Public Betas For CrossOver Mac and Linux

I don't know why people bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:02 · Score: 0, Troll

... when Parallels just works.

(see, I can do a Slashvertisement too) :)

Re:I don't know why people bother... by finkployd · 2006-10-03 10:04 · Score: 5, Informative

Because parallels requires you run a complete copy of Windows, where as wine doesn't.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by BritneySP2 · 2006-10-03 10:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by MustardMan · 2006-10-03 10:07 · Score: 4, Informative

Uh, because parallels has the extra overhead of running windows XP, doesn't support 3d acceleration, and uses up more hard drive space? Just a thought.

Disclaimer: I use and enjoy parallels, but there is plenty of room for alternative approaches.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:33 · Score: 0

If you already use Parallels, then maybe you can help us out here. Is the cost of MS Windows included with Parallels or do you have to buy that separately?
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:42 · Score: 0

you musta buya ita separately!
Re:I don't know why people bother... by MightyYar · 2006-10-03 11:41 · Score: 5, Funny

You have to buy it separately. Fortunately, the prices are quite reasonable. The last time I was in Penang, I bought Windows Professional for 8 ringgit (about US $2). I don't know what the prices are like in the US. There was no activation necessary, but for some reason I have trouble using Windows Genuine Advantage.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-10-03 12:14 · Score: 2, Insightful

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
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 13:37 · Score: 0

You have to pirate that separately.

Please don't buy it.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 15:26 · Score: 0

> Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.

Who modded this 'insightful'?? Parallels doesn't emulate hardware.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by StikyPad · 2006-10-03 15:32 · Score: 4, Funny

Windows will offer you a discount on a fully working version if you tell them where you bought the illegitimate copy. I think the only catch is that they have to be able to contact the merchant, which can be difficult when it was sold out of the back of an old Proton.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:I don't know why people bother... by GMontag451 · 2006-10-03 19:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Yes it does. It emulates the video card, sound card, usb controller, etc. It just doesn't emulate the processor.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Garabito · 2006-10-04 01:39 · Score: 1

but for some reason I have trouble using Windows Genuine Advantage

don't worry, lots of people who have a legit copy also have had trouble with it too.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 01:47 · Score: 0

D'oh! I' been swindled...!
Re:I don't know why people bother... by foniksonik · 2006-10-04 02:49 · Score: 1

"Native Hardware access"

This actually seems like downside to me... as an OS X user I am concerned about letting Office or IE (both prone to Viruii) have access to hardware. I think right now I much prefer giving them access only to a VM sandbox where i can easily revert to a known clean copy if the current active one gets infected.

--
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by kehren77 · 2006-10-04 03:10 · Score: 1

Well, I've been working with both over the past couple of weeks and my MacBook Pro runs VERY hot when running Parallels.

Although I haven't been able to get Crossover to run IE with the Acrobat plug-in for in-browser PDF forms.

Hopefully this update will correct that issue and hopefully future updates for Parallels with address the overheating issues.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 04:28 · Score: 0

Priveleged instructions?
Re:I don't know why people bother... by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-10-04 05:19 · Score: 1

Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.

Sadly, because the former works reliably while the latter works sporadically.
Re:I don't know why people bother... by kencurry · 2006-10-04 17:15 · Score: 1

pilot error:

was trying to mod this +1 funny, mis-clicked and got redundant, sorry 'bout that.

--
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
Re:I don't know why people bother... by xylone · 2006-10-04 18:44 · Score: 1

No DirectX (yet) for example....
Re:I don't know why people bother... by Monsuco · 2006-10-08 19:13 · Score: 1

No DirectX (yet) for example....
Since mac and Linux dont support directX, all directX calls are translated to openGL. DirectX works, but Direct3D is a tad flacky. This is because Wine halted work on direct3d when transgaming promised to give them their work on direct3d, but transgamming simply refused to follow through and backstabbed em. So they lag behind in that area, but are catching up.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat
Re:I don't know why people bother... by SythDot · 2006-10-10 00:43 · Score: 1

Well, Parallels is $80 and requires you to also buy Windows.

I'd rather virtualise the API instead of virtualising the entire OS. Especially wehn the OS in question is teh craptacular Windows.

--
If you want to win, why are you playing with me?

Valve's anti-cheat system by iknowrobocop · 2006-10-03 10:04 · Score: 5, Interesting

As complicated as Valve's anti-cheat system is (checking various dlls, etc.) I'm not willing to risk testing my Steam account on Counter-Strike Source until I know for sure I won't get banned for "hacking" because of a bug in the compatibility layer. I can't find any info on this offhand.

--
Internet Archive: Live Music Archive

Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by joe+155 · 2006-10-03 10:17 · Score: 1

I wouldn't have thought that you would get banned for doing it, at worse if they thought that your were cheating they might get in touch, maybe suspend your account for a little while (I highly doubt more than a week). If you really want to know before just ploughing in though you could e-mail them and ask if it will work or if there would be any issues, after that even if it does show up you could get in touch and explain.

Give it a go!

--
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by dwandy · 2006-10-03 10:27 · Score: 2, Informative

Well, *apparently* you can get banned from WoW and no amount of esplainin' helped.
...(at least the last time I read what was there they maintained that they were getting kicked off for running under wine...it's too long-a-read to see if that's changed.)

--
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by daranz · 2006-10-03 10:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's not really a bug in the compatibility layers. Stuff like Punkbuster, and, I assume, VAC demand full access to the operating system (that's why you gotta run games with PB with admin rights). If there is no actual operating system, they automatically consider that you're messing with something. They're paranoid that way.

--
This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by WilliamSChips · 2006-10-03 11:00 · Score: 2, Informative

You can only get banned from Valve by an automated system. There's only been one mistake in the history of the VAC and that was an MP3 player that was part of a lot of cheats. It was fixed.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by generic-man · 2006-10-03 11:18 · Score: 1

That guy got banned because he used a programmable keyboard, not (primarily) because he used WINE. "So, if anything, let this be a warning: even if Blizzard states that programmable keyboards are OK, you will get banned if you use them, depending on the situation."

From what I've gleaned, Blizzard hasn't issued a formal statement in favor of or opposed to WINE. In this case, however, it looks like the programmable input device did him in.

--
For more information, click here.
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:34 · Score: 0

idsoftware's Quake 3 and Quake 4 both use punkbuster and will run just fine as a regular user on linux. (The native ports anyway)
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by lordofthechia · 2006-10-03 12:30 · Score: 1

More specifically, he got banned for "unattended gameplay":

"Thank you for explaining your situation further, however the fact still remains; your character was found interacting with the surroundings unattended and the advantage gained from this is a clear violation to both our Term of Use and a common sense of fair play."

I still honestly think blizzard should have given him a warning (after all, essentially destroying 3000 hours worth of work because you took a shorcut for a little bit is a tad harsh). But wine was not the reason at all. Likely someone saw him fighting a mob, came back an hour later, he was still fighting the same mob, talked to him and he didn't respond, GM sent him a tell - GM got no response.

In all fairness though, he should have sent his emails to logitech, they were the ones who made the keyboard that they advertised as "Great for WoW" but still got this chap banned.

--
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 13:59 · Score: -1, Flamebait

....essentially destroying 3000 hours worth of work...
What an absolute waste of time playing any game for 3000+ hours.
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by StikyPad · 2006-10-03 15:35 · Score: 1

He said it was work, not play, as anyone who's ever verbed a MMORPG can verify.

--
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by jwnewman · 2006-10-03 15:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've been testing Steam for months now on both my Mac and Linux CrossOver setups. (Same account on both) I have yet to see any problems with being banned. As long as you don't do anything dumb like try and log in with two machines at the same time you should be fine.

I'd like it if someone from Valve could comment on this though.

--
-newman
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 16:50 · Score: 0

> What an absolute waste of time playing any game for 3000+ hours.

ALL games are a waste of time.

If you're concerned about not wasting time, you shouldn't be playing for 1 hour let alone 3000!

Sorry to interrupt. You may carry on feeling superior now.
Re:Valve's anti-cheat system by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 23:35 · Score: 0

Valve can (and will) permanently ban you if their anti-cheating system detects a cheat. The ban cannot be challenged - once you're on the ban list, you have to get a new Steam account to play on some ("VAC secured") servers, and that means you have to buy your games again. However, you don't lose your games if you get banned, and there are some servers that will still let you play. And the system is unlikely to make a mistake as it works by scanning for known cheats, rather than checking that your memory matches expectations.

You are more likely to be kicked from a server than banned if your client behaves oddly. Now I have read that Steam is working in Crossover, I am strongly tempted to try it out. I only play a few Windows games, and most of them are Steam games.

linux / wine noob question, pls help by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:05 · Score: -1, Offtopic

hello

i am wondering if anyone has run the program "ableton live" ( http://www.ableton.com/ ) under the WINE API especially with tools like crossover.

thanks very much as a large contingent of the music production community would like to know if this is feasible.

Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by lakeland · 2006-10-03 10:09 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Well, why don't you find out and post back to the compatibility database?
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by MustardMan · 2006-10-03 10:13 · Score: 1

Didn't you read the "im not willing to risk my account to test this" bit? If they think you hax0red their servers, they may or may not be willing to return your account to you - many gamers value their accounts more than they value contributing to some company's compatibility database.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:14 · Score: -1, Flamebait

because im hoping that out of the hundreds of thousands of people who read slashdot, one of them is not obnoxious and has relevant experience to share.

you and the open source you are advocating can go to hell if the attitude of everybody who is new to it is like yours.

if anybody else has some insightful comments with actual data that they feel like sharing, i'd be most appreciative.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by MustardMan · 2006-10-03 10:16 · Score: 1

Disreguard parent post - I'm an idiot and thought the GP was replying to a different post than he actually was.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by commodoresloat · 2006-10-03 10:26 · Score: 1

I'm sure he'll be happy to once he finds out an answer. Comments like yours aren't helpful here. I too would like to know the answer to this question.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by Drooling+Iguana · 2006-10-03 10:50 · Score: 2, Informative

You could check the Wine Application Database and see if it's listed. Not sure if Crossover has an equivalent.

--
... I'm addicted to placebos
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by chris_eineke · 2006-10-03 10:55 · Score: 1

Music studio software requires the lowest audio latency possible. You can achieve low latency by circumventing the built-in sound system in Windows using ASIO or Jack under Linux. One small problem with the Linux kernel is that its task scheduler isn't exactly optimized for low latency work. But, people have contributed to the kernel to make low-latency audio feasible (Con Kolivas, Ingo Molnar, et al.) so that issue is becoming less and less important.

While I think that Wine is able to run those audio apps, I don't think it has implemented interfaces for ASIO and other low-latency sound APIs. Give it a try and report back to the Wine Application Database on WineHQ.

--
"All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by lakeland · 2006-10-03 11:02 · Score: 0

Rather than answer post random requests on random forums, the Wine and crossover people nicely organised a database of what works and what doesn't. Every program that people who care about sharing have tried is in that database. If your program is listed there you can look it up and if it isn't then it means nobody only lazy bitchers care about your program.

If I spent my time looking up a program I don't care about and tried it out for someone like you who is too lazy to try it yourself, and I then post it on ./, then you and maybe a few others you tell or who happen to read the ./ article will know. Alternatively, I could post it to the place where it belongs and everybody who comes along afterwards will get to see if it works or not. What do I gain out of doing that? A little Karma for helping my fellow man. What would you gain from doing the same thing? The same Karma, and you'd have a working program if it works. Plus you'd get the whole job done faster than me since you already know how to use the program.

I contribute a lot to open-source projects. I do it by sending patches when I fix a bug, by entering things into compatibility databases when I try them out. I do not do it by looking for people bitching on public forums and helping them out. For a minimal amount of extra effort when I do a job, I help a number of other people. Sometimes just one or two, sometimes hundreds.

I don't know you and I don't owe you anything. You've asked me and everybody else -- out of the kindness of our hearts -- go and try a program for you so that you won't have to bother. I suppose you'd like someone to go to work for you so that you won't have to too? Do you need your backside wiped? I'm sure we could find somebody here who won't mind doing it.

This program, whatever it is called, matters to you. So how about you contribute a bit by seeing if it works just like thousands of people before you contributed by seeing if the programs they care about work. Or the other thousands of people contributed even more by getting their programs to work. You might even see some contributions of mine there while you're at it.

Open Source saves me a shitload of time and money and it is going to continue to do so. If you want to save a shitload of time and money, you can join in. Alternatively you can go to hell as you so eloquently put it.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by corychristison · 2006-10-03 11:05 · Score: 1

I just tested it under Wine 0.9.21. The install went very smoothly. But launching the application fails on a "page fault" error.

Note that Wine 0.9.21 is not the lastest version, it may work in newer versions, but there is no guarantee. :-)
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by Blimey85 · 2006-10-03 11:05 · Score: 1

The answer of course, is 42. ;)

--
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by lakeland · 2006-10-03 11:08 · Score: 0, Redundant

As I said to him. Find out, post the answer to the compatibility list, and we'll all know.

If you care about this program, it is what - 20 mins work - to run the installer in wine and see. Add in 5 mins for adding it to the database and you've spent half an hour finding out something you wanted to know, and helped your fellow man and that anonymous coward.

Now, I have better things to do with my time than trying out programs I don't use. For the programs I do use, you'll find my compatibility reports listed along with everybody elses. There is what, about a million windows programs? I can easily enough blow half an hour on the half-dozen I care about and if everybody else does the same then we'll cover every program.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by SanityInAnarchy · 2006-10-03 11:35 · Score: 1

I don't know if Wine has implemented ASIO (as on Windows), but it does have a Jack backend.

Regarding music studio software, why not just use a free one for Linux in the first place?

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by commodoresloat · 2006-10-03 11:41 · Score: 1

uh-huh. Thing is, maybe someone else has already tried; there's no harm in asking, and possibly saving oneself the half hour that someone else already put into it. Nobody was ordering you to do it. If you don't use Live, he wasn't asking you to try it just to answer his question.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by ikekrull · 2006-10-03 16:24 · Score: 1

Because there arent any good ones?

Come on, seriously - wheres the Reason, Cubase or Pro Tools equivalents under Linux? And don't bother saying 'Ardour', because theres no way its ready to take on any of those 3 mentioned apps. I'm not saying its bad, its just not done yet, and when it is, it'll still be less polished and accessible than those apps.

--
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by SanityInAnarchy · 2006-10-03 19:05 · Score: 1

It's at least as accessible to me as Pro Tools. I can't speak for Reason or Cubase, but Pro Tools wasn't too obvious. Are you sure you aren't just used to these tools?

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by MPolo · 2006-10-03 19:44 · Score: 2, Informative

Yes, Crossover Office also has an application database, although it's called a "Compatibility Center".
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by alienw · 2006-10-04 00:29 · Score: 1

WTF dude. Ardour in no way, shape, or form compares to Pro Tools. It can't even do everything Cubase can do. There's a reason why almost every professional studio uses ProTools. I've never heard of a single one using Ardour. I'm sure it will be a neat little package a few years down the road, but it just doesn't compare favorably to a $50,000 one.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 04:38 · Score: 0

http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6373 now has an easy
workaround that lets the app run.
Re:linux / wine noob question, pls help by SanityInAnarchy · 2006-10-04 09:27 · Score: 1

It doesn't have to. The question is, can it do everything you need it to? Or close enough that you want to save yourself $50,000? Close enough that you could spend $25,000 to hire a programmer to add the functionality you need?

I realize it may not even be at this point yet, but saying it has to do everything Pro Tools does is like saying MySQL has to do everything Oracle does in order to be useful.

Oh, and note I said "more accessible", not "better". You said it would never be as accessible as the tools you mentioned, I'm suggesting it already is more accessible than one.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!

Awsome! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:08 · Score: -1, Flamebait

Now I can eat some nice windows shit on my fine linux china!

Hmmm by Nos. · 2006-10-03 10:08 · Score: 3, Interesting

It seems that Crossover targets people already running windows apps, and thus already with a windows license (okay, not all people have one, but go with me on this). So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?

Re:Hmmm by petard · 2006-10-03 10:19 · Score: 4, Informative

So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?

Windows Activation. When you install a Windows XP or later OS on a new machine, you have to activate it. The activation will fail, and you'll have to call MS and ask them real nice to let you activate it anyway.

Furthermore, if your windows license is OEM, MS may not let you move it to a different machine. So you need to purchase a new Windows license for your new virtual machines.

--
.sig: file not found
Re:Hmmm by chroot_james · 2006-10-03 10:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

How did you get to use vmware for zero cost?

--
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
Re:Hmmm by Nos. · 2006-10-03 10:29 · Score: 1

By downloading and installing it
Re:Hmmm by koreth · 2006-10-03 10:34 · Score: 1

I've installed XP on virtual machines (Parallels on my Mac, for example) using my XP license key and it has activated just fine.
Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:46 · Score: 0

For one, you won't be donating CPU cycles to your VMWare. Then also it'll run with much smaller requirements. Since you would actually have to run the entire Windows(tm)(r)(c) suite with VMWare or Xen. Ofcaurse it integrates much more nicely with your host OS without the use of Shared folders (VMWare feature to share files between Host VM). The big drawback being that most Windows virii seem to have trouble getting that whole Wine thing running. Or, as to quote something I saw somewhere:
"Oh sure, I could manually forward these viruses to the folks in my address book, but where's the fun in that?"

Then last but not least it's always nice to help the CrossOver guys with your support to make sure they go to make something, or apparently a crud load of stuff, that does actually run on linux.
Re:Hmmm by mjrauhal · 2006-10-03 10:47 · Score: 1

Less integration, more overhead, esp. in 3d (though vmware seems to be doing some work in that area).

Plus, it's not all for existing Windows boxes. Some will be happier buying a new Windows-free one if they don't lose a critical app. And there's always resale of your old license, at least in sane jurisdictions...
Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

At my work (we are part of an institution with upwards of a hundred thousand seats) the monthly fee paid for an Exchange account confers the right to download and use Microsoft Outlook 2003 for free. It does not include the right to download and use Microsoft Entourage 2004 (the Mac "equivalent" client Microsoft makes for connecting to its Exchange server). So unless you want to spring for a license to Entourage 2004 (and its own set of compatibility problems *ahem* Microsoft anti-trust *ahem*), you are stuck with a copy of Outlook 2003 you cannot use on your Mac. Most Mac users at our site do not have a Windows license. So this crossover office thing could be useful for some of our users.
Re:Hmmm by petard · 2006-10-03 10:52 · Score: 1

I wonder what the difference is between your license key and mine then. I had to sit on hold for 20 minutes waiting for someone at the MS phone support center before mine could be activated.

--
.sig: file not found
Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:24 · Score: 0

I've had the same problem and I was told that MS only allows for a certain number of electronic activations for a given copy of XP before requiring you to call in every reinstall thereafter.
Re:Hmmm by RAMMS+EIN · 2006-10-03 11:50 · Score: 1

In addition to what other people have already mentioned (speed, convenience, less overhead), perhaps security? I don't know if CrossOver gives you better security than real Windows (and I'm convinced I'll never know), but it's just possible.

--
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:59 · Score: 0

What I am wondering is -- WINE is free, right? -- so why not run WINE under Linux in one of the recently made-free VM soft... oh, wait... nevermind. Those VM making bastards have only released free versions that run under Windows. Doh!!

Revised question: Has anyone gotten WINE to work under a Linux version that runs natively on Intel-based Macs?
Re:Hmmm by atsabig10fo · 2006-10-03 12:10 · Score: 1

i thought you were allowed only one installation of windows--so you'd be violating the license if you had it installed both on its own and under vmware?
Re:Hmmm by petard · 2006-10-03 12:15 · Score: 1

I removed it from the first machine and installed Linux there prior to installing it under the VM, so I was abiding by the terms of the (retail) license. But I still had to call to get activated.

--
.sig: file not found
Re:Hmmm by caseih · 2006-10-03 12:19 · Score: 1

VMWare Player. Add in a text editor and Qemu to create disk images and you've got a virtual machine. Cheap and very effective. Or just use vmware-server (free edition) to create disk images.
Re:Hmmm by LeRandy · 2006-10-03 12:32 · Score: 1

What if...

a. You don't want Windows hoovering GB of drive space and RAM just to run Office?
b. You want to run Windows software seamlessly with Linux software - not on a different VM
c. You are trying to reduce your licensing fees, or don't want to buy OEM Windows on your new PCs, and currently have OEM Windows on the old PC.

The market they are making the big push into is companies, governments and schools switching to Linux desktops, not home users.

For these people, the point of moving to Linux desktops is to reduce their costs. So they won't be forking out for Windows Licences.

Typically these people are 90% happy with OpenOffice. However, they may have management software, or current database systems that would be expensive to port to Linux (or Mac). Crossover Office provide software that means they don't need to change their existing systems. It also means that Linux desktop users don't have to switch to another "screen" (Windows Terminal Server, VM, etc.) to use this "Windows" software - a nice friendly icon can be placed on the corporate menu, which works just like the one in the start menu.

Most importantly, though, Crossover Office comes with a full Support Contract, unlike WINE, making it corporate-friendly.

Also, office PCs don't come with high-spec hardware suited to VMs. Businesses particularly seem to skimp on the RAM - something that is essential if you are using VMs.

As to the personal user...

For power users, like myself, it is very rare that I need "Windows" for anything. Once in a blue moon I need to access a site that's IE only. BUT In some areas, Excel is far ahead of the others. So I need Excel for some tasks. OpenOffice.org Impress also has problems with some Powerpoint files.

I don't fancy spending £100 on a new Windows Licence (my old one is OEM, and thus stuck on my old - and dying - PC)
I do need Office and IE occasionally.
At £25, Crossover Office saves me money, and lets me do almost anything MS Office on Windows can do.
Re:Hmmm by aussersterne · 2006-10-03 13:00 · Score: 1

Because CrossOver is so much faster and more convenient that it puts the rest to shame. I have VMWare and use it when I have to. But if I had to choose between one of the two, CrossOver wins hands down.

--
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Re:Hmmm by atsabig10fo · 2006-10-03 14:38 · Score: 1

i'm just wondering-- if i want to install it on linux then i need two copies?
Re:Hmmm by petard · 2006-10-03 15:30 · Score: 2, Informative

It can only be installed one place at a time. If it's a retail license, they'll let you move the license, though you will likely have to call to activate. If it's an OEM license, I'm not sure. They may or may not let you move it; I don't remember the terms of that license well enough to say.

So the upshot is, if you have a retail license and want to install it in a VM on Linux and will uninstall the standalone install, then no, you don't need two copies. If you want to have it installed in a VM and on bare hardware at the same time then you definitely do need two copies.

If you have an OEM copy and want to move it to a VM, contact Microsoft or reread your license agreement carefully to see if it can be moved.

--
.sig: file not found
Re:Hmmm by BKX · 2006-10-03 16:11 · Score: 1

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. And concerning OEM and retail. The first sale doctrine prevents Microsoft from actually doing anything to you if you move an OEM license from computer to computer as long as it's only on one at a time (VMWare inclusive: one license, one VMWare image (although snapshots used as backups are cool)). They can bitch and whine all they want but they won't get far in court, and wouldn't take it that far anyway, considering what a "loss" an actual loss in court would be for them. In fact, if you call them up, they'll give you the activation code every time. All you have to do is tell that lovely Indian that you've only installed that copy of Windows on the computer you're activating and you're golden. I've done literally hundreds of activations and reactivations (probably over thirty on one license key alone (hardware testing)) and I've never had them do anything other than ask me that question and give me my number. Just make your phone calls like the rest of us and stop complaining.
Re:Hmmm by robpoe · 2006-10-03 16:17 · Score: 1

Check out vmware.com and see that their VMWare server is now free...

It is what used to be VMWare GSX...

--
= Grow a brain...
Re:Hmmm by petard · 2006-10-03 16:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

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
Re:Hmmm by atsabig10fo · 2006-10-03 16:26 · Score: 1

cripes. what i'd really like to do is have it installed native then use some sort of an emulator to read those same files in linux and emulate it when need be. qemu can do this right?
Re:Hmmm by petard · 2006-10-03 16:39 · Score: 1

Last time I tried it, that wasn't possible. It may well be now, but that seems unlikely. Since emulated hardware is different than real hardware, what you want is a tall order.

--
.sig: file not found
Re:Hmmm by vandan · 2006-10-03 17:14 · Score: 1

You don't need a Windows license to run CrossOver. You only need licenses for the products that you are installing into CrossOver - eg MS Office, etc.
Re:Hmmm by rizzo320 · 2006-10-03 18:11 · Score: 1

At my work (we are part of an institution with upwards of a hundred thousand seats) the monthly fee paid for an Exchange account confers the right to download and use Microsoft Outlook 2003 for free. It does not include the right to download and use Microsoft Entourage 2004.
Wow, either someone in your IT department is lying or very incompetent. If you are getting Microsoft Outlook 2003, then you are also getting Exchange 2004. Microsoft states it on their own web site:

http://www.microsoft.com/exchange/howtobuy/enterpr ise.mspx/

From the web site:

The Exchange Server 2003 user CAL is required for each user gaining access to the server and entitles access rights to both editions of Exchange Server. Each Exchange Server 2003 CAL also includes Microsoft Office Outlook 2003 or Microsoft Entourage 2004 for Mac and permits access from Microsoft Office Outlook Web Access, Outlook Mobile Access, Exchange ActiveSync, or any standard Internet-messaging client.

The only thing I can think of preventing you from receiving Entourage 2004 is if your company has older client access licenses (Exchange/Outlook 2000) and they are using their Outlook 2003 licenses bundled with MS Office 2003, rather than the software licenses provided with Exchange. Even then, that's a stretch, as Microsoft usually allows you to update the Outlook/Entourage clients even though the server and the CAL's might be an older version.

It's true that Entourage isn't provided as a download from Microsoft. At the same time, I've never seen a place to download Outlook from either. Instead, they come on a CD with the Exchange software, and updates are sent via CD to the Exchange server admin.

Finally, for a company as large as you describe (you stated 100,000 seats for Exchange), I find it hard to believe that you do not have Microsoft Office for Mac installed on any of your computers for compatibility with the rest of your company, and if you have Microsoft Office 2004, then you have Entourage 2004 to use. The older version Office/Entourage X, will work with your Exchange servers as long as they have SMTP/IMAP turned on.
Re:Hmmm by Laur · 2006-10-04 01:48 · Score: 1

I don't know if CrossOver gives you better security than real Windows (and I'm convinced I'll never know), but it's just possible.

Since Wine runs in userland, it is definitely more secure than Windows, especially if you usually run Windows as Admin. Of course, it is probably still possible to run many viruses and trojans, but once you kill Wine they will stop as well.

--
When you lose something irreplaceable, you don't mourn for the thing you lost, you mourn for yourself. - Harpo Marx
Re:Hmmm by fgouget · 2006-10-04 03:47 · Score: 1

Why go with CrossOver rather than Parallels, VMware or Xen?

Because only CrossOver provides desktop integration.

Using the Mac as an example, try opening a Visio document just by clicking on it in the Finder. With CrossOver it just works. With Parallels and all virtual machine systems you does not. Now, try opening a PowerPoint email attachement. With CrossOver it just works. Not so with a virtual machine. With Parallels & co you will have to first save the attachement to disk, fire off your VM, start Windows Explorer, mount your Mac's filesystem, navigate to the place where you saved the PowerPoint document, and finally double-click on it.

Virtual machines are a productivity killer for standard office tasks... unless you do everything inside the virtual machine. But if you are going to use Windows all the time, why buy a Mac or use Linux rather than a Windows PC?

Defend America: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:13 · Score: -1, Offtopic

Stop the Child Molesters.

Yours patriotically,
Kilgore Trout

whine? by User+956 · 2006-10-03 10:14 · Score: 0

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.

With all these improvements, I would have guessed we'd see the end of wine, not just an improvement.

--
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.

I AWAIT Y0UR IMMED1ATE RESP0ND by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:18 · Score: -1, Offtopic

DEAR FRIEND, I AM MR.SANDWIDI TRAORE. I WORK IN THE AUDIT/REMITTANCE DEPARTMENT OF BANK OF AFRICA(BOA) OUAGADOUGOU BURKINA FASO. I HAVE A BUSINESS PROPOSAL WHICH WILL BE BENEFICIAL TO BOTH OF US.THE TOTAL SUM INVOLVED IS ($18.MILLION US DOLLARS) WHICH I WANT TO TRANSFER FROM THE BANK I WORK WITH TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT IN YOUR COUNTRY. THIS FUND IS OWNED BY A DECEASED PERSON,A BUSINESS COMMERCIALIST IN WEST-AFRICAN REGIONS. HE HAS BEEN DEAD FOR YEARS AGO AND SINCE THEN NO CLAIM HAS BEEN PLACED ON HIS BANK ACCOUNT BALANCE. I WANT TO TRANSFER THIS MONEY OUT OF THE COUNTRY BUT SUCH FUND CAN NOT BE TRANSFERRED WITHOUT A NEXT OF KIN STANDING TO THE FUND. THE FUND COULD BE TRANSFERRED IN THESE WAY,YOU SHALL PRESENT YOURSELF THROUGH WRITING AN APPLICATION LETTER TO THE BANK CLAIMING TO BE HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES/ NEXT OF KIN,AS DETAILS SHALL BE THAT YOU ARE THE NEXT OF KIN/BUSINESS ASSOCIATES TO THE DECEASED PERSON AND HIS PROPERTIES. I SHALL MAKE AVAILABLE DETAILS AND INFORMATION WITH WHICH A SUCCESSFUL CLAIM SHALL BE PLACED ON THE FUND. I SHALL BE YOUR GUIDIANCE AND INSTRUCTOR THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THIS TRANSACTION SO AS TO ENSURE A SUCCESSFUL TRANSFER OF THE FUND TO YOUR BANK ACCOUNT. AS YOUR BENEFITS, YOU SHALL BE ENTITLED TO 30% OF THIS FUND FOR YOUR CO-OPERATION IN THIS TRANSACTION WHILE 60% FOR ME AND 10%WILL BE SET ASIDE FOR EXPENSES THAT WILL BE INCURED DURING THE TRANSACTION. HOWEVER IF YOU ARE REALLY SURE OF YOUR INTEGRITY TOWARDS THIS PROPOSAL REPLY ME IMMEDIATELY AND I WILL SEND TO YOU THE APPLICATION LETTER . THANKS & BEST REGARDS, MR. SANDWIDI TRAORE

Umm... by Savage-Rabbit · 2006-10-03 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't know why people bother ...... when Parallels just works.

...Half Life 2?

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Re:Umm... by aesiamun · 2006-10-04 03:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Ok...then I have a question. Why run WOW in Wine on a Mac when there is a completely full working Mac version on the discs that you got when you purchased it?

You're not going to get better performance. I still boot to windows just for WOW...because the macbook has terribly limited video memory in OSX...*sighs*
Re:Umm... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 05:10 · Score: 0

Ok...then I have a question. Why run WOW in Wine on a Mac when there is a completely full working Mac version on the discs that you got when you purchased it?

You're not going to get better performance. I still boot to windows just for WOW...because the macbook has terribly limited video memory in OSX...*sighs*

That makes no sense. I do run Warcraft natively on OS.X. It's simply that there is no OS.X native version of Half Life 2 and I really dislike booting into Windows XP ever time I feel like fragging small-arms carrying goons in in gasmasks and bullet proof vests or blasting a few headcrabs with a shotgun. For a product that is only in it's second beta version Crossover Office works amazingly well.

I wonder by TemplesA · 2006-10-03 10:23 · Score: 0

if it's just the Valve games?
For instance, would Ritual's Sin: Emergence work with this? Sin uses the same gameplay physics and engine as HL2 as far as I know... How about HL2 Episode one? And why only Steam/Valve games?

I see WoW, but that's about as entertaining as watching the State of the Union address...
Come on. It's Slashdot.

Intel Mac Only by nurb432 · 2006-10-03 10:31 · Score: -1, Flamebait

So BFD. Doesnt help us Gx people at all.

its just wine on iFBSD .. so what?

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:Intel Mac Only by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:39 · Score: 3, Informative

Come on, what do you expect? Of course it won't work on G4's. Wine stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Re:Intel Mac Only by Weston+O'Reilly · 2006-10-03 10:44 · Score: 1

"its just wine on iFBSD .. so what?" Question asked, question answered. Very useful if you have an Intel Mac.
Re:Intel Mac Only by SanityInAnarchy · 2006-10-03 11:26 · Score: 1

I'm actually going to try to run wine on a G4, at some point. The plan is to install a Linux and get that working first, then qemu. I believe qemu can emulate a CPU for user-level apps, thus meaning I should be able to run an x86 wine, under qemu, under my ppc Linux. And then run a Windows app under that.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Intel Mac Only by nurb432 · 2006-10-03 11:27 · Score: 1

Ever hear of Darwine? It was to port wine over to the G series. But it lost steam when jobs moved to the dark side and sold out.

Oh, and i could care less what the f-ing acronym means.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Intel Mac Only by nurb432 · 2006-10-03 11:32 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Well, i dont. I wont, so its a totally useless product.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Intel Mac Only by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:44 · Score: 0

You are aware that other people in the world have different hardware configurations than you do, right?

Consider the possibility that Crossover isn't intended for you, but for other people. (Yes, they really exist. I mean, Slashdot can't be entirely computer-generated, can it?)
Re:Intel Mac Only by rkanodia · 2006-10-03 12:01 · Score: 1

In other news, gasoline is a totally useless product, because I don't own a car.
Re:Intel Mac Only by leamanc · 2006-10-03 12:23 · Score: 1

Good luck with that. IF, and that's a big IF, you ever got that to work, it would be slower than molasses rolling up hill.

--
:q!
Re:Intel Mac Only by SanityInAnarchy · 2006-10-03 12:57 · Score: 1

But still faster than running Windows under qemu. Also, if OpenGL worked (also a big if), I could play games which are graphically intensive but light on the CPU.

And it was a pretty old game I wanted to make this work for.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Intel Mac Only by sonicsft · 2006-10-03 12:59 · Score: 1

Actually the Darwine project already has a lot of the PPC/qemu stuff implemented.

http://darwine.opendarwin.org/ (opendarwin is shutting down, so I think most of their docs are being merged into the winehqwiki, http://wiki.winehq.org/ )

I didn't even think to start investigating wine on a mac until after my iBook g3 died and apple announced the Intel macs. I got a MacBookPro back in March and it was not a trivial operation to get regular wine compiled. But crossover is a simple to install as dragging the application to the you harddrive. Halflife 2 works, although I didn't try to playonline, but I did install via steam and it is playable.
Re:Intel Mac Only by WilliamSChips · 2006-10-03 13:00 · Score: 4, Informative

WINE doesn't work on PowerPC machines because WINE doesn't translate instructions, only function calls.

--
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
Re:Intel Mac Only by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 14:33 · Score: 0

I used to have a powerpc G4 untill the motherboard died before that I ran Yellow Dog (basicly redhat for the PowerPC mac). Virtual PC the app I needed that was Windows only, Arc GIS ran at nearly native speed. Then again since ArcGIS is so slow anyway I probably didn't notice . You might also want to checkout http://www.maconlinux.org/ internet is a known area they have some tricky issues-but so many other things worked I was fine.
Re:Intel Mac Only by NoName+Studios · 2006-10-03 18:00 · Score: 1

However, Qemu only emulates a 12mhz CPU. I don't think that meets the minimum requirements for Windows!
Re:Intel Mac Only by SanityInAnarchy · 2006-10-03 18:43 · Score: 1

Yes, that would allow me to run OS X and Linux simultaneously, which is kind of what I want, but I doubt I'd boot it much if I had Linux working well enough to try. There aren't many Mac-only apps I need, and if there were, I'd hate MOL because of no GL acceleration for OS X.

Sadly, while my wireless seems mostly OK, I'm still having huge issues with my trackpad.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:Intel Mac Only by mrchaotica · 2006-10-04 17:23 · Score: 1

No, Darwine is a port of WINE to OS X in general. In fact, the Intel version was first; the goal to add QEMU for PPC support came later.

Darwine is a direct competitor to Crossover Mac in the same way that normal WINE (plus a GUI frontend) is a direct competitor to Crossover Linux.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:Intel Mac Only by nurb432 · 2006-10-04 22:40 · Score: 1

"The Darwine project intends to port and develop WINE as well as other supporting tools that will allow Darwin and Mac OS X users to run Windows Applications"

Does a user care it runs thru QEMU along the way ? ( aside from the speed issues of course ). They see 'windows' applications on their OSX desktop, using wine.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Re:Intel Mac Only by Monsuco · 2006-10-08 19:10 · Score: 1

I'm actually going to try to run wine on a G4, at some point. The plan is to install a Linux and get that working first, then qemu. I believe qemu can emulate a CPU for user-level apps, thus meaning I should be able to run an x86 wine, under qemu, under my ppc Linux. And then run a Windows app under that.
Darwine, a port of Wine to OSX has a PPC version with QEMU bundled with it, just don't expect speed.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat

I sort of get it... by Thumper_SVX · 2006-10-03 10:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Re:I sort of get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:48 · Score: 0

"Plus, of course on my MBP I can use BootCamp if I really get a hankering for Windows games... and it works damned well."

Um, a standard linux PC dual-boots windows perfectly, yet you bring this up as though it's something that's improved since you switched to a Mac?

AFAIK the only difference is that a) boot camp will burn the drivers to a CD for you and b) you just paid $2000 to run windows.
Re:I sort of get it... by Saint+Stephen · 2006-10-03 10:50 · Score: 1

Yeah, cause god knows you can't dual boot into Windows on a Linux computer! Thank god for bootcamp.
Re:I sort of get it... by Joe+The+Dragon · 2006-10-03 11:07 · Score: 1

the mac hardware also sucks for games $2000+ system with no sli / cross fire
desktops with laptop video cards
Re:I sort of get it... by mkiwi · 2006-10-03 11:15 · Score: 4, Funny

Besides, that'll just look UGLY on OSX compared to the rest of the desktop.

You are truely a convert :-)
Re:I sort of get it... by nine-times · 2006-10-03 11:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why Office?-- I can think of a couple reasons. First, Office 2004 doesn't really necessarily have all the same features and everything as Office 2003. It fits better with the OS, and you might like it better, but I've had Word documents, for example, generated in 2003, where the formatting wasn't the same in 2004 for Mac or OOo.
Also, Outlook is a big deal. Entourage is getting better, but they didn't even have Exchange support until about a year ago, and it still isn't quite up to snuff. It's ok, more or less, but IIRC, it doesn't support stationery, which as obnoxious as stationery is, I've had that be a deal breaker for some users. Also public folders don't always work correctly, and it isn't connecting through MAPI, which depending on your perspective, may or may not be a good thing.
So what I'm saying is, there are reasons. Having IE6 on your Mac is good for those annoying occasions where you run into an IE-only site. For example, when you want to use your Exchange server's webmail with all the bells and whistles.
Is it worth it to run these apps in Crossover? Not for me. I really like NeoOffice a lot, and it's a universal binary to boot. But yeah, I can imagine someone wanting to run Office 2003 in Crossover, and I like having the option.
Re:I sort of get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:43 · Score: 0

OpenOffice for Mac is horrible.

First off, NeoOffice is both very slow and still poorly integrated. It also runs on an old core of OpenOffice, which lacks a lot of features. The official port is faster but...

The entire thing runs under Apple's X11 frontend, which is alright for a lot of applications, but is grossly dysfunctional for something as heavily used and relied on as an Office suite. It isn't integrated *AT_ALL* (it can barley cut and paste text), looks like *SHIT* compared to most OS X applications (still retains it's drab, grey look), and it's hard to use due to it's reliance on X11 (the save feature, for example, is inexcusably nonstandard and hard to use even for me, a knowlegable Linux/OS X user).

The worst part is really X11. X11 itself needs to be installed off the OS X Tiger CD (it isn't installed by default), and produces applications that don't fit in with the rest of OS X at all. A good example would be how the menu is on the Window itself, ala Windows/Linux, while the Mac OS X toolbar has the X11 menu on it. Along with that, it's very easy to accidentally quit X11 and loose all your work. I stopped using it when I lost hours of schoolwork to this problem.

On Windows, OpenOffice is just as good compared to MS Office. On Mac, it just sucks. And that really got me anrgy, especially as I paid for my $100 copy of iWork that, quite frankly, wouldn't be neccecary if the Mac developers of OpenOffice had put in a little more then 5 seconds of work.
Re:I sort of get it... by Firehed · 2006-10-03 11:55 · Score: 1

Office is negligable in situations like these. Office 2004 for Mac works great - hell, it's far better than any Windows version I've used. It may be running under Rosetta emulation since it's not a UniBin (last I checked), but so what - 99% of office users just need to type stuff, not do anything that's demanding in the most remote sense of the word. While I agree that OpenOffice would be a great alternative, it was still very iffy last I tried on the Intel Macs, though by the looks if it, it's been improved since I last tried anything with it. Parallels works superbly for any 2D stuff I need to do that simply can't be done in OS X (which is almost nothing at this point, at least with how I use my system), and native gaming would be a godsend for me, though probably not for my games (a Parallels-esque expanding partition would be awesome, since I have no idea how much space games tend to take up now... my Steam install was nothing short of mind-bogglingly massive with only two or three of my dozen-or-so available games installed).

Mind you, I don't game much anymore, but I'd really like to be able to put that x1600 in my MBP to good use.

--
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Re:I sort of get it... by WhiteWolf666 · 2006-10-03 12:26 · Score: 2, Interesting

Have you tried the new beta of NeoOffice? It's much, much better. The "Aqua" port.

--
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Re:I sort of get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 13:34 · Score: 0

Take me for example. I currently own a Windows version of MS Office. I don't use it much, but when someone sends me an attachment in MS Office format that doesn't convert well, I have to use it. I'm thinking of buying a MacBook. Thanks to Codeweavers, I won't have to re-buy Office. Why would I want to buy software TWICE that I don't even want, and only use because I occasionally have to?

It's not for everyone, granted. But it's certainly for me.
Re:I sort of get it... by Phroggy · 2006-10-03 17:00 · Score: 1

if the Mac developers of OpenOffice had put in a little more then 5 seconds of work.

They've put in a HUGE amount of work to get it running on OSX as well as it does. If you think you can do better, feel free to volunteer.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:I sort of get it... by mackyrae · 2006-10-03 17:27 · Score: 1

I can tell you for sure that Unreal Tournament 2007 will run on Linux and it's the same install cd as for Windows. They put both installers on one cd. My boyfriend is loving this because he's a gamer and just switched to Linux. He (and another recent Windows -> Linux switcher I know) said when he tried Linux a few years ago, it was seriously lacking in games and Wine wasn't too great. Things have changed quite a bit. They both switched back to Linux because there's so much better game support now. I know he'd never go back to a Mac. He had one (a laptop I think) a few years ago, but it sucked for games, so he doesn't use it. Mac gamers are pretty darned rare, but given the gamer/geek overlap, I'd guess gamers on Linux are more common. I agree with him that if more companies acted like the guys that make Unreal Tournament (they make it work on anything, even Windows 95), the OS share would be more equalised. Heck, if I'm a gamer and I can either spend $200 on games or on Windows, which would I spend it on? Right now, it's probably going to have to be Windows, but if more games are available for Linux, that frees up more money to spend on the games which would mean more sales for game companies and therefore higher revenues.

--
look! it's a bird, it's a plane, it's....a girl? yes, a girl browsing Slashdot on Linux
Re:I sort of get it... by MartinB · 2006-10-03 21:01 · Score: 1

Office 2004 for Mac works great - hell, it's far better than any Windows version I've used.
Yeah. Except of course for Access. Or when you do actually need Outlook rather than Entourage.

--
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Re:I sort of get it... by fgouget · 2006-10-04 03:59 · Score: 1

Which brings me to the part I don't get. Office? Why? When you're got Office 2004, or fantastic and well-rounded free solutions like OpenOffice... why on Earth would you want Office 2000 running on your Mac?

It's not just Microsoft Office 2000 you can run on the Mac with CrossOver. It's also Office XP and Office 2003. But to answer your question, it turns out that many users need Outlook, and especially Outlook 2003, for connecting to Exchange and using the calendar, tasklist, and other such features. Besides, CrossOver already supports Microsoft Office on Linux, so why cripple CrossOver Mac?
Re:I sort of get it... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 21:20 · Score: 0

Have you tried the new beta of NeoOffice? It's much, much better. The "Aqua" port.
Crashes on me every time I start it up. Quite the Mac experience.
Re:I sort of get it... by Ruby+Wednesday · 2006-10-04 21:50 · Score: 1

Office 2004 only has Word, Excel, Powerpoint & Entourage (Outlook) Suppose you need MS Access? or one of the non-core apps (eg. Visio)?
Re:I sort of get it... by demallien2 · 2006-10-05 23:49 · Score: 1

And you of course have no idea what you are talking about.

The latest version of NeoOffice is quite simply the best Office software available on a Mac, free or otherwise. I've even got my father to install it and he now refuses to use MS Office.
Re:I sort of get it... by dwightk · 2006-10-06 10:53 · Score: 1

Neo Office does not look native at all, you can tell, like Firefox it is a cross platform app that was written by PC programers and then made to run on a Mac...

--
Like anyone can even know that
Re:I sort of get it... by Thumper_SVX · 2006-10-09 08:52 · Score: 1

As a followup, and in case anyone's still following this thread:

Based upon the feedback I received, I went ahead and installed the beta version to test it. Sure, it was nice to be able to launch Office under MacOS (and it ran faster and better than Office 2004...), but I'm still not impressed. The application compatibility is questionable at best and out of the two or three applications I still retain a Parallels Windows XP box for, precisely NONE of them worked. In fact, only one of them would even install.

Give me a call when you hit Version 10 ;)

I have to ask... by mhore · 2006-10-03 10:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Why for Intel processors only? Is it that hard to compile their sources for PowerPC? I can't seem to find any answers to that.

Mike.

--

Mmmm......sacrelicious.

Re:I have to ask... by jrcamp · 2006-10-03 10:47 · Score: 5, Informative

Because WINE is not an emulator. It's an implementation of the win32 API. Windows binaries are x86 so they have to run on an x86 platform if they are to run natively. That's why you can run 3D games with it--there's no overhead involved so they can run at their native speeds.
Re:I have to ask... by wangmaster · 2006-10-03 10:48 · Score: 1

Wine stands for wine is not an emulator.

It relies on the ability to natively execute x86 code. It's basically a binary compatibility tool consisting of a program loader that loads and executes windows binaries and uses a set of custom native libraries that perform the same function as the DLLs would under native windows. It wouldn't work on PPC architecture since that architecture is not able to natively execute x86 code.

Because of this, you are executing native code, without the performance loss of an emulation layer.
Re:I have to ask... by JazzyJ · 2006-10-03 10:48 · Score: 1

WINE isn't an Emulator - just like it's name says.

It presents a win32 api and binary loader for windows binaries. It doesn't translate the x86 code to anything, it runs it natively and provides the function calls the windows programs expect.

That's why it's intel only. x86 binaries don't just magically run on ppc.
Re:I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:12 · Score: 0

this is half wrong. wine is not an emulator, sure. but the win32api runs on more than just x86. not all windows binaries are x86 binaries.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/ntwrkstn/ reskit/archi.mspx

> Windows NT runs on ... Intel 486 or higher processors, MIPS R4000, Digital Alpha AXP, or PowerPC processors.
Re:I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

>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.
Re:I have to ask... by SanityInAnarchy · 2006-10-03 11:31 · Score: 1

In theory, with a lot of work, they could compile Wine for PPC. I believe the Darwine project did this originally.

And run PPC Windows apps.

Since Microsoft doesn't sell a Windows for PowerPC, this makes Wine+PPC wholly useless. It makes sense if you want to recompile your Windows app with Winelib to run on your Mac, but that's also pretty useless -- if you have the app's source, why not port it properly? Why not write a WXWindows app in the first place?

For running an x86 app on a PPC, you need an emulator, not just Wine. I think it may be possible to run a modified qemu that only runs a single app (not a whole OS, thinks it's part of the native OS, etc), and run Wine under that. It would, however, be at least as slow as, say, VirtualPC or qemu anyway.

--
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Re:I have to ask... by miro+f · 2006-10-03 19:33 · Score: 1

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

of course the room is filled with silence since you only asked for a show of hands

(sorry, couldn't resist)

--
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
Re:I have to ask... by marco_craveiro · 2006-10-04 00:05 · Score: 1

a better reply would have been: "what's the sound of one hand waving?" :-D

WINE Is Not an Emulator by pavon · 2006-10-03 10:49 · Score: 1

WINE is a program that re-implements the windows system libraries, allowing you to run unmodified windows programs, without owning a copy of windows. It is not a hardware emulator, and therefore only works on the platform that the original program was compiled for. And they can't recompile the source to WoW, or MS Office, or any of the other apps, because they don't have the source to those apps. There are people that have gotten WINE to work inside an emulator, but at that point you are better off just running windows itself inside an emulator (like Virtual PC).

Lots of reasons for Crossover by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 10:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Speed by BeeBeard · 2006-10-03 10:55 · Score: 1

So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?

If you hate waiting to boot a whole other OS from inside your OS, then Crossover is the way to go. If you just need a couple of apps to run under Linux, and really don't need the memory overhead associated with running more than one OS at once, then Crossover is again the way to go.

And let's not forget what's mentioned in the post...gaming! Wine/cxoffice/cedega have gotten good enough to where you can run most popular Windows games under Linux with few issues. Last I heard, DirectX with a Windows guest OS under VMWare was still a very sketchy proposition. You certainly can't run most modern 3D games under VMWare.

Gotta love it! by Lumpy · 2006-10-03 11:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

Crossover office and Linux... together making undereducated windows admins STFU once again when they say "but you need windows to run the important applications!"

Under 5.0 I ran EVERY vertical application we had at work perfectly. I demonstrated a 100% functional and far lower maintaince + TCO laptop to management that gained applause and support from everyone except the CTO... he nixed the project claiming compatability issues...

Compatability with his friends who still worked for Microsoft and were his technical advisors.

Oh well, I was able to prove to several people that linux was viable on the desktop :-)

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Gotta love it! by crossmr · 2006-10-03 16:44 · Score: 1

So obviously didn't run project 2003? Outlook 2003? Visio 2003? Crossover is pretty great, but microsoft is getting ready to eventually release the next generation of office apps and it still hasn't fully caught up with the last one.
Re:Gotta love it! by Lumpy · 2006-10-04 00:33 · Score: 1

considering that those projects did not exist at that time? yes. it DID NOT RUN THEM.. but then microsoft Vista does not run Autocad 45, office 2012, or Adobe photoshop CS7. so vista must suck as well.

damn microsoft! when will they get their act together and run software from the future!

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Re:Gotta love it! by crossmr · 2006-10-04 01:04 · Score: 1

THey're only doing 6.0 beta, 5 was the last very. You didn't specify a year or time frame. For all I know this was last year. The fact of the matter is the CURRENT as in today Wine doesn't run those office applications, yet possibly in only a few months the entire next gen of office apps will be out.
Re:Gotta love it! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-06 14:16 · Score: 0

OMG! And we must all rush out and upgrade en-mass as soon as a new version comes out!

Christ. Sometimes I wonder if Apple didn't have the PC market pegged with their Lemmings commercial.

In a few months a next generation of office apps will be out, yes. However, like all prior releases, 99.999% of users will never use a single new feature present in the new generation - unless Microsoft forces them to interact with it. Like they did when they replaced the default help system with Clippy. And we both know how well that went over, don't we?

Stay with your old revision. You're not even coming close to extracting it's full potential as it is. Why don't you wait until you actually NEED a feature the new version has before spending fscking money? I swear, the moment the money isn't coming out of your own pocket book, you're like a bunch of kindergartners running around a candy store with $5000 of credit...
Re:Gotta love it! by crossmr · 2006-10-07 06:48 · Score: 1

Which is how some managers make their decisions. Who cares why people decide to go out and get involved in the next gen of MS Office suite, it doesn't change the fact that Wine/Crossover hasn't caught up to the last one yet. In business if you want to compete you need to stay current. If they're going to fall behind an entire generation, unless they pick things up, they could fall behind even further. As time passes it makes the product less and less attractive. Crossover is potentially a huge business changing product. It would allow some businesses to stay current with their apps and do what they want with their OS.

MOD ABUSE by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:10 · Score: -1, Troll

Sheesh. Ask a legitimate question to spark a useful discussion, and you get labeled Troll. WTF. Some people provided good answers (3-d acceleration, not wanting the full Windows running). I wanted to hear more. What the hell is wrong with that? Someone from Crossover (or maybe just a WINE fanboy) get too pissy at the idea of a fair discussion?

FWIW, my reasons for generally choosing virtualization over API emulation include:

Emulation of a closed API is prone to error - the people writing WINE have done great things, but ultimately they can't know how a call is supposed to behave in every single situation. What if it doesn't work like it was intended, and corrupts my data?
Running under hardware virtualization gives me the benefit of running the real thing (tm). Any bugs in the API are solely the responsibility of MS. More importantly, any undocumented features that programs rely on are guaranteed to work.
The virtual machine gives Windows a sandbox within which it can run. I like having any potential damage from a rogue program contained within that sandbox, rather than giving it access to my entire system.

Can we have a real discussion, or am I wasting my time here?

Re:MOD ABUSE by Paradise+Pete · 2006-10-03 12:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sheesh. Ask a legitimate question to spark a useful discussion, and you get labeled Troll.
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.
Re:MOD ABUSE by mbklein · 2006-10-04 03:27 · Score: 1
- A call is supposed to behave as it is documented to behave.
- Any programs that rely on undocumented features are just asking to break.
- Do you run all your native Mac software in little OS X sandboxes as well, just in case they go all "rogue" on you?
Re:MOD ABUSE by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-10-04 03:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.

Why Crossover/Wine? by Darkforge · 2006-10-03 11:26 · Score: 1

I'm assuming (for this discussion) that you actually want to run Linux/OSX in the first place. [After all, you could just use that Windows license and run Windows (e.g. in dual boot); for running Windows applications, that works pretty well! :-)]

With that said, if you are going to run Linux, the biggest advantages of CrossOver/Wine are:

1) 3D Gaming: Xen/VMWare don't support 3D graphics hardware. (The latest version of VMWare has an unsupported switch you can turn on, but it doesn't work too well.) If you want to use your fancy 3D graphics card in your Windows games under Linux, you'll need CrossOver or Wine or something like it.

2) Performance: CrossOver doesn't emulate or virtualize anything... as a native implementation of the Win32 API, it performs at native speeds. (In some cases, it actually performs faster than real Windows.) This is especially important for gaming, but other applications can also benefit.

3) No boot times (I guess this is just another aspect of performance)

4) You don't have to waste time transferring files from your VM to your real box; one filesystem means the files are right there on your hard drive.

That's the gist of it. Crossover lists out their key differentiators in a much longer table that basically says the same thing.

--

When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!

Goddamnit Mods... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 11:57 · Score: 0

It's funny!

Skype by abigor · 2006-10-03 12:40 · Score: 1

Hey, has anyone tried the Windows version of Skype under Crossover? Skype for Linux sucks - it is ancient and is missing certain features. I use Skype daily for my work, under both Linux and Windows, and I'd love to get the Windows version running under Linux. Does anyone know? I checked the Crossover database, and it's not there.

Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 12:49 · Score: 2, Informative

I've run the Windows version of Skype on Ubuntu under Crossover 5.x. It worked, but not 100% reliably.
Re:Skype by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 02:03 · Score: 0

There's a 1.3 beta for Linux - still old by Win standards (no video) but at least with ALSA support - no more 'problem with sound device' on OSS, yipee!. So I guess that could make it less ancient.

Other people? by nurb432 · 2006-10-03 12:58 · Score: 0, Flamebait

No.. Really? Other people actually exist?

Well, regardless they are worthless waterbags to me, so who cares if they have chosen to use a flawed configuration? I dont care about them, and I am all that matters.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Will crossover Mac spur Windows ports? by Teilo · 2006-10-03 13:16 · Score: 1

Now that the gents at Codeweavers have done such fabulous work (and believe me, running x86 Office natively on a Mac is a HUGE deal for me since I still make lots of money doing Access programming), I wonder if we will see any companies using the OS X port of Winelib. I know that there were a trickle of Windows vendors porting to the Linux version of Winelib (Corel comes to mind), but let's face it: OS X has a vastly larger chunk of the desktop market than does Linux. (No criticism here from me; I use all three all the time.)

--
Mir tut es leid, Menschen daß Einfältigfehlersuchenbaumfolgendenaffen sind.

Re:Will crossover Mac spur Windows ports? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-05 01:30 · Score: 0

(No criticism here from me; I use all three all the time.)

Funny that you had to qualify the perfectly factual statement that Mac's have a larger desktop market share than Linux so the Slashfag fanboys wouldn't mod your post into oblivion.
Re:Will crossover Mac spur Windows ports? by Monsuco · 2006-10-08 19:02 · Score: 1

OS X has a vastly larger chunk of the desktop market than does Linux.
Not really, Linux has quickly gained on OSX, though I think if I remember right, if you count BSD (other than OSX or Darwin) then Linux has about 3-4% of the global OS market, while Mac has about 5-6%, not too big a difference.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat

No CrossOver for me! by Ice+Wewe · 2006-10-03 13:40 · Score: 2, Insightful

This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed.

Re:No CrossOver for me! by fuzz6y · 2006-10-03 14:49 · Score: 1

I guess you'll need one of those things that Wine Is Not.

--
If you're going to be elitist, it would help to be elite.
Re:No CrossOver for me! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 15:17 · Score: 0

So wait a minute. You mean to tell me you bought a Mac KNOWING it didn't have an Intel processor, and subsequently wouldn't be able to run new programs written for OSX x86, and you expect a handout from Apple to support old hardware?

Oops, that's the argument people use for features on new iPods. My mistake.
Re:No CrossOver for me! by GauteL · 2006-10-03 21:57 · Score: 1

"This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed."

Are you any more screwed since Crossover Mac came out? Wine/Crossover is a reimplementation of the Win32 API, it is not an emulator, and as of such will not emulate the x86 processor for you.
Re:No CrossOver for me! by Luscious868 · 2006-10-05 01:34 · Score: 1

This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed.

Most people with PPC Macs were screwed the day Apple announced they'd be transitioning to Intel.
Re:No CrossOver for me! by Monsuco · 2006-10-08 19:04 · Score: 1

Darwine works on PPC with aid from the QEMU emulator, but things will only run at 20% normal speed.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat

Limitred support for stuff not on Mac already by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 15:16 · Score: 0

Such as Publisher and Access (not that I WANT to run them, but I getr the need to from time to time at work.)

Wine bug 6373: Ableton Live 6 doesn't run by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 15:41 · Score: 0

I filed
http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6373
for this.

Bragged about no Intel CPU ... by AHumbleOpinion · 2006-10-03 16:48 · Score: 1

You mean to tell me you bought a Mac KNOWING it didn't have an Intel processor ...

"Knowing" is such an understatement. They bragged about it, revelled in their architectural superiority, ... ;-) As someone who develops for Windows and Mac I can't help but be amused by the Mac users new found love for Intel (deja vu for when IBM moved from satan incarnate to PowerPC partner a decade+ ago). Straining to keep a straight face at every "OMG, this is so fast ...".

Re:Bragged about no Intel CPU ... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 07:37 · Score: 0

It might be honest to note that the intel CPUs of today are not the same ones that were available for use when Apple chose to use the PowerPC architecture.

Things have changed a lot in the past couple of years.
Re:Bragged about no Intel CPU ... by AHumbleOpinion · 2006-10-05 17:48 · Score: 1

It might be honest to note that the intel CPUs of today are not the same ones that were available for use when Apple chose to use the PowerPC architecture. Things have changed a lot in the past couple of years.

Yes and no. The PowerPC was generally 25-30% faster than the older contemporary Intels when you compared against an Intel of the *same* clockrate. However those Intels were available at far greater clockrates. Hence all the carefully prepared and choreographed comparisons where Apple in the G3 era used 486 optimized code on the Pentium systems, in the G4 era used non-SSE code on SSE equipped Pentium 4 (or was it III ?) systems, in the G5 era used an inferior Pentium compiler, ... Now, there are applications where the PowerPC genuinely kicked ass and really did run two to three times faster (I worked on one of these, computation chemistry), but not as often as Apple marketing would have you believe.

About OpenOffice... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 18:27 · Score: 0

I can do things with that which are impossible in MS-Office.

And on almost any platform.

Why would I want to kneecap myself (and bankrupt myself) by picking up MS-Office again?

Oh... that's right! I wouldn't!

WP8 support by gomadtroll · 2006-10-03 18:58 · Score: 1

Who gives a s$$t about game support or MS Office support. I can run OpenOffice on Linux just fine, the better solution is to run WP. Until that happens it is a waste of time to use Wine.

love greg

Fuck off you moron by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-03 19:08 · Score: -1, Troll

Parallels needs a full windows, ya dumbass

CrossOver and Windows by falconwolf · 2006-10-03 19:27 · Score: 1

It seems that Crossover targets people already running windows apps, and thus already with a windows license (okay, not all people have one, but go with me on this). So, if I have a Windows license (and I do), what would be the incentive to go with something like Crossover, when I can use VMWare or Xen for zero cost, and not worry about compatibility of any of my applications?

The computer I'm typing this on now is an HP PC running Windows ME, so it's old. I recently bought a new PC running Linux and I plan on getting a MacBook Pro when Apple releases it with the Intel Merom Core 2. With CrossOver I will be able to run my Windows apps if I wanted, the only one I know of I want to run is XMLSpy. Now if there were a Linux and a Mac app that is comparable I'd get them but I've searched and haven't found any so I can run XMLSpy in CrossOver without buying Win200 or WinXP. In case you say I could just use WinME in an emulator, I couldn't as the PC came with a recovery disk and not WinME. Also with CrossOver I don't have to deal with Activation, which is why I decided to get the Linux box and a MacBook instead of a Windows PC, or WGA, or my computer phoning home. Another thing with CrossOver is that there isn't as much a performance penalty with CrossOver as there is running Windows in an emulator. Or at least I wouldn't think there were, I haven't seen any stats comparing them so I don't know, but with CrossOver besides the app there's only CrossOver and the host OS whereas running Windows in VMWare or another app you're also running Windows.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

CrossOver or Parallels by falconwolf · 2006-10-03 20:01 · Score: 1

I also use Parallels for those 1 or 2 Office type application I have left that I need Windows for.

Why run Windows in Parallels for one or two Windows apps when you can run those apps in CrossOver? I'm using Windows now but I recently got a Linux box and am planning on getting a MacBook Pro soon. The only apps I know I will want to run on both are XMLSpy and IE so it's easier and cheaper to run them in CrossOver than in Windows running in Parallels.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

running Windows on architectures other than Intel by falconwolf · 2006-10-03 20:12 · Score: 2, Informative

Windows USED to run on other architectures, but nobody cared, so it was dropped.

Also Windows apps weren't supported on other systems. I got a DEC Alpha running NT 4 and the only commercial app I was able to install was Borland C++ Powerbuilder. I found it weird I got more shareware apps installed than commercial apps.

Falcon

--
Should there be a Law?

One word by nurb432 · 2006-10-03 22:41 · Score: 1

'darwine' ( go look it up ).

Codeweavers could have tried the same concept, instead of forgetting about a rather large potential user base.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:One word by Ash-Fox · 2006-10-04 21:44 · Score: 1

Codeweavers could have tried the same concept, instead of forgetting about a rather large potential user base.
Or they could continue help improving Wine rather than support a constantly decreasing group of users.

--
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.

My Experience by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · 2006-10-04 02:31 · Score: 3, Informative

So have a brand new Intel-based MacBook work gave me, partly so I can consolidate my workstations. The number one Windows program I need to run is Adobe Framemaker. My options seem to be CrossOver and Parallels. Crossover, at first blush, looks ideal for me, since I don't want the overhead of a full Windows install, or the expense of another Windows license (sure it's the company's money, but I have stock options to think of). Also, Framemaker is on the very short list of programs actually supported on the mac version.

So I download both solutions as trials and set them up, or try to. You see, Crossover claims support for Framemaker 7.1, but Adobe only sells version 7.2 these days. Well, will that really make a difference? Apparently so. It fails to install in a bottle designed for Framemaker 7.1. It fails to install in generic bottle for either Win98 or WinXP. The support forums don't have any info and no one else seems to have tried this yet. I'd submit my own comment there, but who wants to make an account for software they aren't even going to use?

Option two was Parallels which seems to be working just fine, on the other hand. Maybe once Crossover is out of beta I'll give it another try, but my brief trial does not fill me with hope. Oh, and another thing, Crossover seems a bit too intrusive for me. Even after I quit it, a process was left running that brought up a dialogue whenever I inserted a Windows CDROM (until I killed it). For some reason that sort of thing really bugs me.

Great! But... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-04 05:01 · Score: 0

I had great success with Visio 2003 and Outlook 2003 running in Crossover on my MacbookPro. But I could never get any of the application service packs to install. Anyone have any success in getting Outlook service pack working? I need it becuase it fixes rpc/https issues which is required for my office. Also Visio service pack is a major plus if I can get it installed.

Re: Great! But... by arachnoprobe · 2006-10-07 22:26 · Score: 1

I don't know exactly what you are doing with Visio, but in general, there is a mac-based solution to it: "OmniGraffle" (http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omnigraffle /) works great. It even has Visio im-/export and is not as expensive as one could think. All my windows-bound colleagues envy me.

Mac users and Linux users and beta software by Monsuco · 2006-10-08 19:18 · Score: 1

I doubt codeweavers will be as well recieved by the OSX crowd as by the Linux crowd. The OSX crowd likes Mac because it is cool looking and everything works out of the box, the Mac way. The linux crowd likes to tweak and adjust and fine tune their software, and many know a great deal about PCs, and like to do stuff like this. Wine is still early in development, and many Mac users wont like the fact that OMG, you must change a few settings and perform DLL overrides to get some things to work and it wont have a nice aqua feel to it. Many linux users will happily do this. Thus I bet WIne will fair better with Linux than DarWine will with OSX.

--
The Gospel according to lolcat

Re: Great! But... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-10-09 03:38 · Score: 0

People that offer Omnigraffle or ConcpetDraw as an alternate solution to Visio simply have NO CLUE what Visio does, nor how strong an application it is.

Believe me I have tried many times to live within the confines of OmniGraffle or ConceptDraw and both apps are absolutely horrible to use in comparison to Visio. Visio is a fact of life for people like me. There is nothing out there that comes close to its abilities and its ease of use. As a network docmentation tool, or as a project documentation tool for a Pro-Services delivery consultant there is nothing currently on the market that comes close to visio. Another point that many people seem to ignore or forget is that Visio files are often required by my clients. I cannot send them OmniGraffe or ConceptDraw files. They all use Visio. I need to be able to provide them work product in a standard format that all my clients use daily. Visio is it!

The good news Visio works GREAT under CodeWeavers Crossover for OSX, but I do need the SP's installed and they are not currently able to install properly.

Slashdot Mirror

Public Betas For CrossOver Mac and Linux

183 comments