Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Wine Software Operating Systems Windows Linux IT

Wine 1.0 — Uncorked After 15 Years 638

Posted by timothy
from the flows-freely dept.
pshuke writes "After 15 years of development, Wine version 1.0 has been released. Wine is an Open Source implementation of the Windows API on top of X, OpenGL, and Unix. While perfect windows compatibility has not yet been achieved, full support for Photoshop CS2, Excel Viewer 2003, Word Viewer 2003 and PowerPoint Viewer 2003 have been among the goals prior to the release. For further information about supported applications, head over to the appdb. Get it (source) while it's hot."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wine 1.0 — Uncorked After 15 Years

Comments Filter:
  • by Toreo asesino (951231) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:00PM (#23825307) Journal
    ...how many applications will state "Designed for Windows XP, Vista, and Wine 1.0" as a supported platform. That will be the metre stick for success IMHO.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cybrthng (22291)
      How about NONE? Wine doesn't have a "logo" nor a certification program. Being 1.0 release as well means it would be premature for a developer to market towards it (thus accepting liability for what could be shortcomings in the WINE system itself)
      • by SirMeliot (864836) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:12PM (#23825633)

        And of course such a program would be pointless anyway. If 'Designed For Windows' apps don't work under Wine then Wine itself has failed its objective.

        • Not really (Score:5, Interesting)

          by an.echte.trilingue (1063180) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:37PM (#23826291) Homepage

          And of course such a program would be pointless anyway. If 'Designed For Windows' apps don't work under Wine then Wine itself has failed its objective.

          IIRC, Wine's objective is to give software vendors a set of libraries to compile their Windows software against so that it will run under Linux, not necessarily run all windows software natively in Linux. The idea is that if it is so simple to do, people like Adobe will release a Linux version of Photoshop compiled against Wine.

          So actually, getting products to say that they are "compatible with Wine 1.0" is the goal. That is also the reason that they are releasing: it gives vendors a stable branch to work with.
          • Re:Not really (Score:5, Informative)

            by linuxrocks123 (905424) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @01:24PM (#23827329) Homepage Journal
            Actually, the original purpose was dual: they wanted to provide a way to natively run Windows binaries, and also provide a method for porting Win32 applications to Linux. Both efforts are still ongoing, but there's never been much uptake for the porting approach. WordPerfect 2000 for Linux was the flagship success of the porting project, and it was years ago (and the native WordPerfect 8.x was better anyway). I think it's fair to say that the main goal of Wine at this point is to provide a method to run Win32 applications natively in Linux, and that a secondary goal is to provide a porting library.
        • by mdielmann (514750) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @01:30PM (#23827453) Homepage Journal

          And of course such a program would be pointless anyway. If 'Designed For Windows' apps don't work under Wine then Wine itself has failed its objective.

          I disagree. What that would mean is that software producers have tested against the platform, and certified it as a working alternative. That would be a level of awareness that has yet to be seen. It's also no different than having both XP and Vista, or only one, listed on the box. And that's besides the publicity that Wine would get.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Firehed (942385)
        Premature? For a product that took a decade and a half to reach 1.0, I'm not sure that's the correct word.
      • by MighMoS (701808) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:35PM (#23826237) Homepage
        Wine doesn't have a logo? I'd send you a link, but the website is down. Oh wait! All I had to do was scroll up to see it ON SLASHDOT!
      • by Hyppy (74366) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @02:41PM (#23828671)
        Let me summarize the last few posts in line-by-line format for you.

        How about NONE?
        Perhaps not commercial applications, yet, but many open source and freely distributed applications do. Case in point: uTorrent.

        Wine doesn't have a "logo"
        Did you miss the Wine logo on its front page? Or on the top of the story?

        nor a certification program.
        Wine's AppDB [winehq.org] begs to differ

        Being 1.0 release as well means it would be premature
        Over a decade of development, and its premature?

        for a developer to market towards it (thus accepting liability for what could be shortcomings in the WINE system itself)
        Like that stopped developers or even hardware vendors from marketing for WindowsME.
      • by bberens (965711) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @03:33PM (#23829511)
        I can name 1 app that advertises that it runs under wine. It's called Picasa, and that's produced by one of the largest firms in the industry. Thanks for playing though.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by cerberusss (660701)
      The chaps at Sparx Systems make software and have designed their UML tools to be compatible with Crossover Office, the commercial Wine variant: http://www.sparxsystems.com/support/faq/ea_on_linux.html [sparxsystems.com].

      For others, I would advise to check whether your favorite application is in CodeWeaver's compatibility database [codeweavers.com]. This database is maintained pretty well.
    • by The MAZZTer (911996) <megazzt@gmail . c om> on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:24PM (#23825993) Homepage

      uTorrent already does, last time I checked.

      I was debugging a Half-Life crash once and I noticed it checks the registry for Wine keys while starting up, probably for compatibility hacks.

    • by QBasicer (781745) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:25PM (#23826001) Homepage Journal
      uTorrent does, and lists Wine first.
    • by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:29PM (#23826091)
      how many applications will state "Designed for Windows XP, Vista, and Wine 1.0" as a supported platform. That will be the metre stick for success IMHO

      Quite a few in the non-commerical areana already do list Wine/XP/Vista etc...

      However,Wine may be a little late to the game. Virtualization will give us all the features we once needed Wine for if done properly.

      The other problem with Wine is the evolution of the Win32/64 API, and how it is slowly being replaced. Vista API technologies are not even on the radar, and have the potential to shake up the next generation of application development. (Search Channel9 on WPF .NET 3.5 SP1 for some interesting demos of how far WPF has already gone in just a year.)

      Microsoft sees a movement away from Win32 before too long, and even current applciations a lot of developers are working on projects that stretch from generic Win32 to fully hybrind Win32/WPF/DirectX all in one application.

      If Virtualiation doesn't solve the divide, we still have Wine and Mono, and for any future, some of the backend of the current Linux kernel will need to extend to handle hardware with the same levels of abstraction, or shoving DX to OpenGL will not be enough when some of the core aspects of WPF is based around 3D UI that uses aspects of the OS to schedule and manage the 3D aspects so that two applications don't fight for 3D GPU resources, and currently only Vista's design allows for this.

      (Didn't mean for this post to go negative, as there is a congrats to the Wine peeps in order, and even if Wine translation doesn't last forever is meeting a lot of people's needs now.)

      • by PRMan (959735) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:45PM (#23826471)

        But Wine and Mono don't require a commercial license and virtualization does. So while it may "seem" the same while running the application, there is a cost difference (unless you are pirating Windows).

      • by SanityInAnarchy (655584) <ninja@slaphack.com> on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:58PM (#23826815) Journal
        There's a cost difference with virtualization. There's also a difference in boot times (2-5 seconds with Wine vs a whole XP boot with virtualization), in performance (wrapped FS API is very likely faster than virtual hard disk on top of a real FS, for instance), and in RAM usage (duh).

        Vista API technologies are not even on the radar, and have the potential to shake up the next generation of application development. (Search Channel9 on WPF .NET 3.5 SP1 for some interesting demos of how far WPF has already gone in just a year.)
        If WPF .NET is the future, Mono is already on that job -- and Mono can, in theory, be better than Wine, as .NET was at least half-assedly designed to be portable.

        Keep in mind, also, that there's a whole class of people who only need one or two killer apps to work. Sometimes it's something recent (Photoshop); often it's something like an old version of QuickBooks, or some obscure app that no one makes anymore. So if Wine runs legacy apps well, that's a very good start.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by linuxrocks123 (905424)
        Virtualization still requires running actual Windows, just inside an emulator. WINE allows running Windows programs without doing that.

        OpenGL isn't in the Linux kernel right now; it's done through an X11 library. That could be extended if it's needed, but I'm not sure it is; it's possible to play Q3 in Linux while also running Compiz.
  • by Ash-Fox (726320) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:01PM (#23825339)
    By deleting the incomplete msxml dlls and setting winecfg's settings to use the native versions, then installing microsoft xml..

    You can install and run Microsoft Office 2007.

    I do find it a little disappointing that Wine didn't set getting Office 2007 working out of the box as a goal for 1.0, as it really currently just relies upon finishing two DLLs.
    • by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:03PM (#23825403)
      Some would consider not running Office 2007 to be a feature.
      • by djdavetrouble (442175) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:29PM (#23826105) Homepage
        This is funny and true. As a desktop admin, there is nothing harder than
        getting someone to take the time to learn a new application. Even worse
        is asking someone to relearn the same application that they have been using
        for over a decade. 2007 completely changes the user interface, which
        is not a good thing for the target audience: people that use computers for
        document editing. All I hear is people wishing for the "old toolbars" back.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:48PM (#23826539)
          It's not necessarily the toolbars we document processors/writers/editors miss in 2007--it's the hot keys and the functions usable from the keyboard through drop down menus. In spite of MS's assurances that those haven't been changed, many many have been. Not to mention the whole thing works damned inconsistently from the keyboard.

          In this end of things typing speeds above 75 wpm are a matter of course; at that speed, taking your hands off the keyboard to use a mouse is a big productivity hit. Taking that hit plus the hit necessary to relearn an interface? Sorry, but I have deadlines to meet.

          The most galling thing about it is MS's hubris (yes, I know, par for the course). They could have at least put in the ability to switch between the old and new interfaces to ease the transition and allow user choice. So confident were they that the new interface was better, that they forced us to make an either/or choice. If I had both, I could use the old interface when I had to and spend some time every day learning the new one. Instead it decreased our productivity.

          Thanks guys...this is the worst call since they changed the help system to an online web-imitative help system.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Phyrexicaid (1176935)

      By deleting the incomplete msxml dlls and setting winecfg's settings to use the native versions, then installing microsoft xml.. You can install and run Microsoft Office 2007. I do find it a little disappointing that Wine didn't set getting Office 2007 working out of the box as a goal for 1.0, as it really currently just relies upon finishing two DLLs.

      Sad to say, but probably because

      7.0.0 CrossOver Linux - June 17, 2008
      * New application support:
      o Office 2007 (Including Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and limited Outlook)

      I'll still be buying a copy though.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:16PM (#23825773)
      I do find it a little disappointing that Wine didn't set getting Duke Nukem Forever working out of the box as a goal for 1.0!

      I predict a multitude of such responses- "Wine 1.0 shouldn't have been released until it could run..."

      It would be interesting to know what factors determined that it was ready for 1.0 release. Personally, I suspect it was a rounding error (perhaps they were using Excel in Wine 0.91 and it accidentally rounded up to version 1.0).
    • by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:28PM (#23826081) Journal
      I find it a little disappointing that they couldn't fix bug #6971 [winehq.org]. That's a vast quantity of games that are unplayable because they won't warp the mouse from one side of the screen to another when it hits the edge. They won't even mark it as a high severity bug, even though it meets the qualifications (makes many applications unusable), it's one of the most duplicated bugs, and it's one of the most highly voted bugs.
  • by Tetsujin (103070) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:02PM (#23825353) Homepage Journal
    Holy shit!
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:02PM (#23825365) Homepage Journal
    Even Microsoft cant do that between versions.

    Not slighting them in the least as they have done a Herculean task to get to this point, but i do wish they had made the actual MS office suite a requirement for 1.0, not just the viewers.
  • by Animats (122034) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:02PM (#23825381) Homepage

    The next step is to encourage the makers of UMPCs to ship Wine with their units. Then users can run some of their legacy apps on the sub-$500 machines.

  • by thomasdz (178114) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:03PM (#23825405)
    As I've learned well in the Microsoft world... always wait for the THIRD version.
    I've marked my calendar for June 2038...
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:05PM (#23825463) Journal
    Obviously, sooner is better for actual use; but releasing it on June 30th [microsoft.com] would have been more amusing.
  • by cerberusss (660701) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:06PM (#23825477) Homepage Journal
    Don't forget the main commercial sponsor CodeWeavers [codeweavers.com]. Alexandre Julliard, one of the leading developers of Wine, now works for them. Their main product is CrossoverOffice, which regularly snapshots the Wine branch and then does bugfixing on it. Then they charge $40 for a solid and stable version, and include a GUI to make installing IE and other applications a cinch.

    It's a small shop and very sympathetic. They also read Slashdot. Jeremy, the CEO, is active here as user jeremy_white [slashdot.org]. Befriend him [slashdot.org] to let his comments show up as +5.

    Disclaimer: I'm just a happy customer since version 4 (about 5 years ago).
  • by mgiuca (1040724) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:08PM (#23825531)
    while I wait for you bastards to stop hammering poor mozilla.com.
  • by JKFLBOB (1236488) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:15PM (#23825749)
    I dunno...Personally, I like my wine at room temperature.
  • by hey (83763) on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:16PM (#23825765) Journal
    What a surprise the WINE site is dead as is getfirefox. Victims of their own success.
  • by damn_registrars (1103043) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 17, 2008 @12:34PM (#23826205) Homepage Journal
    Hmm, their webserver appears to be having trouble keeping up with the traffic.

    I wonder if they were running IIS through wine to serve the page?

A language that doesn't have everything is actually easier to program in than some that do. -- Dennis M. Ritchie

Working...