Public Betas For CrossOver Mac and Linux 183
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."
Valve's anti-cheat system (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Give it a go!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...(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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd like it if someone from Valve could comment on this though.
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So the upshot is, if you have a retail license and want to install it in a VM on Linux and will uninstall the standalone install, then no, you don't need two copies. If you want to have it installed in a VM and on bare h
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I had activated twice prior to moving the key to a VM. Once when I installed initially, and once when I reinstalled because my system was crapped up from having added and removed so many software packages that the registry had grown to 2GB and I felt (correctly) that a reinstall would improve performance. And I suppose 20 minutes on hold is not that big a deal. I was just watching a baseball game while sitting on hold anyway. I did feel punished by having to sit on hold to use software I had legitimately paid for, though. If I had just used a crack I wouldn't have had to call at all.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is what used to be VMWare GSX...
Re: (Score:2)
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...
Speed (Score:2)
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
Why Crossover/Wine? (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CrossOver and Windows (Score:2)
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
whine? (Score:1)
With all these improvements, I would have guessed we'd see the end of wine, not just an improvement.
I sort of get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I sort of get it... (Score:5, Funny)
You are truely a convert
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
CrossOver or Parallels (Score:2)
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.
FalconRe: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They've put in a HUGE amount of work to get it running on OSX as well as it does. If you think you can do better, feel free to volunteer.
I have to ask... (Score:5, Funny)
Mike.
Re:I have to ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Ok. Show of hands... how many of you are running Windows NT 4.0 on a non-x86 architecture, and want a version of WINE to run those apps on Linux? [the room fills with silence]
Windows USED to run on other architectures, but nobody cared, so it was dropped.
Re: (Score:2)
of course the room is filled with silence since you only asked for a show of hands
(sorry, couldn't resist)
running Windows on architectures other than Intel (Score:3, Informative)
Windows USED to run on other architectures, but nobody cared, so it was dropped.
Also Windows apps weren't supported on other systems. I got a DEC Alpha running NT 4 and the only commercial app I was able to install was Borland C++ Powerbuilder. I found it weird I got more shareware apps installed than commercial apps.
FalconRe: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:1)
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 Not an Emulator (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Lots of reasons for Crossover (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Skype (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No CrossOver for me! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people with PPC Macs were screwed the day Apple announced they'd be transitioning to Intel.
Bragged about no Intel CPU ... (Score:2)
"Knowing" is such an understatement. They bragged about it, revelled in their architectural superiority,
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no. The PowerPC was generally 25-30% faster than the older contemporary Intels when you compared against an Intel of the *same* clockrate. However those Intels were available at far greater clockrates. Hence all the carefully prepared and choreographed comparisons where Apple in the G3 er
My Experience (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother emulating the hardware when you can just emulate the API.
Sadly, because the former works reliably while the latter works sporadically.
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I use and enjoy parallels, but there is plenty of room for alternative approaches.
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't know why people bother... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
was trying to mod this +1 funny, mis-clicked and got redundant, sorry 'bout that.
Umm... (Score:5, Insightful)
...Half Life 2?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're not going to get better performance. I still boot to windows just for WOW...because the macbook has terribly limited video memory in OSX...*sighs*
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Some of us are opposed to Window usage in all its forms. I hate Microsoft, and choose not to support their business practices, because I do earnestly believe they conduct bad business.
2. Native Hardware access. Wine'd applications can directly access interfaces, while Virtualized applications can only access virtual interfaces. This has implications when it comes to Network Performance and OpenGL/Direct 3D software. Half Life 2 will never work as well in Parallels as in Wine.
3. Envir
Re: (Score:2)
This actually seems like downside to me... as an OS X user I am concerned about letting Office or IE (both prone to Viruii) have access to hardware. I think right now I much prefer giving them access only to a VM sandbox where i can easily revert to a known clean copy if the current active one gets infected.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No question was asked, legitimate or otherwise. What was posted was dismissive and sarcastic. It was subsequently demonstrated to also be ignorant. Apparently a moderator or two took that to be willful ignorance, which would indicate trolling.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A call is supposed to behave as it is documented to behave. Any programs that rely on undocumented features are just asking to break.
So? I'm not the poster you were replying to but, how does this help me, the end user, run the software I want? I tried Crossover the other day and I'm not using it because the software I need to run does not install. I don't care if it should work, I care if it does. In Parallels, it does.
Do you run all your native Mac software in little OS X sandboxes as well, just in ca
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, Crossover Office also has an application database [codeweavers.com], although it's called a "Compatibility Center".
Re: (Score:2)
While I think that Wine is able to run those audio apps,
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding music studio software, why not just use a free one for Linux in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, seriously - wheres the Reason, Cubase or Pro Tools equivalents under Linux? And don't bother saying 'Ardour', because theres no way its ready to take on any of those 3 mentioned apps. I'm not saying its bad, its just not done yet, and when it is, it'll still be less polished and accessible than those apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I realize it may not even be at this point yet, but saying it has to do everything Pro Tools does is like saying MySQL has to do everything Oracle does in order to be useful.
Oh, and note I said "more accessible", not "better". You said it would never be as accessible as the tools
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and i could care less what the f-ing acronym means.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Darwine is a port of WINE to OS X in general. In fact, the Intel version was first; the goal to add QEMU for PPC support came later.
Darwine is a direct competitor to Crossover Mac in the same way that normal WINE (plus a GUI frontend) is a direct competitor to Crossover Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Does a user care it runs thru QEMU along the way ? ( aside from the speed issues of course ). They see 'windows' applications on their OSX desktop, using wine.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it was a pretty old game I wanted to make this work for.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, while my wireless seems mostly OK, I'm still having huge issues with my trackpad.
Re:Intel Mac Only (Score:5, Informative)
One word (Score:2)
Codeweavers could have tried the same concept, instead of forgetting about a rather large potential user base.
Re: (Score:2)