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."
GCC changes (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm, it required changes to GCC.
Anyone know why?
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, Interesting)
What are the Windows and Linux calling conventions?
Re:GCC changes (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_calling_conventions [wikipedia.org]
See "Microsoft x64 calling convention"
Kudos (Score:5, Insightful)
For asking about something which you are unfamiliar.
Such an attitude is refreshing, usually you just run into folks like the AC below who are a-holes.
However the link provided down below in this thread is a great place to start reading. Have fun!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux (and other OSes) uses the calling convention as specified and standardized in the original AMD64 design documents by AMD. Microsoft decided to invent their own instead, as usual. Which is a real pity, as the original intent (I believe) was to have a single unified calling convention for the platform from the very beginning.
Wine64??? (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell are we supposed to know what that means?! I would've named it Beer.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Beer Eats Emulations Remains?
Re:Wine64??? (Score:5, Funny)
I think its fine calling it WINdows Emulator 64.
Re:Wine64??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wine64??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wine64??? (Score:5, Funny)
Whoosh64
Re:Wine64??? (Score:5, Funny)
How the hell are we supposed to know what that means?! I would've named it Beer.
If WINE were a Microsoft product, this new 64-bit version would be called WINE32 in order to fit in with the revised Windows system-folder naming standard. The 32-bit version would be renamed to WINO64.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wine64??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How the hell are we supposed to know what that means?!
It's really quite simple...
Wine: the thing that lets you run Windows programs...
64: specifies that it runs on the Nintendo 64
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
As opposed to the usual /. offering of whine with attitude?
LUK (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:LUK (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh. You can use unmodified Windows libs in WINE too.. the point, that you obviously missed, is that you can run Windows apps without Windows libs (or Windows) using WINE.
Re: (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: (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: (Score:3)
I'm not sure if GP is saying this, so I will: I'm not sure where you're getting that 4-second delay from. My Wine does not have it -- apps load as fast or faster than on Windows.
Installers do not, in fact, take hours.
Re: (Score:2)
While i agree, another advantage of Wine is that it also isn't tied to Linux, as is LUK.
Plus it has a bit more history behind it.
Re:LUK (Score:4, Interesting)
you know what would be really cool? a linux distro that focused *only* on wine, and windows programs.
i mean the absolute minimum you could possibly have to get a usable wine session - no underlying desktop environment, no python, no perl, no bsh/zsh/csh, no headers, just the kernel, wine, and popular windows freeware like 7-zip, utorrent, ffdshow, media player classic, dvdshrink, firefox.. a complete replacement for windows that actually runs software that people want and are already familiar with.
no, i don't want to install a 4.5gb distro. i want linux without all the bloat from crap i'll never ever want nor need to run the windows programs i like, and not the painfully different and bizarrely bloated linux versions.
i'd run this in a heartbeat.
how sad and hilarious, right now i use nothing but open source software on windows, and my footprint is MUCH less than linux to do the same. i tried to install the smallest linux distro i could and still get a usable wine session.. 1gb worth of software later i'm up to the point that xp can do with 250mb.
Re:LUK (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:LUK (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'd rather call the distro Cheeze.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh do mod up! Shame that you feel obliged to post AC.
You can quite quickly and easily replace XP+Office with something like Ubuntu and OpenOffice, though. Really not a bad substitute and easy to do, (I've done it for several people). Even the driver support and installation is getting much better.
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: (Score:2)
http://www.reactos.org/en/index.html [reactos.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why they modded you as a troll. -1 ignorant maybe but I don't think you were trolling.
That being said, you can get what you want by doing a LFS or Linux from scratch. You will need at least one shell environment and most likely a desktop environment. It doesn't have to be the somewhat large gnome of KDE. You will probably need the kernel headers too seeing how you will need to compile a few things.
You can probably get already by doing an install of something like Mandriva or whatever and during
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LUK (Score:5, Funny)
I almost forgot about Gentoo. That's probably the best idea of all.
Because of an almost masochistic love for a challenge. I think everyone should at least attempt to role their own kernel and desktop from scratch in an early Slackware type of way. But I think that is just me.
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: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, it's difficult to get a hard drive now less than 80 gigs. Even with an EEE PC, that's still a good 4-8 gigs. Oh noes, 300 megs -- that's enough to hold two Naruto episodes!
If that's what you're wanting, Gentoo isn't going to help you. LFS might, but it'd be kind of pointless -- you'll need much more space to download, compile, unpack, and assemble everything than it would take to simply install that Ubuntu-minimal.
I understand the point is to run a stripped-down system, but as Shikaku says, it's proba
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows drivers tend to include far more crap than Linux drivers. Trivial example: Somehow, every printer manufacturer thinks they need their own special, branded, loaded-with-features control panel tab. On Linux, a printer driver is a PPD -- everything else is done in a printer-independent way. ...On second though, there's 112 megs just in kernel modules on my latest kernel, and it keeps three kernels worth of modules -- there's your 300+ megs right away.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:LUK (Score:5, Informative)
It's good to be the king!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not really. They made "Windows applications compatible" a major advertising point before the very first release, but it certainly didn't mean what GP described (i.e. not running any Linux UI applications at all); and, as I recall, they abandoned the idea very quickly (Wine was much less usable back then).
Re:LUK (Score:4, Interesting)
I run Linux at home and Windows at work, and seem to spend an increasingly large portion of my time on either platform in Firefox. Firefox works better on Windows than Linux. Embedded media that's automatic on Windows gives me a "plug-in needed" notification and a link to a page with nothing useful on it on Linux. I haven't had to do it for a while, but last I remember helper application selection was done in a way that made absolutely no sense on Linux.
Lots of programs have quirky GUI layout and proportion issues on Linux but not on Windows... I think a lot of that has to do with font rendering, which is largely out of the programs' control. But to some degree it's harder in X because there's a better chance that the DPI will be set to what it actually is instead of fixed to one of two allowed artificial values.
Windows GUIs are getting harder to make, though, because the programming style suggested by current VS versions and languages (as compared to old-school VB) is getting more and more complicated, and forcing more stuff into programmers' minds at once instead of less. Not to mention that you have to worry about more imperative concerns now while laying out forms, which really ought to be a declarative process (and mostly is in old VB... more accurately, you don't have to worry about your code being executed in design mode unless you really want it to). I should note that I don't have tons of GUI programming experience, these are just impressions formed from working with a few VB5 projects and a few VS projects at work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If, on the other hand, RAM is short but hard drive space is available, install Puppy Linux or Damn Small Linux.
If, on the other hand, RAM is short and hard drive space is short, you need to find some way of compiling just the modules you need for that piece of hardware. Let me explain why those minimal in
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Recent development versions (1.1.8 and 1.1.9) had some improvements to memory management. Do you know if there still is "quite a big" amount of overhead?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, brilliant, lets all use our windows libraries that we obviously have lying around, obviously have licenses for, and obviously are permitted to by microsoft.
No thanks, wine without windows is what we need.
Does it run (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Does it run (Score:5, Interesting)
...Cygwin? Hah! Tricked you!
As a matter of fact it did [slashdot.org] in 2002, might still be the case.
Huzah! (Score:5, Interesting)
I was going to joke that a game I've wanted to work in Wine for a long time, Astral Masters [astralmasters.com], will still not work, but in a more glorious way.
But that joke felt petty. The truth is, these guys have pulled of something pretty amazing. Congrats, guys.
PowerPC arch? PlayStation 3? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Depending on the app, this might not be a big deal. If all of the interface gobbelty-goo of Word ran native through Wine I don't think that you'd notice much of a performance hit from the non-native bits. I presume it would be similar to the hit taken when running stuff in Rosetta on Intel Macs.
Re: (Score:2)
NT4 ran on the PowerPC, tho there weren't really many apps for it and support was dropped fairly quickly...
Re: (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe that this is also how Executor worked. It's a (now opensourced) Macintosh emulator that worked by translating Mac toolbox and quickdraw calls into native calls, and emulated the Mac's MC680x0 processor for the rest.
In that regard, it's very similar to QuickTransit (Rosetta) or Darwine. While compatibility wasn't perfect, it was enormously faster than Basilisk II.
Executor was eventually largely made irrelevant both by the continuing switch of the Mac to the PowerPC platform, and by the fact that ad
Re: (Score:2)
It works perfectly! It'll run your Windows NT PPC programs flawlessly!
(This is actually as true as it is useless.)
Darwine : Wine for PPC (Score:3, Interesting)
As explained by other /.ers, running Wine on non-x86 architectures would require an additional emulator.
Darwine [sourceforge.net] - a port of Wine to darwin/mac OS X, does indeed feature such an additional layer :
it uses a special mode of QEMU initially designed to run linux-on-linux (i.e.: not emulating a complete virtual machine with a full OS running on it, but just run a program alone inside the emulator and pass it calls to the actual OS outside).
The only problem is that now that Apple have moved to Intel hardware, the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're looking for the Darwine project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/darwine/ [sourceforge.net]
impressive compatibility list (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that impressive, unless all you want to do is game. If adding an application to its compatibility list is just a popularity contest, and it seems that is all that it is, of course the fan boys interested in games will vote the most. Others will just use the 'other' operating system to run applications that they need to use in order to make a living (since they won't be able to outvote fanatic gamers). Linux/Gnu has to relax more, not less, in order to allow people to NOT have to rely on some emulator or flaky reverse engineering to make business tools work. Relax on APIs so that it is easier to port business applications over to Linux. Until that time there will never be a 'year of the Linux desk top'. People just want to use their tools, not build them.
Re: impressive compatibility list (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's great! Because bugs are squashed so much faster and features are tested immediately. It's up to distributions to act like a "buffer" between this and the end users.
Besides, there are absolutely no ABI problems with open-source programs. And if you respond by saying that Linux needs this closed-source binaries then again, you would understand Linux wrong. We manage pretty good ourselves.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, really?
Here's an idea for a Slashdot poll: "how many binary closed-source Linux drivers do you use?"
Then again, I guess nvidia & fglrx alone will be enough to make a majority of users.
Re: (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: impressive compatibility list (Score:5, Insightful)
Games are the most popular things for running in wine, because they are the biggest thing generally missing on the systems that run wine...
For most other types of app there are linux native versions which run better than alien binaries running under wine.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
What nonsense. GPL doesn't have any restrictions on use.
Stop your bullshit.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's BS, and you know it.
They have not yet achieved 100% compatibility with Win32, and therefore it is natural and proper that they need to produce a compatibility list, because that's useful for people who want to know whether such-and-such a program works or not.
Your C++ analogy is nonsensical. C++ has a well-documented specification, and compliance can be proven by listing how well your compiler conforms to the specification; C++ programs are generally written based on the specification, and rarely ta
Re: (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.
Linux is first again... (Score:5, Funny)
good! (Score:2)
Unexpected? (Score:2)
FTA:
The author needs to get out more. If they'd wanted real unexpected, going for Wine9+4i would have been a true eye-opener. It's certainly going to be complex enough...
In the distant future (Score:4, Insightful)
most apps will run on most platforms without extra work. Or so I hope (desktop or notebook, don't see a way to make a destop app fit on a phone w/o work). They'll have an interpreted code, like lisp, which gets compiled (once, not at runtime) for whatever specific platform it's actually running on. It can be fast, doesn't have to be slow this way.
So it won't actually be like a script. Java tried to be this universal gateway, but it just never really took off for real apps like a language should. Various libraries like QT attempted to overcome the problem. Then there is the POSIX standard, which wouldn't be bad if it was really followed.
I just feel it's ridiculous in this day and age being tied to windows/unix/os x/some operating system because of an app made for it. It seems backwards. It's like being tied to route 66 because that's the only road your car will drive on.
Thank God. (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the only reason I gave up on Ubuntu 64. There was a strange bug in Wine to do with application focus that was causing WoW to lose sound occasionally. There was also a patch (which I had no problems applying), but of course I needed to cross-compile to get it to work. I'm really not versed in that enough and so I had no end of problems getting it compiling. My only choice was to wait until the next version of Wine was released and an awesome person would throw it in the Debian repository.
I may give it another shot now if I can ever get push-to-talk working with Ventrilo. :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who really uses it though ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Every time I read about Wine, I shrug and/or roll my eyes. I've tried many times to use it, but it simply does not work for the handful of Windows apps I actually need. I gave it another try just a few months ago, and I was again left high and dry, so I turned yet again to virtual machines. At this point, I have stopped caring about the project.
For the inevitable flamers among you, here's the short list of Windows apps I need, that Wine fails to support:
- Photoshop CS3
- Office 2007
- MSIE 6/7
IE6 runs, sure, but leaks memory like there's no tomorrow, so I have to kill -9 it after a few minutes lest I face a swap-spiral of doom. And don't try to tell me to use The Gimp and OO.o, I don't need "A photo editor" and "An office suite", I need those specific apps because those are the formats my peers and clients use. If it were just me in my little bubble, I'd be quite happy with unbranded alternatives, but my rent doesn't pay itself.
Now one would think that these major apps would be high on the priority list, as I'm hopefully not the only (commercial) web guy trying to use Linux as a serious desktop, and getting them to run perfectly would effectively make Windows redundant for a large number of people, not just web devs. I find it puzzling that Wine can run something like World of Warcraft, but not MS Outlook. Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Warcrack, but it doesn't pay my bills.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Office 2007 actually installs and run here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDmc4fG2AJM [youtube.com] and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48SjVdUTwdo [youtube.com]
Re:Who really uses it though ? (Score:5, Funny)
So it's just like Windows!
Re:Who really uses it though ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Now one would think that these major apps would be high on the priority list, as I'm hopefully not the only (commercial) web guy trying to use Linux as a serious desktop, and getting them to run perfectly would effectively make Windows redundant for a large number of people, not just web devs. I find it puzzling that Wine can run something like World of Warcraft, but not MS Outlook. Don't get me wrong, I loves me some Warcrack, but it doesn't pay my bills.
If you can't use the Linux native alternatives to Photoshop CS3, Office 2007, MSIE 6/7 under Wine you should use Windows, or consider something like the VMware/Parallels simulators. That's what most Linux users I know do. If you simply can't stand the sight of Windows the only other alternative would be OS X where you at least get native CS 3 and MS Office. Wine is a third party implementation of the Windows API created without any help from Microsoft and even the repackaged versions like CrossOver Office [codeweavers.com] don't support MISE and Office 2007 all that well. This should not surprise anybody, for most Linux users Office 2007 and MISE aren't high on the priorities list.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This should not surprise anybody, for most Linux users Office 2007 and MSIE aren't high on the priorities list.
According to Codeweaver's Top Lists [codeweavers.com] Internet Explorer 7 has 294 votes and $3866.44 pledges (rank 3 and 11). Microsoft Office 2007 has 219 votes and pledges of $9026.44 (rank 5 and 1) respectively. I would not call that minor.
Re:Who really uses it though ? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:or just use CodeWeavers CrossOver. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:or just use CodeWeavers CrossOver. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that it doesn't. Let's check their compatibility database:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's like escaping from prison and then spending all your time in a small basement apartment.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds more like 'expectedly' to me....
So you think you can messss with /. ?
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't competing with anything. Wine continues to work better and better.
If Codeweavers could sell a supported working Windows substitute, they could have a hell of a lot bigger market than they do now.
Not a bad move (Score:2)
Consider developing cross platform software when you have a MS Windows based application as your starting point. There are some MS Windows applications that are written to make sure that they will also run with wine - for instance the geophysical program SeiSee. They didn't have to rewrite the whole thing for a linux etc version.
From that perspective it is a very good descision and it makes it a lot easier for individuals or small groups to put together software t
Re:bad move (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree w/ Eric on this one. The shift from 32-bit to 64-bit systems has been darn near seamless as compared to previous transitions. That's a far cry from the 8-to-16 jump or the 16-to-32 jump.
Honestly, most people can't tell that they've shifted from 32-bit to 64-bit. If there wasn't a dialog box or a sticker that told them they'd switched, they wouldn't know.
Now this wouldn't be /. without a bad car analogy. Going from 8-bit to 16-bit was like going from horse-drawn buggies to the early Model Ts--a big change. Going from 16-bit to 32-bit was like going from these early, slow cars to the more recognizable cars of the 30s onward. Cars that actually had starters and drove at reasonable speeds. Each step provided a noticeable difference in the travel experience and it brought with it a whole new round of infrastructure requirements.
Going from 32-bit to 64-bit is like going from a gasoline engine to a hybrid. Sure, it's a change in the underlying mechanism, but it doesn't fundamentally change the driving experience all that much.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually wouldn't be surprised if user space stayed 32 bit (or mostly 32 bit) for a very long time. The one thing Intel got right with the 386 is that its protected mode allowed for a mixture of 16-bit and 32-bit program contexts. AMD continued this tradition with x86-64. It's possible to have a 64-bit kernel with 32-bit user space applications. (Indeed, I've been tempted to set up a Linux machine that way in the past--put a 64-bit kernel under a 32-bit install.)
See, it seems reasonable that a 32-bit
Re: (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. T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bull. The AMD64 TLB only gives you 48 bits for now, partitioned into half for the OS (0xFFFF800000000000 to 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF), and half for user (0x0000000000000000 to 0x00007FFFFFFFFFFF). [wikipedia.org] And I quote:
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Agree with the Win6.5 comment, though.