Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Codeweavers Releases CrossOver For Intel Mac

Posted by kdawson on Tue Sep 05, 2006 08:42 PM
from the schmootcamp-schmarallels dept.
dbialac writes, "Codeweavers, one of the major players in the Wine Project, have released their first beta of CrossOver for Mac. I've downloaded it and played around with it and though there are glitches, it does seem to run programs' standard features quite well."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:44PM (#16049283)
    CrossOver Mac will be the very best way to run your Windows applications on your Intel based Mac.
    Yes, but does it run Cygwin [cygwin.com]?
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:28PM (#16049461)
        * ----- Joke

        O
        -|- ---- You
        ||

        That loud crack you heard was the joke passing supersonic velocities.
      • I do research which involves specialized hardware that does not currently have suitable drivers in Linux. Cygwin makes life bearable again, because I can run my X server and bring up an xterm whenever I want. (The cygwin shell is awful.) And I can use just about any software that I can care to use. Which involves more than the few commands you listed. ;) Cygwin ports typically aren't too hard to find.
  • by Jade E. 2 (313290) <`ten.mrotslrep' `ta' `todhsals'> on Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:52PM (#16049313) Homepage
    The top 3 most-ranked apps on their compatibility list are Office 2003, iTunes, and... Lotus Notes 6.5.1+.

    To whoever is tasked with trying to make Notes run... on Linux... on a Mac...

    We feel for you man.
    • As far as Office and iTunes go, aren't the Mac-native versions of both programs better, anyway? Why would anyone want to run the Windows versions of either?
      • I think the idea is that if they can get their product to behave with a few complex programs that do all sorts of weird things (especially Office 2003), then they can be sure that 99% of the other stuff will work fine.
        • Or else these programs are supported by Crossover Office for Linux perhaps (which shares its database with Crossover Mac)? Your theory is hogwash, considering most unsupported applications won't run, irregardless of size, whereas huge programs like Microsoft Office will run when specifically targetted by Codeweavers. A perfect example, pretty much every Office version is supported, but the Microsoft Works install program won't even finish.
      • While I personally prefer the OSX version of Word the fact is that Windows Word is faster and both Word and Excel macros don't work well with the Mac versions (and are actually be dropped in the forthcoming native version - although to be fair also on the 64bit Windows version. If you are running some custom Excel spreadsheet with lots of macros you may find it runs under Wine but not under OSX Excel.

        iTunes now I'll grant you.

      • Because this compatability is carried over from the much more mature Crossover Office for Linux, where native versions aren't available.
      • Re:Most tested apps (Score:4, Interesting)

        by log0n (18224) on Wednesday September 06 2006, @01:12AM (#16050292)
        iTunes for Windows allows WMA conversion.
        • But it won't be "compatible" in the sense of running the way you'd expect a Mac program to run. You don't get Keychain integration, Services, printing is a bear, and the interface (metaphors, philosophy, etc.) is almost entirely different between the Mac and PC versions. Seems to me that if you want to run Windows programs, you're better off just running Windows instead of glopping together some awful reanimated monstrosity from beyond the grave.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            So if someone loves running OS X and owns a Mac, but there is just one Windows program that they need, they should just switch to Windows??? Even if this piece of software is supported by Crossover Mac??? Guess no one who needs to do taxes in Canada should look at a Mac anytime soon. God forbid they use Parallels or Crossover to do their taxes... As for iTunes and Office, the compatability is carried over from Crossover Office for Linux.
    • by noidentity (188756) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @11:06PM (#16049893)
      And to whoever is tasked with testing the Windows version of iTunes under this environment, have you not yet realized that Apple provides a Mac version?
  • The one and only Windows program I use is City of Heroes/Villains. I've can get the updater running, which downloads the patches, but then it goes to "Loading", and while my fans go nuts, it never actually produces anything interesting. I've checked the forums, but I can't find anything which would help. Any Slashdotters attempting this?
    • by adrianmonk (890071) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:07PM (#16049379)
      The one and only Windows program I use is City of Heroes/Villains. I've can get the updater running, which downloads the patches, but then it goes to "Loading", and while my fans go nuts, it never actually produces anything interesting.

      Well, at least you know your public loves you even if you can't get that particular piece of software to do what you'd like. Personally, I never get much attention when I'm installing software, but then maybe I don't do it with enough verve and flair.

      • by Nastard (124180) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:26PM (#16049455)
        Personally, I never get much attention when I'm installing software, but then maybe I don't do it with enough verve and flair.

        I recommend a minimum of eight pieces of flair.
  • by User 956 (568564) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @08:58PM (#16049335) Homepage
    CrossOver Mac will be the very best way to run your Windows applications on your Intel based Mac. It will let you install and run Windows programs as though they were native, all without having to buy or run a copy of Windows itself.

    In other news, the guys over at CherryOS [drunkenblog.com] have announced that they have a new product...
  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Danathar (267989) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:31PM (#16049477) Journal
    When looking at the apps that are most used in Codeweavers and the ones with some problems.

    Office 2003
    Quicken
    Photoshop
    IE

    All of these are available as Mac Native apps except IE 6. Now maybe thereis some small app I need to run, but why not just wait until the free version of Wine is ported to OS X?
    • Try using both. I usually have to fight with Wine to get it to run something properly, but whenever I demo Codeweavers it usually just works.
    • Well, for a start, MacOS native PowerPoint is unusable round-tripping any advanced features to the Windows version.
    • "All of these are available as Mac Native apps except IE 6. Now maybe thereis some small app I need to run, but why not just wait until the free version of Wine is ported to OS X?"

      Well, maybe because it's worth supporting the people who are being paid to work on Wine. That "free" version is what it is largely because of Codeweavers.

      People have this fantasy that all the great work in OSS is being done by volunteers. While there are certainly a lot of wonderful people that are contributing much work to many p
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      A more useful Mac port of WINE would be Cider / Cedega from Transgaming. That way Macs could play windows games. As the the Mac gaming market is pretty poor with ports appearing months, years, or never after their Windows counterparts, it might prove to be a lucrative market. I would think that it would be far more lucrative than on Linux. Currently Cider appears to be pitched at developers so Transgaming are probably hoping to ship the runtime on the CD with the game rather than sell an all-purpose solutio
    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by IamTheRealMike (537420) on Wednesday September 06 2006, @05:42AM (#16050934) Homepage
      All of these are available as Mac Native apps except IE 6. Now maybe thereis some small app I need to run, but why not just wait until the free version of Wine is ported to OS X?

      Those are the most commonly used apps because Crossover currently is used by Linux users. IE6 is pretty valuable incidentally - depressingly, it's one of the most commonly required apps for desktop Linux migrations in business. There's an entire industry of web app developers out there who wouldn't know browser portability if it walked up and told them its name.

      The real value of Crossover is the fact that it can, in fact, run many other apps just fine. The ones you listed are the supported ones, ie the ones they promise will work. There's a big database called C4 which shows you which other apps have been tested .... some won't work, others will. If there is an app you want to run you can check to find out if it works, and often it will quite well but don't try guessing, it's a bit hit and miss.

      As time goes on, the idea is that more and more apps start working. In practice, this happens quite slowly because a lot of effort in recent years has gone into eliminating reliance on downloaded Microsoft components like MSI, which are still provided for Windows 98 users but will one day disappear. Still, a massive amount of code and improvements goes into every Crossover release - much of it written by CW employees but also a lot comes from the WineHQ community. There has definitely been a lot of progress in the last few years.

  • Actual facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by gjh (231652) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:37PM (#16049513)

    It's very nicely put together. Some thoughts...

    • Software installation and allocation to WINE Bottles is very easy and so on, a nice experience
    • It does not go as far as it might to give a 'Mac-like' experience, for example running apps do not get their own dock icons - but I suppose there would be little practical value since they don't have their own screen-top menus
    • It uses X11 under the hood and mostly hides this. It asks you for the Apple installed disk to grab quartz-wm at install time, but Apple's actual X11 build is not used and presumably what does run runs on different ports
    • It avoids silly things like anti-aliasing, so that Mac users can be happy knowing that "Windows apps are ugly". Having said that, all the important stuff like font metrics is spot on.

    In truth my only regrets were some crashes in Office 2003. It seemed to be unstable in the same ways that the linux version was when I last used it a couple of years ago - i.e. you will have a great experience if you stick to Office 2000, but newer stuff might come unstuck. In the end then - I hope every Mac user goes out and buys this, because at the price it is offered it is a bargain... but CodeWeavers are going to need a lot of unit sales to increase their WINE contributions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      It only avoids anti-aliasing when Windows avoids anti-aliasing. That means anti-aliasing works in WinXP bottles ;-).
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      It uses X11 under the hood and mostly hides this.

      ...Which is annoying, since I'm usually running X11 anyway for stuff like GIMP. I'd much rather it just used the same X server, so I'd only need to run one instead of two.

  • by Bones3D_mac (324952) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:56PM (#16049600)
    CrossOver may not be an entirely new concept, but it looks like a decent enough compromise of Windows compatibility without having to deal with the hassles of a true Windows installation. The software works much like Apple's X11 implementation, constraining the Windows parts of the Windows applications running within it to each application's main window. This includes all menus and application-generated windows, keeping your Mac OS X environment completely uncluttered.

    Aside from that, this also eliminates much of the unnecessary Windows hassles, such as activation and "phoning home"... and you even get to save money to boot.

    Needless to say, intel-based Macintosh users may want to snatch this up before it goes the way of Connectix Virtual Game Station. I can't imagine Microsoft letting this get by them without a fight, when there are other options that will require users to actually own a copy of Windows.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday September 06 2006, @09:56AM (#16052322)

      Needless to say, intel-based Macintosh users may want to snatch this up before it goes the way of Connectix Virtual Game Station. I can't imagine Microsoft letting this get by them without a fight, when there are other options that will require users to actually own a copy of Windows.

      This is based on the venerable WINE project and is a clean room reverse engineering of the Windows APIs. It has been around for many years and I doubt it is going to go away anytime soon. The only difference is a mac version is now beta testing.

  • Any word on whether they will have functionality for typing in chinese? This would seem to be a function of the X11 system, not windows APIs or Mac system.
  • Picasa (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rm69990 (885744) on Wednesday September 06 2006, @12:13AM (#16050097)
    I've always liked Google's Picasa better than iPhoto, so I gave this a whirl with Picasa and it worked perfectly. I figured it would, since the Linux version of Picasa runs through Wine, and Codeweavers did a lot of the porting work for it. I just told it to scan my Y: (Y: is mapped to your home folder in Crossover Mac) and it found all of the photos in my iPhoto library and loaded them into Picasa.
    • by Red Alastor (742410) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:15PM (#16049419)
      The price you pay covers 6 (or 12 depending on which plan) of support and updates. Past this period, you can still download software you were allowed to but not new software.

      Support is quite good. As opposed to almost any other company I know, they speak English and Hacker (Unix meaning off the word) not corporate (or maybe they know that language, I never initiated a conversation in it). And support also covers fixing any bug that prevents your apps from running if they were garanteed to work.
      • by IamTheRealMike (537420) on Wednesday September 06 2006, @05:46AM (#16050942) Homepage
        As opposed to almost any other company I know, they speak English and Hacker (Unix meaning off the word) not corporate (or maybe they know that language, I never initiated a conversation in it).

        They do know that language, and every employee in the company has a duty to do product support - even the Wine maintainer himself. So, if you are technically conversant you can usually get talking to the person who wrote the misbehaving code in question and there is also an IRC channel, #crossover on FreeNode, where you can go talk to the developers, CEO, support guys etc.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Mathematica for Mac OS X is universal.
      • Not only Mathematica is universal, it was probably the first third-party app to be universalized:

        Many developers reading this news may be thinking that they'll have to go through the same woes they had to in order to get their Mac OS 9 applications "Carbonized" to run on Mac OS X. Jobs assured the crowd that this isn't like that at all. To demonstrate, he brought on stage Theo Gray, cofounder of Mathematica maker Wolfram Research.

        Gray said that Mathematica it only took about two hours to get Mathematica'

    • by CatOne (655161) on Tuesday September 05 2006, @09:29PM (#16049468)
      Seriously?

      What do you mean? Lots of people use Macs for business, or *want* to use Macs for business. Usually (this is assuming an IT department who is reasonable, and more and more actually are), it boils down to one or two business critical applications that are Windows only. Some of the most common ones are:

      * Microsoft Outlook (because Entourage is 98% of the way there... and that's not 100%)
      * Microsoft Project
      * Microsoft Visio
      * Microsoft Access (and custom databases that have become "business critical"
      * Internet Explorer 6 (with all its bastardized VBScript and .NUT client-side proprietary extensions)
      * CAD tools (Pro/E, SolidWorks, etc).

      VM solutions like Parallels (and upcoming VMWare workstation) can do this, as can Boot Camp. But Crossover is lighter weight and works well also. Crossover is a very interesting and exciting option.

      Again, this is predicated on whether IT permits it. I find IT departments are mostly divided into a couple groups:

      * IT feels their job is to dictate technology -- they choose what's most convenient for them to control and manage, and put IT's needs in front of the users needs (i.e. users who want to run Linux or OS X on the desktop must fight and scratch and are sometimes locked out of the network altogether). CrossOver is no use here, nor is Parallels -- you offend the director of IT because he'll fall out of his l337 company with his Microsoft sales rep, and will also offend his staff of 43 MSCEs that are necessary to manage one Exchange instance ;-)

      * IT who feels IT's job is to serve the needs of the business... basically they are willing to deploy and support solutions that have business value (I even heard one CIO say he let users use Macs because it was a competitive differentator when hiring... if a user could run a Mac all day at work he got more productivity out of them... this company ships tens of millions of DVDs to people in the mail every year... they're progressive ;-)

      Crossover is perfect for the second case.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        I think you are overlooking why an IT department would "dictate" the technology used. Supporting different operating systems takes time and money. I used to be the SysAdmin for a small company. We had 5 offices 400 users. I dictated the systems and software that were used because I had limited resources with which keep everything up and running. Each office had 1 Mac to run some poorly writen database that our main supplier made us run. If one of these machines went down I would often lose a whole day worki
      • Crossover will not survive in corporations when Parallels is around. Why support something that might 90% work when you can just run Windows in Parallels and be done with it?

        Never underestimate support costs and their influence on corporate policy.
        • License costs (Score:3, Informative)

          With a virtualization solution, the number of licenses required to be dealt with (Free licenses still have to be 'dealt with', i.e. make sure your usage legally matches the license) is at least four:
          -The host os
          -The virtualization software
          -The guest os
          -The application

          For crossover it's three:
          -The host os
          -Crossover
          -The application

          The Windows license is expensive, and if you have commercial support from Crossover office for the app, it's not something that 'might work 90%', it is something that the vendor is
    • Oh shit. And here I thought using Parallels once a year to use my Windows only tax software was going to be alright when that time rolled around. Now that I know I should have never bought a Mac, even though it works better than a PC for everything else I need to do, I'm going to go and toss my Mac Mini in the garbage this instance....

      Moron.
    • I don't see the point. The Mac and PC demographics are fundamentally different, as are the applications they need to run. If you need to run Windows apps on a Mac, maybe you shouldn't have bought a Mac to begin with.

      Migrations usually require intermediate steps. For example, my company has a significant investment in mac software for my workstation to the tune of several thousand dollars. I need to work with some Windows only software for a new project. If I didn't already have a Windows box as well, it

      • The big problem with Parallels is that it is very RAM hungry. Seriously I have 1.5 GB and the virtual memory swapping when I click on parallels is simply amazing. Anything less than 2 GB is painful. So running Windows and expecting to painlessless switch between windows is a bit of a pipe dream. Don't get me wrong. I love it - it lets me run my Quickbooks and Visual Studio without booting into Boot Camp. But seamless it is not.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          The big problem with Parallels is that it is very RAM hungry. Seriously I have 1.5 GB and the virtual memory swapping when I click on parallels is simply amazing. Anything less than 2 GB is painful. So running Windows and expecting to painlessless switch between windows is a bit of a pipe dream. Don't get me wrong. I love it - it lets me run my Quickbooks and Visual Studio without booting into Boot Camp. But seamless it is not.

          A lot of that depends on how much RAM you assign to the VM. I run Parallels a
    • That would actually be nice. Couldn't be much worse than the native (x11 only) port. I use OpenOffice exclusivley on Linux and Windows, but on my PowerBook I got fed up enough with it to just buy iWork.
    • Fire your Mac engineers and replace them with a README.TXT for Mac users directing them to run their app with BootCamp,Parallels, or Codeweavers.

      And kiss your Mac-loyalist customers goodbye.

      Speaking for myself, of course, but given a choice between a Mac-native application and a Windows-native-application-running-in-CrossOver/Bo otCamp/Parallels, I'll go with the Mac-native version every time.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      Continues to fade away. It won't be long before no one other than Apple and shareware are putting out native Mac apps. Fire your Mac engineers and replace them with a README.TXT for Mac users directing them to run their app with BootCamp,Parallels, or Codeweavers. And pocket the savings.

      Unless the opposite happens. CrossOver is based off of Darwine and Wine. Wine is licensed under the GNU Lesser Public License meaning unlike normal GPL stuff, you can link wine to closed sourced apps (or nonGPL open sourc

    • I would noz count on it, while solutions like codeweavers help to get your favorite app running somehow it is not really a pleasure to use that stuff, this is an emulator and you always will get more crashes, some programs that do not run etc...
    • Guess what: most Windows applications make lousy Mac applications. They break interface guidelines; they look and work clumsy; they don't use wonderful APIs like Cocoa text input; they don't integrate with the rest of the system. To be sure, some "native" ports make all the same mistakes, which is hardly better than running the Windows version in emulation mode.

      So from the user's perspective, what you're really recommending is that software developers make crappy applications for Mac users instead of good a
      • Mac loyalists are a shrinking breed. As more mundanes switch to the Mac OS and take their software with them (via Wine) they will become marginalised on their own platform.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        What exactly is the problem? Companys save money. Home users get access to more software on their macs. Companys gain a migration path. It seems to me that everyone wins.

        Mac users expect a superior interface. Among other things, that means consistency. A properly done Mac app has to follow the HIG. [apple.com] Emulated, virtualized, or poorly ported applications will always look like intruders.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          Mac users expect a superior interface. Among other things, that means consistency.

          I suppose it's redundant to point out that Apple do not make consistent interfaces. Whether they are "superior" or not depends largely on your taste, I personally can't stand iTunes.

          Emulated, virtualized, or poorly ported applications will always look like intruders.

          Believe it or not, for people who don't take operating systems religiously things like features, performance etc usually win out over interface consistency.