Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

CodeWeavers Releases CrossOver 6 for Mac and Linux 153

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the like-liquid-happy-in-my-veins dept.
jeremy_white writes "I'm happy to announce that we've shipped version 6.0 of CrossOver, for both the Mac and Linux. We have a full changelog available; highlights are are Outlook 2003 and support for games, notably World of Warcraft and Steam based games. I can attest that World of Warcrac...er craft is the most well tested application we have ever supported. It's exciting to watch the Wine project progress — it's a great and growing community of developers (which is a good thing, as we're now all too busy grinding Honor in Alterac Valley to keep up our pace of contributions :-/)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CodeWeavers Releases CrossOver 6 for Mac and Linux More

CodeWeavers Releases CrossOver 6 for Mac and Linux

Comments Filter:

  • well (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:31PM (#17546578) Homepage
    It's exciting to watch the Wine project progress

    It is, and it's certainly a lot more useful than that other whine project. [petitiononline.com]
  • These people continue to piss me off. They keep coming out with releases that support more and more games, and completely ignore the small business market that's clamoring to run QuickBooks. (Yeah, I know, SQLLedger, etc. are available, but QB is the accounting software used by most accountants, and that's who I need to exchange my data with...) I had high hopes for CodeWeavers 3 years ago, but now I think they're doomed to fail due to bad direction from their management.

    • Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (Score:5, Informative)

      by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:40PM (#17546744)
      but QB is the accounting software used by most accountants,

      I'd say more accountants work with Peoplesoft, SAP, Great Plains, AccPac than QuickBooks. The world is ripe with accounting software out there, and Quickbooks isn't the only thing, not even close.

      Many accountants yes. most? Now you're just talking out your arse.
      • I'll qualify my statement: most accountants who cater to small businesses. Obviously those other packages are more widely used by big firms, but for the small mom & pop businesses, QB is likely the most common.

    • Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (Score:5, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:40PM (#17546754) Homepage Journal
      I don't think I'd ever pledge QB support. That gets you into a position of liability with people's money. You can always use vmware or parallels (depending on what system you're on) to get a full windows environment in which to run quickbooks. Frankly, I wouldn't trust wine for something like that.

      • Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (Score:5, Insightful)

        by curious.corn ( 167387 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:45PM (#17547886)
        No way. All software providers explicitly deny any responsibility for damages deriving from the use of their product. Ever read an EULA? Why would you trust running your business on native windows (at most you could claim a refund for the OS license) and prentend liability from a third party?

        • No way. All software providers explicitly deny any responsibility for damages deriving from the use of their product. Ever read an EULA? Why would you trust running your business on native windows (at most you could claim a refund for the OS license) and prentend liability from a third party?

          Microsoft just tells you that software that works with windows will, well, work with windows. No shit. But if you make a claim that quickbooks will work with wine, that arguably makes you responsible if it doesn't.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by cygtoad ( 619016 )
        I run Quickbooks 2000 with Crossover Office with minimal issues.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by w1mp ( 210200 )
      First quickbooks needs to stop sucking and using ie's xml processing.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by pdbaby ( 609052 )
      Why run the windows version when they sell a native mac version [intuit.com]?
      • I'm guessing he's running Linux, not Mac.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by pdbaby ( 609052 )
        In fact, not only do they have a Mac version today, but they've had a Mac version for over 3 years!
        • Quicken on mac is very different than quicken on windows (the mac version sucks). I wonder if QuickBooks is also different on different OSs.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by grrrl ( 110084 )
        The native Mac version of any Quicken product is only available in the US localisation - no good, for example, for Australian accounting for GST.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MBCook ( 132727 )

      They probably have more clamor for the games. The fact is that most accountant types probably don't care enough about switching to a Mac that they ask for this. They are either stuck on the PC and happy there, or stated on a Mac and use something else.

      You could use Parallels (especially with the new Coherence thing), although I realize that's quite a bit more expensive.

      PS: Tried any of the free Parallels replacements like QEMU or the Cocoa QEMU port?

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Alternate Interior ( 725192 ) *
        I don't think there is a parallels substitute. I've tried numerous virtual machines on Windows and Linux, and some of the old PC emulators in the PowerPC days. Coherence mode puts Parallels so far ahead of anything else. I only adopted Parallels over Christmas but it took less than a day to realize how much better Parallels is than any emulator or even bootcamp. I'm sure I've now been labeled a shill or something, but I'm not. I'm just a guy who happens to be a big fan and has seen what else is out there.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by teletype ( 40064 )

        PS: Tried any of the free Parallels replacements like QEMU or the Cocoa QEMU port?

        Well, it's hardly a Parallels "replacement". It's still considered alpha-quality software, for one thing.

        QEMU by default is a virtual machine emulator. They do have what they call the "QEMU Accelerator", which is available for Linux on x86 and x86_64, which provides proper virtualisation, more akin to what VMWare and Parallels are doing. That is to say, it runs most code on the host processor directly, without emulation, which as you know, slows things down a lot.

        I've been watching the "Q Project" [kju-app.org], which I

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Night Goat ( 18437 )
        That's a good point. If you're using Quickbooks, you're going to be spending a lot of time, maybe even the majority of your time, in Quickbooks. And at that point, who cares what the OS is. You're not dealing with it except as a foundation. Not to mention that you'd lose any support from Intuit by running on Linux. The day you need support from them, you're going to be happy you have it.

        (Intuit's support department blows, by the way. I'm not endorsing it. I have gone through hell every time I have had to ca

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by arkanes ( 521690 )
      They don't ignore small business, they follow the direction of their customers and the community. Quicken works fine under CrossOver, for example. If people want QuickBooks, then more than 12 people should say something. And more than 4 people should pledge something, and more than zero people should post known issues or bugs.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by dopeydad ( 754822 )
        I have pledged, and the last time I looked at their community page, QB was in the top 15 or so applications, and has been for a few years.

    • Several version of QuickBooks are listed as 'bronze' [codeweavers.com], meaning they will at least install and run. If you look under 'known issues,' do you know what you see? Nothing.

      If you want to run QuickBooks under Crossover, try it. If it has a problem, then tell them about it.

      now I think they're doomed to fail due to bad direction from their management.

      Somehow I suspect you're just trolling. If you knew anything about Codeweavers, or had even tried the software, you should know that they determine which applications to support based on customer demand. Granted, some apps are probably too difficult to be worth the effort, which would be a judgment call, but by and large their 'direction' comes from the bottom up rather than dictated by a pointy-hair type.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dopeydad ( 754822 )
        There's no known issues, because no one runs it.

        I'm not trolling -- I actually paid the $39 a couple of years back when it looked like they were making progress. QB runs, but not well -- lots of little graphic glitches and refresh issues that make me nervous when I'm entering financial data...

        So, I have tried. Can I bitch now?

        • The problem... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by DragonWriter ( 970822 )

          There's no known issues, because no one runs it.

          If no one runs it, how can anyone know that it doesn't run?

          I'm not trolling -- I actually paid the $39 a couple of years back when it looked like they were making progress. QB runs, but not well -- lots of little graphic glitches and refresh issues that make me nervous when I'm entering financial data...

          But if you did run it and experienced these issues, why are there no known issues? Is it possible that maybe you didn't report the issues, and are complainin

      • Somehow I suspect you're just trolling. If you knew anything about Codeweavers, or had even tried the software, you should know that they determine which applications to support based on customer demand. Granted, some apps are probably too difficult to be worth the effort, which would be a judgment call, but by and large their 'direction' comes from the bottom up rather than dictated by a pointy-hair type.

        I commented elsewhere about this, but their pledge system makes no sense for business users. Since t

    • Re:And *STILL* no QuickBooks Support (Score:5, Informative)

      by flyingfsck ( 986395 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:21PM (#17547496)
      Uhhh, because QB works? I've been using QB on Wine for many years - ever since Corel Linux, which was hellingone way back, what 2000?
    • If QB is critical to your company then either have a box dedicated to it or dual boot with Bootcamp. The impact of an undetected bug screwing up your financials is, IMHO, too great a risk to warrant using a product such as CrossOver.

      Isn't it worth the few hundred bucks for a low end Windows box plus a second internal HD for backup to be sure your data is safe?

      I like my Mac as much as the next guy but sometimes you just got to go with the most straight forward lower risk solution.
    • I'd rather have support for the mainstream CAD programs like those in the subject or CATIA, Unigraphics....

      I'd love to steer clear of Windows, but I'm just still bound to it sadly :/
      • Tell me about it... I have to help my brother-in-law with his buggy Windows because he HAS to run these software (mostly AutoCAD and SolidWorks, but also CATIA sometimes).

        He didn't even know what SP2 was when I asked him about the updates (argh!)

        I doubt the resource-intensiveness of these software would allow them to run over an emulation level, though.

        If anyone knows equivalent (or close) software that could substitute them, please enumerate them.
    • I ran QB (Pro 2003) under CrossOver for some time, but it's finicky to get it installed there was a certain order to follow and some registry entries to add in manually as I recall. It had a couple of display issues (the buttons at the top of invoices sometimes got partially hidden for example), and sometimes wouldn't start up, you'd have to try several times, but on the whole it worked well-enough to use, and I did so for about 2 years.

      But now I run QB under a VMWare virtual machine which I specifically c

    • These people continue to piss me off. They keep coming out with releases that support more and more games, and completely ignore the small business market that's clamoring to run QuickBooks.

      I think the problem is their pledge system which they use to decide which applications to support makes a lot of sense for home users that would like to run some application, but if not will use something else, but it makes no sense in a business environment. Any business that signs off on promising money to another c

  • OK, so let's say I'm able to get OS X to authenticate against my Windows 2000 Active Directory...will Outlook 2003 have any trouble connecting to our Exchange server, or is that something completely unrelated? I realize that Entourage exists (I have Office for Windows & Mac), but let's say that I would prefer to use Outlook 2003 for add-in support.
    • They're completely unrelated, but you should be able to use Outlook 2003 with your Exchange server just fine, IIRC.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dtfinch ( 661405 ) *
      I had very strong doubts, because Outlook+Exchange integration is an overdesigned house of cards with numerous dependencies, a nightmare for IT admins everywhere, but I decided to search on Google anyways:
      http://toastytech.com/guis/wineo2knotes.html [toastytech.com]
      Looks like they got Outlook 2000 working. They had to copy some rpc related dlls from a real Windows system, among other things.

  • Great Just what we need (Score:5, Funny)

    by Reed Solomon ( 897367 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:42PM (#17546804) Homepage
    This is all part of microsoft's plan to bring Kernel and Driver development to a halt. Mark my words. This can't be good.

  • Heh (Score:2)

    by andreyw ( 798182 )
    Mentioning WoW in the article summary was not the most useful thing ever, considering the native client for OS X (Not Linux, granted... - but if you're mentioning the benefits of Wine on OS X and Linux, pick a piece of software that doesn't have native ports for either platform, duh)

  • Mixed impressions (Score:5, Informative)

    by gsasha ( 550394 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:44PM (#17546832) Homepage
    Just downloaded and installed it. Works OK, will try Office 2003. However, it still has done nothing for international keyboard support :(. Pretty much unusable for me as I use 3 different layouts.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by roscivs ( 923777 )
      Can't you just change layouts using X? (Or whatever desktop environment you have sitting on top of X?) Or does WINE do something funky so that X remapping doesn't take effect inside of WINE applications?
    • Yeah, no love for that - and also, can you use localized, non-English versions of MS Office on it? The Russian version of Office 2003 is a mix of Cyrillic characters in some places and character-substitute boxes in others.
    • I've been using the 6 Beta with Office 2003 for a little while - it works OK except for the one thing I really need - Outook 2003 RPC over HTTPS support. I switched back to Outlook after finally getting sick of Evolution taking 20 minutes to sync and let me start working with messages and it's the last significant app that I have to boot up a Windows VM for. I will have to grab the full release to see if that made it in.
    • Just downloaded and installed it. Works OK, will try Office 2003. However, it still has done nothing for international keyboard support :(. Pretty much unusable for me as I use 3 different layouts.

      +1.

      This is a major problem for me as well: in other layouts than English all I get are "?" symbols when I type. (However, amusingly if I write something in another window and copy&paste it, things work ok.) If they fixed this issue they might get a lot of international interest in their product. But I do

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Thorgal ( 3103 )
        Perhaps you should read the FAQ on their support pages, which details exactly how to get international keyboard working.
        • Thanks, I did read their pages though, even filed a bug. Their fix doesn't work, at least on my system, sadly.

  • Cedega Mashing (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QueePWNzor ( 1044224 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:45PM (#17546850) Journal
    I'm almost completely sure I know why he mentioned WoW: Cedega is advertising it. In case nobody knows: WIne used to have a BSD lisence (open source but not viral.) Transgaming took their code, renamed it Winex/Cedega, closed-sourced their developments, and got WoW to work. There is clearly residual anger, but Crossover has been foucusing on office rather than games, so they've been out of the picture...until now. Cedega will now have honest competition, and where the market share goes, nobody knows! Congrats: Wine must finally be getting somewhere! (It's been long enough)

    • Re:Cedega Mashing (Score:5, Interesting)

      by spiritraveller ( 641174 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @05:55PM (#17547050)
      In case nobody knows: WIne used to have a BSD lisence (open source but not viral.) Transgaming took their code, renamed it Winex/Cedega, closed-sourced their developments

      Last I checked (a while back), WineX was open source. You could install it from CVS, and for a short time, you could install in Gentoo using Portage.

      However, Crossover Office is closed source. It has contributed to the wine project, but it's certainly not covered by the GPL, and the codebase diverged at the point when wine went to the GPL.

      I don't see why there would be anger. They are just two business competing with each other. They both got their start the same way.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Arondylos ( 141298 )
        That's not really true - Cedega discloses their source code for some parts (e.g. their direct3D code), but the license used is not at all an Open Source (or Free Software) license. But ignoring that, some essential parts (like the copy protection implementation) are not provided except in binary form. To be fair, their agreement with the copy protection software company probably doesn't allow source disclosure of those parts.

        Crossover Office does have provide the code used in their version of Wine: have a l
      • There's an open-source version of Crossover also.

        It's called Wine.

        CodeWeavers works on Wine, and sells a paid, supported edition called Crossover. Need proof? Go to winehq.org, and click the "paid support" link

      • You are wrong (Score:5, Informative)

        by Per Abrahamsen ( 1397 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:29PM (#17547640) Homepage
        WineX is free software, Cedega is not. It is a derived product covered by a non-free license. Something the WineX license allows

        Wine is not GPL, it is LGPL, a much more liberal license than the GPL. It allows non-free derived products, as long as the Wine part of the derived product is still LGPL, and replaceable by the user. You can download the source of Wine part of CrossOver (it is no longer called CrossOver Office) by clicking on the Source tab at their home page. You can also get the source code for several other none-Wine components of CrossOver there.

        The two businesses did not get their start the same way, CodeWeavers never made proprietary improvements to Wine. TransGaming did, which is why Wine changed license. CodeWeavers and other contributers were tired of the uneven competition between contributers and leeches that the old BSDL license encoruage. The true genius of the copyleft licenses is not high ideals of the FSF they were created to promote, but that they create a level playground for competing companies to cooperate in. "You can get my contributions, only if I can get yours".

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) *

        Last I checked (a while back), WineX was open source. You could install it from CVS, and for a short time, you could install in Gentoo using Portage. However, Crossover Office is closed source. It has contributed to the wine project, but it's certainly not covered by the GPL, and the codebase diverged at the point when wine went to the GPL.

        This is incorrect. The facts are:

        WineX is open source, licensed under a BSD-style license. Cedega is a closed source application based on WineX. There are WineX additions and enhancements in Cedega for which no source is released, such as parts of Transgaming's DirectX support.

        Wine is open source, licensed under the LGPL. Crossover Office is a closed source application based on Wine. Because the LGPL requires it, Crossover Office provides full source to the version of Wine used, including all add

        • WineX is open source, licensed under a BSD-style license.

          Since when? Last I recall, WineX was a Transgaming fork of Wine, which was later renamed to and now known as Cedega, and parts of which were available under AFPL (other parts were closed-source). Even then, they claimed that using the sources to just build a working version for yourself, rather than to hack & improve the thing, was "against the spirit", and forced Gentoo to remove the winex-cvs ebuild (which automatically fetched the sources and

    • Re:Cedega Mashing (Score:5, Informative)

      by Compholio ( 770966 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:00PM (#17547120)
      Congrats: Wine must finally be getting somewhere! (It's been long enough)
      Wine has been getting somewhere for a long time, the reason DirectX was so stagnant for so long was because Transgaming promised to commit their DirectX code. The community is not interested in duplicating work unless it's necessary to make things better, so everyone was really upset when the promised DirectX code disappeared into thin air.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by HiThere ( 15173 )
      One significant difference is that Transgaming advertises that Cedega runs Civilization3, and CrossOver doesn't. Transgaming is lying.

      Well, perhaps it does work on some systems, but it sure didn't work on mine, and they gave me less than no help. This is the more annoying as they had it working a year or two ago, and then dropped it.

      CrossOver doesn't advertise running as many of the programs that I'm interested in (not many, mainly games or VERY old), but they don't appear to lie about what they do run.
      • Civ 3 works, but it sucks so much that's almost not playable. Interesting that you see all the map from the begin without the fog-of-war.

  • IE? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Seismologist ( 617169 )
    Yes, but does it run IE7... that's the real question I have... Firefox has been running a little to stable under WINE
    • Why would you need to use Firefox with WINE? Can't you just use the native version?
      • This person may have been joking about running Firefox with Wine, but in reality there can be good reasons for doing so. For example, there are plugins (notably Flash) that don't have the same support for Linux as they do for Windows. However, personally, I think that if I am going to go so far as to emulate a Windows browser on Linux, I might as well go the whole hog and make it IE.

      • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

        by Zonk (troll) ( 1026140 )
        I used Win32 Firefox under whine for a little. One reason: Flash 9. I kept running into Flash 8+-only sites and also got tired of never having the audio and video synchronized. I don't do this any more since the Flash 9 beta for Linux works quite well.
    • You're kidding right?
      1). There is a native Firefox port for GNU/Linux.
      2). The IE7 installer validates your Windows install/license before it will install. Good luck installing it!
      • it's coming! [tatanka.com.br]
        • None of those windows are IE7 instances. With IE7 the entire interface has been changed from previous versions.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by ChameleonDave ( 1041178 )
            You're right and wrong. Wine has trouble reproducing the whole IE7 interface on Linux, so what you see there is the IE7 engine within an IE6 window. That means there is no tabbed browsing, but as you can see from the CSS implementation, the important features of IE7 for web developers are there. Give the ies4linux project a couple more months and they will have full IE7 support.
      • The IE7 installer validates your Windows install/license before it will install. Good luck installing it!

        Err, this was out on Monday:

        "Also note that we will avoid Microsoft's Genuine Advantage download validation checks"

        Internet Explorer 7 on Linux [slashdot.org]
    • Firefox under wine? Why would you even contemplate such a thing?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sconest ( 188729 )
        For the benefit of having Flash 9 and/or better sound synchronization with videos in Flash (now it's less useful since Adobe released a beta of Flash 9 for linux)
    • I was just kidding about the IE7, and firefox... I haven't even used IE in 2 years now. But, theoretically firefox should work just fine under wine, haven't tried it though...

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Myen ( 734499 )
      I think I have you beat, Firefox (trunk) can even compile on wine with some patches :)
      (... with make 3.80; there's some bad interaction with make 3.81)
  • This makes be wonder if Linux do everything Windows can.
    In other words, are the some things that the WIN32 API needs that Linux can not supply.
    Like some of DirectX perhaps?
    Just wondering.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mandelbr0t ( 1015855 )
      x86 Linux can certainly do everything Windows can. Under the hood, they both do the same thing: they boot up a kernel, install system hooks at vital memory locations and provide a mechanism to execute arbitrary binary code. Dynamic runtime linking will pull in binary code that has been provided with the OS (the Win32 API in your example). Ultimately, a Linux machine will be able to exactly run (N.B. not emulate) a Windows binary when binary libraries ported to Linux exactly duplicate the functions in all of

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Al Dimond ( 792444 )
        x86 Linux can sort-of do everything Windows can. Some caveats:

        1. There might be performance hits because of design differences between the OSes. The simplest example is a performance problem with Cygwin (a Unix compatibility layer for Windows): forking processes on Unix is a fairly lightweight task these days, light enough that it's used to create multithreaded applications. On WinNT there is no fork() and creating processes is very expensive; there's kernel support for multithreaded applications but the

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by SEE ( 7681 )
          AFAIK there's nothing really stopping anyone from writing a WINE-like program for emulating Mac apps; in fact, since OS X is a Unix it would probably be easier

          Heck, with GNUStep already around, you already have quite a bit already implemented.

          (It would be even easier if, when GNOME was announced [which was after Apple's NeXT purchase], the GNOME founders had chosen GNUStep as the framework for their desktop project instead of the GIMP toolkit. If the dev effort that went into Gtk+ had instead been spent on

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by flyingfsck ( 986395 )
      No, Linux support for win32 viruses, trojans and spyware is terrible. Kazaa and Bonzi Buddy will never run properly on Linux.

  • Oh great. (Score:4, Funny)

    by Sneakernets ( 1026296 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:04PM (#17547206) Journal
    Cue millions of little stupid youtube videos titled "******** running on a MAC POWERBOOK using Crossover".

    Oh wait. They're already there.

  • I see that it has been tested with AMD-64 systems (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rick17JJ ( 744063 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:13PM (#17547348)

    I have used CrossOver Linux in the past to run Office 97 and Adobe Photoshop 7 under an earlier version of Red Hat Linux. I later used it to run Office 2000 under Linux instead. It worked pretty well and I was happy with their product. I haven't yet tried using it under the 64-bit version Ubuntu 6.10 Linux on my AMD-64 computer. I see that the Codeweavers web page says that it does work with 6.06/6.10 and that they test under both 32 bit and 64 bit systems, so I plan to give it a try. The idea of possibly running a Windows only Plugin for Firefox is also kind of intriguing.

    • Cool, i was wondering about that, but didn't see where it listed 64 bit systems.
    • I used it for Counterstrike:Source and Warcraft 3 without issue on Ubuntu 6.10, but I found that sticking with the x86 and NOT a 64bit version works better all around for app support.

    • I went ahead and tried installing the Loki installer version of CrossOverLinux 6.0.0.1 just now and have been getting an error message. On my AMD-64 computer I have the AMD-64 versions of both Ubuntu and Kubintu installed (the packages for both). The Codeweavers webpage claims the the Loki installer version will work under any version of Linux. That is the how I always installed it in the the past. I verified the md5sum of what I had downloaded and then tried to run the installation shell script. Below

  • ... what a crappy website. You'd expect a company that makes most of it's sales over the web to built a site with a design and style from this millenium. Makes my eyes hurt just looking at it. And those bottles with the tacky lable and the glasses? A hint at wine, I know. But what are people suposed to think? We are a company of drunkards or what? ... Gosh, my mom can do better marketing than that.
  • Is the WoW part really only big for Linux? I've been using WoW on my Mac for a while now since the installation discs work for both PC and Mac.

  • come on quicken! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DaveJay ( 133437 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:54PM (#17548036)
    I've gotten my wife to switch to Firefox, Thunderbird, Picasa (now supported via Wine libs on Linux), OOO, and lots of other stuff -- but she'll never give up the Quicken. Come on, make Quicken run "Gold" (instead of "Silver" or worse) and you'll have a sale faster than you can sneeze.

  • iTunes support (Score:3, Informative)

    by AusIV ( 950840 ) on Wednesday January 10, 2007 @06:57PM (#17548066)
    For quite some time, I paid attention to CrossOver because I thought they might provide a descent solution to iTunes on Linux (the last piece of Windows software I was able to shed before making the switch). They advertise iTunes support, but they only support up to iTunes 4.9, which is almost completely useless as of 7.0. iTunes 4.9 on Crossover doesn't update iPods, and since 7.0 came out, the Music Store won't authorize music on anything less than 6.0.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Laur ( 673497 )
      They are aware of this and specifically mention it in their "truth in advertising" section: http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxoffice/trut h _in_advertising/the_real_dirt/ [codeweavers.com]

      "What sort of works:
      iTunes 4 will install and run, but you are prohibited by Apple from using it with the iTunes store, which severely constrains its usefulness. We hope to support a newer version of iTunes in a future release of CrossOver."

    • No iTunes 7.0 or Audible.com support. Kind of makes my iPod useless under Linux for listening to audiblebooks. These are the last apps that I run that require Windows. I wish either Codeweavers would support Audible.com or Audible would support Linux.
  • I don't care about Microsoft Office, Photoshop, etc. They all have Mac versions. I went through the compatibility list to see if I could get a couple of my fave Windows freeware apps like WinAmp and WinSCP. Both said they'd been successfully installed and run under CrossOver Office, but I guess that's just on Linux. On my MacBook Pro, they both exited with errors during the install.

    I wonder, though, if there's some leftover crust from trying DarWine that's interfering with Crossover Office.

    I think
  • Many apps require the .NET CLR.. and CrossOver/Wine still don't do that..

    Arg!
  • Blah, who needs it.
  • GPS street nav software is one of the lesser mentioned needs for the non-Windows world. Not even the Mac has anything decent in this area (surprised the heck out of me when I tried to find one recently).

    It's listed as "untested" in Crossover's DB. Sure wish someone would test it and report.

    I actually recently tried it under Wine 0.9.28, and the result was encouraging. I could browse the map. But some parts of the UI did not work right. It only crashed if I clicked a certain tab.

    I'll be getting a laptop

  • Performance? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Dissectional ( 528344 )
    Does anyone actually [i]use[/i] this? Its all good and well reading the slew of predictable comments, though I'd actually like to hear from people using this new build on some of the chunkier applications - namely WOW and Steam Powered games (HL2).

    I ask as I'm curious about performance. Granted Wine and related projects can 'run' many of these games, thats pretty much the end of it. Performance is usually stunted at best, with the Windows equivalent blowing it out of the water. If anyone here is actually

  • Codeweavers will not survive (Score:3, Funny)

    by dilvish_the_damned ( 167205 ) on Thursday January 11, 2007 @05:58AM (#17554044) Journal
    ...for both the Mac and Linux.

    Codeweavers will not survive unless they start supporting windows.
  • So, tying many stories together, what are the chances of .Net Compact Framework apps running on the iPhone? It appears for now Codeweavers/Wine have abandoned .Net and to some degree given Mono the cold shoulder... . But it would be quite cool to use such a high level framework to write apps for Windows Mobile phones (Blackberry, MDA, Treo...) and iPhone and its derivatives. The most obvious role Wine/CodeWeavers could play is in running Win32 Invoke parts of the phone, like the ConnectionManager to monitor

  • I evaluated crossover last month and then moved on. I think it might be important for some people to understand why other projects are more popular right now. I wanted to run a specific Windows only program on OS X. My initial search yielded Crossover and Parallels as potential solutions. If I did the same evaluation today, I would add VMWare to that list. Since I only wanted to run one program, Crossover's lower resource consumption was attractive. Likewise, since it did not require a Windows license it se

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of money is all the advantage there is to having money. -- B. Franklin

Close