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."
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
Because parallels requires you run a complete copy of Windows, where as wine doesn't.
Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.
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.
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?
I don't know why people bother ...... when Parallels just works.
...Half Life 2?
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
Come on, what do you expect? Of course it won't work on G4's. Wine stands for Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Mike.
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
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.
You could check the Wine Application Database and see if it's listed. Not sure if Crossover has an equivalent.
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.
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.
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.
I've run the Windows version of Skype on Ubuntu under Crossover 5.x. It worked, but not 100% reliably.
WINE doesn't work on PowerPC machines because WINE doesn't translate instructions, only function calls.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed.
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
Yes it does. It emulates the video card, sound card, usb controller, etc. It just doesn't emulate the processor.
Yes, Crossover Office also has an application database, although it's called a "Compatibility Center".
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.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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.
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.