Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Codeweavers Releases CrossOver For Intel Mac 148

Posted by kdawson 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Codeweavers Releases CrossOver For Intel Mac More

Codeweavers Releases CrossOver For Intel Mac

Comments Filter:

  • Yes, but ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @09:44PM (#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]?

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by spribyl ( 175893 )
      Why, MacOS is already unix based. The point of Cygwin is to add posix and unix like wrappers to windows.
      Unless you are pulling chains :-)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jeremyp ( 130771 )
      You don't need to. Mac OS X already contains a Cygwin emulation. Just look for "Terminal.app" in /Applications/Utilities

  • Most tested apps (Score:5, Funny)

    by Jade E. 2 ( 313290 ) <slashdot@perlstor[ ]et ['m.n' in gap]> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @09:52PM (#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?
      • Having purchased a Windows version of the software it seems such a waste when there is "compatible" hardware available to run without buying an additional copy.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Pink Tinkletini ( 978889 )
          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)

            by rm69990 ( 885744 )
            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.
            • I think his whole point was that they'd get better functionality from Windows programs if you run them in Windows, rather than a hacked solution that links them (kicking and screaming) to the Mac frameworks.

              I would be pretty damn sure he was not advocating a total switch away from OSX to Windows for one program, rather he was suggesting that you'll get better results running Windows programs through Parallels or Boot Camp.

              Relax, it's too early in the day to break out the serious ???s. :)

          • The question is really, is Keychain integration and a 'lickable' skin worth the $800+ buying Mac Office Pro in the UK would cost you, if you already own the Windows equivalent? (yeah we really get screwed this side of the atlantic)

            For die hard Apple lovers, maybe.

            For most users who just want to use the software they got used to and already purchased, maybe not.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Yer Mom ( 78107 )
            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.

            It is the web developer's friend, though. Now you can test to see if your CSS works OK in IE6 without having to run Windows.

      • 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?


        The compatibility database also covers CrossOver for Linux.

      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rm69990 ( 885744 )
          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.
      • 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?

        the iTunes part, i really can't comprehend myself. I might, however, find that if i have only one copy of office (for windows) that i use on a dual-boot mac, crossover might be convenient for that. although i don't know about the licensing issues about this. it would definitely be easier if i can borrow a mac-office installer from someone, and use the li

      • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by rm69990 ( 885744 )
        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 @02:12AM (#16050292)
        iTunes for Windows allows WMA conversion.
      • Yes, running the Windows version of iTunes under OS X is pure idiocy, but I can think of at least two reasons for running the Windows version of Office:

        1) You already have a Windows version license and don't want to fork another $100+ for the Mac version.
        2) You want to run complex VBA macros (speaking of which, I don't think the Mac version of Office has Access).

    • Re:Most tested apps (Score:4, Funny)

      by noidentity ( 188756 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @12:06AM (#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?
    • I know (think) this was a joke, but believe it or not, the Notes 6.5 client runs perfectly under Wine on FC5. At least as perfectly as it does on Windows, anyway. It still sucks big time, but if I'm forced to use Notes, at least I'm not forced to use Windows as well.
  • 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?

    • Re:City of Villains (Score:5, Funny)

      by adrianmonk ( 890071 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:07PM (#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.

  • in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @09:58PM (#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...
  • Does it run OpenOffice?
    • 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.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Eccles ( 932 )
        Did you try NeoOffice? I haven't done anything large with it, but it's met my needs so far.
        • I got tired of waiting for them to update to OpenOffice 2.x. It seems it's getting there now, but I'll wait a little before giving it another try.

      • That would actually be nice. Couldn't be much worse than the native (x11 only) port.

        You might want to look again. There are now two versions that use the native UI and not X11; one from OpenOffice.org and one from NeoOffice. One is still a beta, but I don't recall which.

  • And The Native OS X App Market... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jesboat ( 64736 )
      Until, of course, their profits vanish (hopefully.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rjung2k ( 576317 )
      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.
    • We target Mac OS X as a supported platform because our users demand it.

      For our scientific applications, we support Linux and Mac OS X. Someday maybe there will be a Windows version, but I'm not expecting that any time soon.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Monsuco ( 998964 )

      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...

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Rocketship Underpant ( 804162 )
      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

  • Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Danathar ( 267989 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:31PM (#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?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Shawn is an Asshole ( 845769 )
      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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gjh ( 231652 )
      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)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      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
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Crossover runs games as well.

      • A more useful Mac port of WINE would be Cider / Cedega from Transgaming.

        Umm, crossover is from Cedega as well. Cider is just thier tool for developers that lets them build a quick and dirty WINE-based port of a Windows app for the mac. Crossover is just running unmodified Windows applications via the same basic method. It is less refined, but does not require developers to put in any work.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DrXym ( 126579 )
          Cedega is the name of the games-oriented Win32 emulator for Linux from Transgaming. It is sold to end-users. Cider is their product for the Mac which is aimed at game developers. Crossover is the name of the Win32 emulator from Codeweavers for Linux and the Mac. Different companies, different branches of WINE. Ultimately they might all be based on WINE, but they have different target audiences in mind. Transgaming's offerings are squarely aimed at gamers and game companies. Crossover is more aimed at office

    • Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)

      by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @06:42AM (#16050934)
      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.

      • 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.

        That's unfortunately too true. Though I don't work in the industry now I am studying and working on it and hope to be able to work in it while working on my degree. I just got Jeff Zeldman's 2nd ed of his "designing with web standards" and am looking forward to working my way through it. Now I'm waiting to get a new MacBook Pro with the Merom processor.

        Falcon

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Shag ( 3737 )
      I've been pondering this, too.

      I was quite pleased when Apple announced Boot Camp. I was quite pleased when Parallels was announced. And I was quite pleased when CodeWeavers announced CrossOver for the Intel Macs. But... I haven't had to run something that was only available for Windows since... geez, sometime in 2004 or early 2005. (When I did, it was Access, which is part of the Windows versions of Office, but not the Mac versions, so maybe that's why people want to run Office.)

      This year, I've pondered

    • why not just wait until the free version of Wine is ported to OS X?

      Because you can't or don't want to wait? I'm planning on getting getting a Macbook Pro when Apple releases one with Merom, Intel's new Core 2, which I'm hoping will be annouced during the Paris Expo if not sooner and I'll install my WinTel Macromedia Studio and I may get Photoshop CS. However Adobe won't release a native port of CS for MacTels until they release the next version. So I may get a WinTel version which I can use CrossOver

  • Actual facts (Score:5, Informative)

    by gjh ( 231652 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:37PM (#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)

      by WhiteWolf666 ( 145211 )
      It only avoids anti-aliasing when Windows avoids anti-aliasing. That means anti-aliasing works in WinXP bottles ;-).

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrchaotica ( 681592 ) *
      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.

  • It deserves some credit... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bones3D_mac ( 324952 ) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:56PM (#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.

    • Re:It deserves some credit... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Wednesday September 06, 2006 @10:56AM (#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 @01:13AM (#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.
  • Just like VMWARE for the Intel Mac, this is huge for allowing people to, well, cross over (good choice of name, Crossover) to the Mac. And in many situations (running specific windows applications), Crossover is a far better solution. *Way* less resource hungry (it allocates memory as required, it doesn't allocate a whole 512M [or whatever] VM to run a whole Windows operating system), *plus* it uses the native file system (without some fake shared directory thing, a la VMWARE - which is cool and useful, b

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close