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.
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.
Well, *apparently* you can get banned [infernix.net] 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.)
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 h
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.
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...
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.
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 [vmware.com], but it doesn't work too well.) If you
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.
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
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.
>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.
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.
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 ru
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
by Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday October 03 2006, @05:50PM (#16298903)
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.
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:-)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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. Envir
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 ca
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,
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.
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.
Valve's anti-cheat system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a go!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...(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.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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 h
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Speed (Score:2)
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 f
Why Crossover/Wine? (Score:2)
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 [vmware.com], but it doesn't work too well.) If you
I sort of get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re:I sort of get it... (Score:5, Funny)
You are truely a convert
Parent
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have to ask... (Score:5, Funny)
Mike.
Re:I have to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
running Windows on architectures other than Intel (Score:3, 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.
FalconWINE Is Not an Emulator (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Lots of reasons for Crossover (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Gotta love it! (Score:3, Interesting)
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
My Experience (Score:4, 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.
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I use and enjoy parallels, but there is plenty of room for alternative approaches.
Parent
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
...Half Life 2?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. Envir
Re: (Score:3, 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 ca
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Crossover Office also has an application database [codeweavers.com], although it's called a "Compatibility Center".
Re: (Score:2)
While I think that Wine is able to run those audio apps,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and i could care less what the f-ing acronym means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Intel Mac Only (Score:5, Informative)
Parent