Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Public Betas For CrossOver Mac and Linux 183

Posted by kdawson
from the new-wine-in-mac-bottles dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public Betas For CrossOver Mac and Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by iknowrobocop (934493) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @05:04PM (#16298389)
    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.
    • by joe 155 (937621)
      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.

      Give it a go!
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dwandy (907337)
        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.)
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by WilliamSChips (793741)
          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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by daranz (914716)
      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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jwnewman (255304)
      I've been testing Steam for months now on both my Mac and Linux CrossOver setups. (Same account on both) I have yet to see any problems with being banned. As long as you don't do anything dumb like try and log in with two machines at the same time you should be fine.

      I'd like it if someone from Valve could comment on this though.
  • Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nos. (179609) <(andrew) (at) (thekerrs.ca)> on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @05:08PM (#16298437) Homepage
    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?
    • Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by petard (117521) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @05:19PM (#16298565) Homepage
      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.
      • by koreth (409849)
        I've installed XP on virtual machines (Parallels on my Mac, for example) using my XP license key and it has activated just fine.
        • by petard (117521)
          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.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by chroot_james (833654)
      How did you get to use vmware for zero cost?
    • by mjrauhal (144713)
      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.

      And let's not f

    • 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
    • by RAMMS+EIN (578166)
      In addition to what other people have already mentioned (speed, convenience, less overhead), perhaps security? I don't know if CrossOver gives you better security than real Windows (and I'm convinced I'll never know), but it's just possible.
      • by Laur (673497)
        I don't know if CrossOver gives you better security than real Windows (and I'm convinced I'll never know), but it's just possible.

        Since Wine runs in userland, it is definitely more secure than Windows, especially if you usually run Windows as Admin. Of course, it is probably still possible to run many viruses and trojans, but once you kill Wine they will stop as well.

    • Because CrossOver is so much faster and more convenient that it puts the rest to shame. I have VMWare and use it when I have to. But if I had to choose between one of the two, CrossOver wins hands down.
    • by vandan (151516)
      You don't need a Windows license to run CrossOver. You only need licenses for the products that you are installing into CrossOver - eg MS Office, etc.
    • 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?

      The computer I'm typing this on now is an HP PC running Windows ME, so it's old. I recently bought a new PC running Linux and I p

  • 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.

    With all these improvements, I would have guessed we'd see the end of wine, not just an improvement.
  • by Thumper_SVX (239525) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @05:36PM (#16298767) Homepage
    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.
    • Yeah, cause god knows you can't dual boot into Windows on a Linux computer! Thank god for bootcamp.
    • by mkiwi (585287) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @06:15PM (#16299191)
      Besides, that'll just look UGLY on OSX compared to the rest of the desktop.


      You are truely a convert :-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by nine-times (778537)

      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

    • by Firehed (942385)
      Office is negligable in situations like these. Office 2004 for Mac works great - hell, it's far better than any Windows version I've used. It may be running under Rosetta emulation since it's not a UniBin (last I checked), but so what - 99% of office users just need to type stuff, not do anything that's demanding in the most remote sense of the word. While I agree that OpenOffice would be a great alternative, it was still very iffy last I tried on the Intel Macs, though by the looks if it, it's been impr
      • by MartinB (51897)
        Office 2004 for Mac works great - hell, it's far better than any Windows version I've used.
        Yeah. Except of course for Access. Or when you do actually need Outlook rather than Entourage.
    • I also use Parallels for those 1 or 2 Office type application I have left that I need Windows for.

      Why run Windows in Parallels for one or two Windows apps when you can run those apps in CrossOver? I'm using Windows now but I recently got a Linux box and am planning on getting a MacBook Pro soon. The only apps I know I will want to run on both are XMLSpy and IE so it's easier and cheaper to run them in CrossOver than in Windows running in Parallels.

      Falcon
    • As a followup, and in case anyone's still following this thread:

      Based upon the feedback I received, I went ahead and installed the beta version to test it. Sure, it was nice to be able to launch Office under MacOS (and it ran faster and better than Office 2004...), but I'm still not impressed. The application compatibility is questionable at best and out of the two or three applications I still retain a Parallels Windows XP box for, precisely NONE of them worked. In fact, only one of them would even install
  • by mhore (582354) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @05:39PM (#16298791)
    Why for Intel processors only? Is it that hard to compile their sources for PowerPC? I can't seem to find any answers to that.

    Mike.

    • Re:I have to ask... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jrcamp (150032) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @05:47PM (#16298879)
      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.
    • Wine stands for wine is not an emulator.

      It relies on the ability to natively execute x86 code. It's basically a binary compatibility tool consisting of a program loader that loads and executes windows binaries and uses a set of custom native libraries that perform the same function as the DLLs would under native windows. It wouldn't work on PPC architecture since that architecture is not able to natively execute x86 code.

      Because of this, you are executing native code, without the performance loss of an em
    • by JazzyJ (1995)
      WINE isn't an Emulator - just like it's name says.

      It presents a win32 api and binary loader for windows binaries. It doesn't translate the x86 code to anything, it runs it natively and provides the function calls the windows programs expect.

      That's why it's intel only. x86 binaries don't just magically run on ppc.
    • 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.
  • Gotta love it! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Lumpy (12016) on Tuesday October 03, 2006 @06:08PM (#16299109) Homepage
    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 :-)

    • by crossmr (957846)
      So obviously didn't run project 2003? Outlook 2003? Visio 2003? Crossover is pretty great, but microsoft is getting ready to eventually release the next generation of office apps and it still hasn't fully caught up with the last one.

  • by abigor (540274)
    Hey, has anyone tried the Windows version of Skype under Crossover? Skype for Linux sucks - it is ancient and is missing certain features. I use Skype daily for my work, under both Linux and Windows, and I'd love to get the Windows version running under Linux. Does anyone know? I checked the Crossover database, and it's not there.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      I've run the Windows version of Skype on Ubuntu under Crossover 5.x. It worked, but not 100% reliably.
  • by Ice Wewe (936718)
    This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed.
    • by GauteL (29207)
      "This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed."

      Are you any more screwed since Crossover Mac came out? Wine/Crossover is a reimplementation of the Win32 API, it is not an emulator, and as of such will not emulate the x86 processor for you.
    • This only works on Intel macs, which means that everyone else with a PPC mac is screwed.

      Most people with PPC Macs were screwed the day Apple announced they'd be transitioning to Intel.

  • My Experience (Score:4, Informative)

    by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday October 04, 2006 @09:31AM (#16305323)

    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.

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Working...