parallels (and upcoming VMWare workstation) can do this, as can Boot Camp. But Crossover is lighter weight and works well also. Crossover is a very interesting and exciting option.
Again, this is predicated on whether IT permits it. I find IT departments are mostly divided into a couple groups:
* IT feels their job is to dictate technology -- they choose what's most convenient for them to control and manage, and put IT's needs in front of the users needs (i.e. users who want to run Linux or OS X on the desktop must fight and scratch and are sometimes locked out of the network altogether). CrossOver is no use here, nor is Parallels -- you offend the director of IT because he'll fall out of his l337 company with his Microsoft sales rep, and will also offend his staff of 43 MSCEs that are necessary to manage one Exchange instance
* IT who feels IT's job is to serve the needs of the business... basically they are willing to deploy and support solutions that have business value (I even heard one CIO say he let users use Macs because it was a competitive differentator when hiring... if a user could run a Mac all day at work he got more productivity out of them... this company ships tens of millions of DVDs to people in the mail every year... they're progressive
Crossover is perfect for the second case.
When looking at the apps that are most used in Codeweavers and the ones with some problems.
Office 2003
Quicken
Photoshop
IE
All of these are available as Mac Native apps except IE 6. Now maybe thereis some small app I need to run, but why not just wait until the free version of Wine is ported to OS X?
It's very nicely put together. Some thoughts...
In truth my only regrets were some crashes in Office 2003. It seemed to be unstable in the same ways that the linux version was when I last used it a couple of years ago - i.e. you will have a great experience if you stick to Office 2000, but newer stuff might come unstuck. In the end then - I hope every Mac user goes out and buys this, because at the price it is offered it is a bargain... but CodeWeavers are going to need a lot of unit sales to increase their WINE contributions.
CrossOver may not be an entirely new concept, but it looks like a decent enough compromise of Windows compatibility without having to deal with the hassles of a true Windows installation. The software works much like Apple's X11 implementation, constraining the Windows parts of the Windows applications running within it to each application's main window. This includes all menus and application-generated windows, keeping your Mac OS X environment completely uncluttered.
Aside from that, this also eliminates much of the unnecessary Windows hassles, such as activation and "phoning home"... and you even get to save money to boot.
Needless to say, intel-based Macintosh users may want to snatch this up before it goes the way of Connectix Virtual Game Station. I can't imagine Microsoft letting this get by them without a fight, when there are other options that will require users to actually own a copy of Windows.
8==8 Bones 8==8
I think you are overlooking why an IT department would "dictate" the technology used. Supporting different operating systems takes time and money. I used to be the SysAdmin for a small company. We had 5 offices 400 users. I dictated the systems and software that were used because I had limited resources with which keep everything up and running. Each office had 1 Mac to run some poorly writen database that our main supplier made us run. If one of these machines went down I would often lose a whole day working on it. Partly because of my lack of experience with Macs and partly because the software was just that bad. If more people were to run Macs, I would have had to had more training or atleast lots more time messing with them to make sure I could have them up and running all the time.
As for macs running windows software. I now do architectural drawings and reviews. I would gladly give up my Windows box for a Mac that could run Autocad. And since Autodesk doesn't seem to be making any progress maybe it could go the otherway.
MG
Randomly distributing Karma whenever possible.
Mac has more potential if it can run Windows software though, so does linux. Mac and Linux are "alternative" OS's, and alternatives are never a bad thing. Cross Over Mac gives you a choice, so does Darwine. Without them, you don't have the option to use Windows Apps unless you buy windows.
While native ports are best, and Darwine and Wine ease the creation of native ports, if there isn't a native port, a program on wine is better than no program.
I use Linux and I use Wine. Even though Wine exist, I dont rely on it for much as I normally have a native port of the app I want (Skype, Real Player, Flash, Java, AIM, Yahoo Messager, ect) or I have a superior alternative (OOo, Gimp, Gaim). Wine covers the rest (IE for testing pages, and I suppose if I needed MS Access, Quicken or another app I could use it for that).
The Gospel according to lolcat
I've always liked Google's Picasa better than iPhoto, so I gave this a whirl with Picasa and it worked perfectly. I figured it would, since the Linux version of Picasa runs through Wine, and Codeweavers did a lot of the porting work for it. I just told it to scan my Y: (Y: is mapped to your home folder in Crossover Mac) and it found all of the photos in my iPhoto library and loaded them into Picasa.
The big problem with Parallels is that it is very RAM hungry. Seriously I have 1.5 GB and the virtual memory swapping when I click on parallels is simply amazing. Anything less than 2 GB is painful. So running Windows and expecting to painlessless switch between windows is a bit of a pipe dream. Don't get me wrong. I love it - it lets me run my Quickbooks and Visual Studio without booting into Boot Camp. But seamless it is not.
A lot of that depends on how much RAM you assign to the VM. I run Parallels and only give the virtual machine 256 MB of RAM. As a result, my OS X experience is perfectly smooth, but things are a little choppy inside the VM. I'm running very lightweight stuff inside the VM, though, so that works fine for me. You might try tuning how much memory you've assigned to the VM until you reach a point where you're happier about the balance between host and guest OS performance.
Guess what: most Windows applications make lousy Mac applications. They break interface guidelines; they look and work clumsy; they don't use wonderful APIs like Cocoa text input; they don't integrate with the rest of the system. To be sure, some "native" ports make all the same mistakes, which is hardly better than running the Windows version in emulation mode.
So from the user's perspective, what you're really recommending is that software developers make crappy applications for Mac users instead of good applications. (And, uh, pocket the "savings".)
Somehow, that doesn't sound like advice that will lead to much success or many savings. You'll lose out to a well-designed app every time.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Circumcision is child abuse.
I suppose it's redundant to point out that Apple do not make consistent interfaces. Whether they are "superior" or not depends largely on your taste, I personally can't stand iTunes.
Believe it or not, for people who don't take operating systems religiously things like features, performance etc usually win out over interface consistency. There are plenty of happy users of Picasa, which doesn't look native on any platform even Windows. Besides, ironically the only OS today that actually has a consistent UI is Linux, if you stick to GNOMEish/GTK+ apps. Out of the box Ubuntu - for instance - is basically consistent. Out of the box, both Windows and MacOS X ship with a bunch of apps that look different to the norm.
They do know that language, and every employee in the company has a duty to do product support - even the Wine maintainer himself. So, if you are technically conversant you can usually get talking to the person who wrote the misbehaving code in question and there is also an IRC channel, #crossover on FreeNode, where you can go talk to the developers, CEO, support guys etc.
With a virtualization solution, the number of licenses required to be dealt with (Free licenses still have to be 'dealt with', i.e. make sure your usage legally matches the license) is at least four:
-The host os
-The virtualization software
-The guest os
-The application
For crossover it's three:
-The host os
-Crossover
-The application
The Windows license is expensive, and if you have commercial support from Crossover office for the app, it's not something that 'might work 90%', it is something that the vendor is legally obligated to get to work 100%. Crossover is fairly specific about what they provide support for, and for those applications it isn't 9/10 assed, it's supposed to work right or they have to help you make it work right.
Add to that some complications in virtualization (overhead of full guest os in terms of storage, paradigm of switching between OSes intrusive (both in terms of interface and filesystem space). Virtualization is needed/appropriate for some desktop scenarios, and more server scenarios, but I'm just stressing the counterpoints to show crossover is not a solution made irrelevant by virtualization.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I don't see the point. The Mac and PC demographics are fundamentally different, as are the applications they need to run. If you need to run Windows apps on a Mac, maybe you shouldn't have bought a Mac to begin with.
Migrations usually require intermediate steps. For example, my company has a significant investment in mac software for my workstation to the tune of several thousand dollars. I need to work with some Windows only software for a new project. If I didn't already have a Windows box as well, it is cheaper to buy me a new laptop that can run the Windows software via Parallels or Crossover than to purchase new, Windows licenses for the software I use. For other people, they may have a thousand dollars invested in old video games and miscellaneous software. Until they run a mac, they don't know which of that software they will still want to use or what the cost of purchasing new versions will be. A few bucks for a virtualization environment is an easy, affordable solution.
I have to run both Windows and Mac only software every day to do my job. Right now that is accomplished with multiple computers. The PO is already in for my new MacBook, which will allow me to run Windows and Mac software as well as some custom Linux and OpenBSD systems. This will make my job more portable and require a lot less network bandwidth between the coffee shop and the office. It is also a lot cheaper than regularly upgrading three or more machines for me.
It is also interesting to note that when we hired a new sysadmin, experience with OS X was a requirement for the position. Our company does software development for really expensive network security solutions on Linux and OpenBSD.