Slashdot Mirror
Public Betas For CrossOver Mac and Linux
Jeremy White writes, "I am happy to announce that we have put up a new version of our public beta of CrossOver Mac as well as an equivalent public beta of CrossOver Linux. For Mac users, this release includes fixes to Internet Explorer, fixes for many cases where programs would crash when run (e.g. Microsoft Office 2000 and similar older applications), fixes for Outlook 2003, and a range of other improvements. For Linux users, the big highlights are support for World of Warcraft and many Steam based games (including Half Life 2 and Counterstrike), as well as support for Outlook 2003. Version 6 also represents a major improvement in the core of Wine since version 5 of CrossOver, so you may be pleasantly surprised as you try running unsupported applications."
Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.
I don't know why people bother ...... when Parallels just works.
...Half Life 2?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
How did you get to use vmware for zero cost?
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
OK... games. That's one place the Mac seriously lacks. But having been a Linux geek for years before becoming a Mac geek this year, I've found the game situation to be almost a smorgasbord compared to what I had under Linux. Plus, of course on my MBP I can use BootCamp if I really get a hankering for Windows games... and it works damned well.
I also use Parallels for those 1 or 2 Office type application I have left that I need Windows for.
Which brings me to the part I don't get. Office? Why? When you're got Office 2004 (slow on the Intel architecture in my opinion), or fantastic and well-rounded free solutions like OpenOffice... why on Earth would you want Office 2000 running on your Mac? Besides, that'll just look UGLY on OSX compared to the rest of the desktop.
If you're determined not to pay for Office 2004... great... NeoOffice is compiled for OSX natively, looks native and runs well (slow to start, but about the same startup time as Word 2004 but with all the apps there). If you're using Office 2000, then document compatbility is not a problem. Hell, if you've migrated to Mac then honestly the hard part of transitioning is over; learning the new OS. Apps are easy by comparison.
Sorry... I do see a need for this for the gamer... but this is one Mac user who won't be buying.
It's not just for Office or for games. I've used Crossover for years and it lets me stay under Linux yet run applications that may never be ported to Linux. There are a lot of applications that work great - and it sounds like that list just got even bigger. Stuff that isn't even listed on the Codeweavers website.
I agree witht he other poster about OpenOffice - it works great. But there are also some occasions (more rare now than before) where running a real MS Office app was required. Not having to reboot into Windows (I run dual boot) was very very nice.
Just my two cents. I think Crossover Office good stuff and there are lots of other reasons to run it besides MS Office, Internet Explorer, or games. The same will hold true for the MacOS.
>Windows NT runs on ... Intel 486 or higher processors, MIPS R4000, Digital Alpha AXP, or PowerPC processors.
Ok. Show of hands... how many of you are running Windows NT 4.0 on a non-x86 architecture, and want a version of WINE to run those apps on Linux? [the room fills with silence]
Windows USED to run on other architectures, but nobody cared, so it was dropped.
Here's the reasoning:
1. Some of us are opposed to Window usage in all its forms. I hate Microsoft, and choose not to support their business practices, because I do earnestly believe they conduct bad business.
2. Native Hardware access. Wine'd applications can directly access interfaces, while Virtualized applications can only access virtual interfaces. This has implications when it comes to Network Performance and OpenGL/Direct 3D software. Half Life 2 will never work as well in Parallels as in Wine.
3. Environmental integration. Wine applications come a great deal closer to "native" than running inside a Parallels window.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
No question was asked, legitimate or otherwise. What was posted was dismissive and sarcastic. It was subsequently demonstrated to also be ignorant. Apparently a moderator or two took that to be willful ignorance, which would indicate trolling.
This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed.
You've activated a lot. Microsoft makes you call them every time you install after you've used a specific key a certain number of times (something like 3). Whatever, it's not that big a deal.
I had activated twice prior to moving the key to a VM. Once when I installed initially, and once when I reinstalled because my system was crapped up from having added and removed so many software packages that the registry had grown to 2GB and I felt (correctly) that a reinstall would improve performance. And I suppose 20 minutes on hold is not that big a deal. I was just watching a baseball game while sitting on hold anyway. I did feel punished by having to sit on hold to use software I had legitimately paid for, though. If I had just used a crack I wouldn't have had to call at all.
.sig: file not found
Yes it does. It emulates the video card, sound card, usb controller, etc. It just doesn't emulate the processor.
A call is supposed to behave as it is documented to behave. Any programs that rely on undocumented features are just asking to break.
So? I'm not the poster you were replying to but, how does this help me, the end user, run the software I want? I tried Crossover the other day and I'm not using it because the software I need to run does not install. I don't care if it should work, I care if it does. In Parallels, it does.
Do you run all your native Mac software in little OS X sandboxes as well, just in case they go all "rogue" on you?
I do run one or two in sandboxes, but in general I don't. That does not mean I would not prefer to do so if it were convenient. That does not mean I'm not even more motivated to run Windows applications in a sandbox, since they are more heavily targeted.