want to run Windows programs or games on Mac or Linux?
get your version of Codeweavers CrossOver free today!
http://flock.codeweavers.com/
get your version of Codeweavers CrossOver free today!
http://flock.codeweavers.com/
free CrossOver for MAC or Linux TODAY
- Thread starter FencingFoxFTW
- Start date
- Views 1,961
- Replies 23
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 458
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 35
- Location
- Over there
- Website
- www.epicwinrar.com
- XP
- 306
- Country
Fixed that for you.
Excuse me, but make up your mind. I never understood the whole point of using Windows programs on an Apple or Linux computer when you could just install Windows without having to worry about compatibility. I also never understood owning Mac's, period. They're being marketed as "not-PC's", but that's just a fat lie - they're PC's like any other.
In this day and age when the great majority of applications is released for two or more systems at the same time, the only reason why one would use Bootcamp-like applications is when the school or working place one goes to requires the use of a particular operating system (most often Apple's) and a user doesn't necessarily feel like paying $1500 for a "rather average" computer. Linux fortunately doesn't have that issue since you can grab it for free and launch it on just about anything including toasters.
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 408
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 36
- Location
- United States
- Website
- Visit site
- XP
- 261
- Country
1) Disk space of Windows install vs. emulator.
2) Price of (legit) Windows vs. price of (legit) Parallels / VMWare, or free Wine for OSX and Linux.
3) Time it takes to switch OS vs. time it takes to load emulated / wrapped software.
4) Personal preference of Windows dislike, or favoring a Unix system for whatever reason.
Above are several reasons one might want something like crossover rather than installing and using a bootcamp partition. Hopefully now you can understand it. Obviously compatibility is better for Windows programs on Windows, but not everyone is trying to run hard-to-emulate software on non-Windows OS's, so it's faulty to assume that you need to "get an actual computer" to run those things.
Also, the OP is offering / linking to a free version of a program, and your suggestion is to go buy a copy of Windows instead. It seems to me you just want to be snarky for no good reason. I don't like the way Apple prices their medium-to-low performing computers just because they have a nice frame around them either, but that's why there is a second-hand market.
Only if you decide to run applications like Microsoft Office.
Usually, it is much better to use Virtualization or Dual Boot vs running WINE/Crossover.
I'm afraid that you're not really making a strong point - from a performance stand-point it is always better to run programs within the OS they were created to work on. We're not talking about emulating an entire legacy platform - we're talking about using contemporary applications here. By using those, you're effectively crippling your computer's actual performace, as it has to run both the native OS and the OS it's emulating, or it has to use wrap-around functions which do not offer full compatibility and are not guaranteed to work.
I'm not being snarky on purpose - from where I sit, if a user has interest in using Windows applications, perhaps purchasing a computer with OSX or with Linux built-in was not such a great idea. Windows OEM installations do not cost a fortune, really.
As mentioned earlier, Dual (or Triple, for that matter) Booting should be the way to go if you want to have the best of both (or all) worlds.
well, I personally still run winXP, but just wanted to post this free(at the time posted) option for anyone interested.
I was expressing my opinion on that kind of software, the comment was not directed againts you.
This is a forum, y'know - it's all about exchanging opinions.
No hard feelings, I hope?
I was expressing my opinion on that kind of software, the comment was not directed againts you.
This is a forum, y'know - it's all about exchanging opinions.
not at all. just stating the purpose of the post, since getting a commercial app for free would be good news for someone, even if I posted it kinda late.
anyway, you are right. multi-booting would be the best way to go, since some games/apps that can run on a 5+ year old laptop with Intel Graphics are not supported by CrossOver/WINE.
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 458
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 35
- Location
- Over there
- Website
- www.epicwinrar.com
- XP
- 306
- Country
I typically use WINE/Crossover when I have a small windows application that I need to run next to a Mac OS X application...
Or maybe you're a Web Designer who needs to see what your site looks like under Internet Explorer...
...people still do that?
Wow.
I kid, of course it could be handy for small apps, but those apps usually have native equivalents on the systems in question.
So I'm to assume that your reboot times are measured in single-digit seconds, and that you don't mind rebooting in order to run a program from a separate system, and that you're just fine with not being able to run programs from two systems at once?
Virtualization is popular because it has concrete benefits that dual-OS setups can never achieve. Hell, this was even recognized by Microsoft, who built special integrated features into XP mode of 7 Pro(+) such as having the virtualized programs appear in the main window of the host OS to stop workflow from breaking.
Being required to reboot every time you need to switch to a program from the other OS is definitely a workflow break. If not required, it's literally a waste of time (as virtualization can get you the same effect in less time). In many cases, that matters.
And I don't understand how some people like eating onions, but you don't see me going around into conversations mentioning onions telling people they shouldn't eat them because -I- think they taste bad.
What's that, companies run misleading advertisements? Welcome to earth, friend. Apple's run misleading advertisements forever, and so have other companies. Look at almost any advertisement and you'll see companies using weasel words and vague phrases to try to get customers thinking that their product is new, or that the competitor doesn't have X feature (when it very well might).
However, this shouldn't reflect negatively on your opinion of the customers, that's just ignorant. Do you go around to people who buy their gas from BP and blame them for the oil spill? Do you go around to customers of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and blame them for the current US economic crisis?
Majority is false. A large amount of popular applications, yes, but not a majority of the total. I was on Ubuntu as my main OS for months, and almost all the DS and PSP-centric tools I had were running through WINE. The popular applications people think about (major browsers, communication tools like messengers and skype) are actually a very tiny amount of all the programs that are out there.
And let me tell you something; the majority of programs required in the workplace and school are NOT firefox and skype.
Many businesses still deal with ancient programs that won't run on newer versions of Windows, let alone another system (source lost to time, original developer defunct, no porting allowed due to license issues, etc.), which is another reason that XP mode was so heavily pushed in the Pro(+) editions of Windows. This is because companies DO use old non-portable programs on a daily basis, and rebooting into an old version of Windows to run them is a worse option than virtualization.http://thedailywtf.com/
Daily postings about the shit people need to deal with in tech workplaces. On one hand it's a source of humor, on the other hand a sad look at how most companies are still run.
You're starting to sound a lot like those apple commercials you seem to detest, since you're pulling the same tactics here to spread misinformation.
"$1500" and "average computer" leads people into thinking you're saying that "apple machines start at $1,500 and they have the same sort of specs you see on low-end machines from other makers".
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2011
- Messages
- 458
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 35
- Location
- Over there
- Website
- www.epicwinrar.com
- XP
- 306
- Country
...people still do that?
Wow.
I kid, of course it could be handy for small apps, but those apps usually have native equivalents on the systems in question.
It's usually the small apps that aren't ported... I know of this file-patcher (for 3D models) that doesn't have a Mac OS X equivalent...
Like you can with Virtual PC?
Way to take an opinion to the next level.
Do note that I often use "I" and "Performance" within the quoted post - this is how I see it. I put performance over convenience, it's as simple as that. I'd much rather wait this whole minute for the computer to re-boot and achieve full performance and compatibility rather than virtualize, and if there are alternative applications that open the same files, I'd opt to use them instead.
As I said, from where I sit, if someone has the intention of using Windows applications, it's probably a good idea to acquire Windows.
As for my "$1500" comment, it's an obvious overstatement and I thought it doesn't need clarifying - my point was that you can get the same hardware performing in the same fashion for much less, and the most expensive "component" of Apple's computers is the Apple logo, but we all know this by now.
I used to only use virtualization in some instances as well, but with CPU hardware virtualization greatly speeding up the performance (near-native) and some VMs even offering 3D hardware acceleration (I got Project 64 running on a friend's Macbook Pro) the performance loss isn't as much as would be assumed (unless talking things heavily I/O bottlenecked, as they share with the host OS still).
Don't get me wrong - it's all nice and dandy when your intentions are using *really* legacy software or if you simply want to have this extra layer of protection and execute a program within a "safe sandbox" of a Virtual Machine, but users are often led to believe that they'll be able to use contemporary, heavily hardware-dependent software on their VM's or wrap-arounds, and that's rarely (if ever) the case.
What I'm stressing here is that if you want to try out some "Windows gaming" on a Linux or Mac, don't even bother. If you want to do some 3D modeling, you might want to consider alternatives. If you want to use any program that is *heavily* depending on hardware resources, consider a Dual Boot solution instead.
"Boxes" are only good for relatively simple applications, with or without hardware virtualization. At the end of the day, it's a matter of personal preference, and I think I made mine relatively clear.
It's not like the software needs to have not been updated in 15 years or something. Companies contract out software all the time and then refuse to pay for updates/support once they have a working version, or the company they contracted it from went out of business, or they had it developed internally but the developer(s) got fired or left... Even some popular MMOs install themselves to C:\(Game), going against the suggestions for user/admin compatibility that Microsoft laid out with Windows 2000 (and still uses today, thus UAC being required for some client programs), showing how little many places give a shit about updating their software for new systems (even when it's still within their power).
Software doesn't need to be hardware-dependent to be run in a VM, it's not just things that rely on old drivers (like GBA carts), it could just be written to 9x standards or something (which is surprisingly-common, open up your C:\ drive and notice how many programs STILL stick themselves there, to this day).
Software doesn't need to be hardware-dependent to be run in a VM, it's not just things that rely on old drivers (like GBA carts), it could just be written to 9x standards or something (which is surprisingly-common, open up your C:\ drive and notice how many programs STILL stick themselves there, to this day).
Similar threads
-
- Portal
