Wine Goes 64-Bit With Wine64 385
G3ckoG33k writes "Wine (Wine Is Not an Emulator) is a popular way to run Windows programs on Linux, and it has an impressive compatibility list. After 15 years of development it reached version 1.0 a few months ago. Now, Wine developer Maarten Lankhorst has succeeded in running 'Hello World' in 64-bit, natively! The 64-bit variety is unexpectedly named Wine64."
Re:GCC changes (Score:4, Informative)
Support for Microsoft's ABI no doubt.
Re:GCC changes (Score:5, Informative)
Judging from this post [gmane.org], it looks like the changes involved support for mixed Windows/Linux calling conventions on x86-64 (i.e. specifying on a per-function basis whether to use the Windows or Linux calling convention).
Re:GCC changes (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions [wikipedia.org]
See "Microsoft x64 calling convention"
Re:PowerPC arch? PlayStation 3? (Score:5, Informative)
Don't hold your breath, because WINE Is Not an Emulator. Unless you've got some PPC Windows programs around, that is. It doesn't emulate the x86, just intercepts the OS and library calls.
Re:PowerPC arch? PlayStation 3? (Score:5, Informative)
Getting Wine to run on a processor architecture not native to Windows would require emulating an x86 processor. Say it with me: Wine Is Not an Emulator.
Re:PowerPC arch? PlayStation 3? (Score:2, Informative)
You can use Wine's libraries to recompile Windows applications to run on other architectures, such as PowerPC. But you can't use it to run unmodified Windows binaries on those, since they are native x86 code and an x86-emulator is beyond the scope of WINE. It's chiefly is focused on implementing the APIs.
Re:LUK (Score:2, Informative)
Meh. You can use unmodified Windows libs in WINE too..
Yes. Thank you for stating the obvious. However, like anyone who would fine Wine useful, Artem obviously cares just as much about speed and compatibility as he would being able to run a program without genuine libraries. As he stated, the overhead is a problem. From my experience, a 4+ second delay launching a single executable is simply not acceptable.
Re:LUK (Score:3, Informative)
Really, A 4+ second delay?
Wine is easy to setup now (winecfg is gui based.) Maybe you should check your setting.
Programs usually open as quick or quicker than running it in windows (comparing from work and virtual box but I would notice a 4 second wait on apps.)
Re:LUK (Score:5, Informative)
ReactOS [reactos.org]
The general idea is similar to what you are looking for. It's nowhere near finished and they have been working on for god knows how long, but who knows. Someday perhaps.
Re:LUK (Score:3, Informative)
Re:PowerPC arch? PlayStation 3? (Score:3, Informative)
You're looking for the Darwine project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/darwine/ [sourceforge.net]
Ironic (Score:2, Informative)
The highest voted productivity app was Flash.
Not to far down was Microsoft Money 2004 plus a whole bunch of (Installer Only) entries.
Think of the leaps forward Linux would be if the developers of Wine realized how pointless Wine is (should have figured it out about 8 years ago when VMware came out) and spent their skill developing programs that could compete with mainstream applications.
Re:Wine64??? (Score:2, Informative)
Now that's funny.
Re:Thank God. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:GCC changes (Score:2, Informative)
or just use CodeWeavers CrossOver. (Score:5, Informative)
Which supports all of the above [codeweavers.com] for a small cost.
Any dollar NOT spent on Microsoft makes the world a better place.
Re:LUK (Score:5, Informative)
It's good to be the king!
Re:Who really uses it though ? (Score:2, Informative)
Why would you need to run MSIE 7 or even 6 and Office 2007 when you have wonderfull Open Source apps that do the same and far better !
I respect Photoshop because some people really base they work on it and it has no FOS replacement, but I really think GIMP is better just for supporting Python xcrypts.
Re:LUK (Score:3, Informative)
Or, if you don't like compiling things for days, start with Ubuntu-minimal or Debian, and add packages you need. It will start barely bootable, and it's up to you to install the rest.
Re:WHY?? (Score:3, Informative)
Games don't need >4GB memory addressing most of the time.
Most don't, but some do. By default, Windows uses a 2GB/2GB split. That means that an application can't use more than 2GB of RAM before it gets into trouble.
Supreme Commander is an RTS game that is rather CPU intensive. It does a lot of simulation that a lot of other games don't bother with (such as doing actual 3D hit detection on every single bullet fired by every single unit). It'll fully saturate even a decently powerful dual core processor. And it also is a heck of a RAM hog.
When Supreme Commander hits that 2GB limit, it crashes. This actually became a rather large problem, especially under Vista. Now, for Vista, it turned out that Windows was allocating the virtual VRAM out of the application's 2GB allotment, often bringing the actual available memory down to 1.5GB or less (which caused frequent failures in most larger games).
Anandtech actually did an article on that, and Microsoft eventually released an update for Windows that moved the virtual VRAM out of the application's memory space to deal with the problem. However, that doesn't completely fix the issue; you've still got that 2GB limit.
And so, there are ultimately two solutions to the problem. One, is you tell Windows to switch the user/kernel split from 2/2 to 2.5/1.5 or something similar. That gives SupCom another gig to play with, which should resolve the issue in the majority of cases. Problem is, Windows doesn't always like that, so there can be side effects (BSoDs). Windows also won't boot at the 3/1 split used by Linux. This solution does require patching the SupCom EXE, though, to enable large addressing.
The other solution is to run SupCom on a 64-bit installation of Windows. There, a 32-bit application is allowed to use the full 4GB, which is enough to not run into the issue. The same modified executable as above can then be used.
Re:or just use CodeWeavers CrossOver. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: impressive compatibility list (Score:3, Informative)
Then again, I guess nvidia & fglrx alone will be enough to make a majority of users.
We're working on that, by the way.
Re:LUK (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WHY?? (Score:3, Informative)
Agree with the Win6.5 comment, though.
Gentoo has great documentation (Score:3, Informative)
It's documentation is one of the bests among distros. They cover not only installation, but deep customization and administration too.
Every Linux/Unix admin should read/install this at least once.
Re:bad move (Score:3, Informative)
It has nothing to do with pins dude. The TLB on just about every AMD64/IA64 chip can do a full 64 bits. The OSs are just written by people with no vision. It's not uncommon to address 1TB of physical memory on very high end servers. That's 40 bits right there. Now imagine you're building a nice big cluster of these machines. You want to assign a different address to every byte of physical memory. You may not be able to afford more than 1024 machines right now, but you'd sure like to in the future. That's 50 bits we're up to. How about assigning a different address to every bit in secondary storage? Them Google folks have 200 petabytes of storage space right? That's about 58 bits of address space. It's not hard to imagine that doubling every 12 months for 8 years..
Re: impressive compatibility list (Score:3, Informative)
Um, winelib and GTK are both LGPL. You can port a proprietary Windows app to Linux using wine, or you can port it to Linux by changing it to GTK. You can even pay Nokia (Trolltech) and buy a Qt license and port your software to use that. Then it would work on Windows, Mac and Linux, using the same toolkit.
If you pay Nokia, you get support for Qt with an extremely good track record of fixing critical bugs - much better than the turnaround for MS to fix API bugs.
Re: impressive compatibility list (Score:3, Informative)
What nonsense. GPL doesn't have any restrictions on use.
Stop your bullshit.
Re: impressive compatibility list (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the leader of the project has already stated that they have no intention of fully "emulating" (for lack of a better word) Win32.