Submitted by “I am very happy to announce that we have shipped final versions of CrossOver Mac 6.0 and CrossOver Linux 6.0. Users of Intel based Mac systems can now seamlessly run many Windows applications on their Mac without needing a Windows license. Supported applications include Outlook, Visio, Project, Quicken, Steam based games such as Half Life 2, and many more. For Linux users, we have added support for Outlook 2003, World of Warcraft, a range of Steam based games such as Half-Life 2, and a number of other applications. Additionally, CrossOver 6 represents another major step forward in the evolution of Wine, so most users will find substantial improvements in the overall compatibility and behavior of CrossOver as compared to version 5.”
I didn’t even realize there was already a working version of Wine for OS X… That’s awesome!
What would be the benefits of CrossOver for games on Linux vs Cedega?
Different pricing model?
Edited 2007-01-12 18:42
Cedega has spent much more time working on the DirectX interfaces then Codeweavers has, which most games these days require. I actually use both.
Cadega doesn’t offer a Mac port.
The company is called Transgaming, not “Cadega”. As for an OSX version it’s called Cider. Information on Transgaming products such as Cider and Cedega can be found here http://www.transgaming.com/
What would be the benefits of CrossOver for games on Linux vs Cedega?
From my point of view, the main benefit, especially in the long run, is that CrossOver has a strong cooperation with Wine and thus has access to improvements Cedega will have to get solely from developers at Transgaming.
I tried it to run Photoshop and Dreamweaver. It’s sluggish. I suppose you use it when there’s really no other way such as using Microsoft Office 2000 with Linux because the .doc files look not the same way in Openoffice and when you don’t have enough money to buy an OEM version of XP. Another problem is that most Windows applications I actually want to run don’t work with CrossOver Office. Applications that do work look ugly and grey.
Have you tried version 6? They say the quality of application support has improved since version 5. I haven’t tried it yet, but I will tonight when I get home.
What applications do you want to run that don’t work? Also, “ugly and grey” is the application’s fault, as Crossover replicates the UI of the original app. Office 2003, for example, is grayish but not ugly…
The cool thing is that, if you have Beryl running, the effects also work with apps that run under crossover. Neat.
I just switched back to Windows XP today after trying Fedora Core 6 to run Dreamweaver and Photoshop for a week. I ran across the same results, sluggish and crashes all the time. I had to save my progress every few minutes if i didn’t want to lose anything. That being the case still shows me that any of these products in a Linux platform are still not ready for everyday use. Until these major programs will work under Linux (and a few others), desktop Linux will only be a novelty system to most users. For Linux to become a real alternative for most people the software makers will have to create there programs to run in Linux systems natively.
Again, did you try version 6?
It’s been a while since I tried running Photoshop, but I know that MS Office works quite well, and does not feel sluggish at all.
I’m happy I’m not the only one. We share our experience with WINE and we are modded down by Linux hardcore zealots because of that. I also use IE7 in CrossOver Office, and it’s unstable, especially in those sites that have some exotic scripting with Active X crap. I’m also back to Windows XP.
“””We share our experience with WINE and we are modded down by Linux hardcore zealots because of that.”””
You are correct that CrossOver is disappointing. As a Linux administrator, I often feel that their EULA should begin with “Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here”. 😉
I also happen to be a Linux zealot^Wadvocate.
I have found CrossOver to be a serviceable tool, in the way that chewing gum and bailing wire sometimes are.
When it works, it actually works rather well.
But so often, it simply doesn’t. Few sites that my clients need IE for because they require ActiveX actually work with IE under Crossover. I’m sorry to see CodeWeavers spreading themselves thinner by branching out into gaming. Cedega already does that.
Many years of watching Wine development has made it quite clear to me that *focus* upon a particular application is key. I’ve given up on Wine ever being a good, generalized, solution. And my clients are rarely interested in games.
+1 Joe… from a Linux zealot. 😉
Edited 2007-01-12 21:00
Joe, what version of Crossover did you use?
As far as IE goes, why not simply use IE6? I’m sure none of the Active X websites require IE7…
Oh, and complaining about “being modded down by Linux zealots” is kind of lame. From where I sit here both your post and Wireless’ are at the normal score of 1.
“””Oh, and complaining about “being modded down by Linux zealots” is kind of lame. From where I sit here both your post and Wireless’ are at the normal score of 1.”””
After my +1. It was actually at -1 when I first noticed it. He’s right. It was modded down for no good reason.
Granted, these things have a way of correcting themselves. But still…
Edited 2007-01-12 22:16
Okay, I didn’t follow the evolution of the thread very closely…I agree that such a post did not warrant a “down” moderation (nor an “up”, but that’s my personal opinion 😉 and you were right to mod him back up to 1.
As you say, these things correct themselves, and biatching about moderation (and slipping in a little insult at the same time) is in itself off-topic.
I’m still waiting for either of them to tell us which version of CrossOver they used, though… 🙂
Edited 2007-01-12 22:19
You aren’t modded down because of a difference in opinion, you’re modded down (although incorrectly) because of your blatant ignoring of help by people here.
You have a problem, and so far, as I have counted, there have been 3 posts inquiring about the issue and some advice in regards to correcting those deficiencies you have found when using the said product.
How about instead of playing the perpetual victim game, you actually read the posts in the thread – or do you just show up on this site to spout shit and ignore everyone elses opinion?
As for my experience with the said product; I used version 5.0 for many happy years when getting through a course, and I can tell you that it was just as stable as running it natively; and yes, even Access, although classed as ‘Silver’ at the time was very usable.
Edited 2007-01-12 23:20
Last time I checked, crossover office STILL USES X-WINDOWS ON THE MAC. So, it is just as alien, if not more alien that using parallels desktop.
With Parallels, I can run any Windows application at near full speed, and with the new version of Parallels (I have not tried it yet), Windows applications act very similar to native Mac applications, it even supports full clipboard access of most data types between Windows and Mac applications, so in esscence, Paralles is far more integrated and native that an X-Windows emulated Windows application.
With Parallels working so well, I suspect that there will be little or no intrest from any Mac users so long as crossover continues to use X-Windows.
A Quartz video driver is in the works, although I have no idea how far along it is.
talking about the same Crossover Office that I use?
If you stick to programs that have Gold or Silver level compatability you won’t have problems.
I run IE 6, Dreamweaver MX, Photoshop 7, and Office 2000 (Word and Excel) without a problem. I also find that most of the self contained Windows programs running off a USB device work under Crossover.
The apps are barely noticably slower than native apps. Not a big deal and certainly well within the usable realm on any modern hardware.
I think your list of ‘good’ apps nails the situation pretty nicely. They’re all applications/versions that are Windows 9x/ME compatible — NT/2K/XP-only apps, such as Photoshop CS or Studio MX 2004, are much less likely to work.
If you’re saying Crossover handles Studio MX (2002) faultlessly, then I’d be tempted to give it a look, as recent versions of WINE on Gentoo haven’t been worth a damn for it :/
If you’re saying Crossover handles Studio MX (2002) faultlessly, then I’d be tempted to give it a look,
No, just Dreamweaver. If they made Fireworks work, my experience would be complete.
I’m looking forward to trying Crossover 6 on OS X, but my problem is that we just upgraded our Production department at work to Dual G5s not too long ago… so we probably won’t get Intel Macs for awhile.
Maybe someone can let me know how MS Frontpage works under Crossover on an Intel Mac. I would prefer 2002 or 2003, but 2000 would be acceptable.
The reason is, we are trying to get our production department to help out with some Web Sites, but GoLive and FrontPage don’t really get along, so we can’t maintain them easily later on. Furthermore, Dreamweaver makes a mess of pages too… while Frontpage leaves the HTML and PHP I hand code alone.
Personally, I run Crossover 5 on Edgy (w/Beryl) and can’t seem to get FP2003 working. FP2002 works good though. The killer feature for 2003 though is the ability to edit tags by clicking on them in the “Path” in Design view.
Wireless (1.00) on 2007-01-12 19:27:45 UTC in reply to “Does it make sense to use C…”
I just switched back to Windows XP today after trying Fedora Core 6 to run Dreamweaver and Photoshop for a week. I ran across the same results, sluggish and crashes all the time. I had to save my progress every few minutes if i didn’t want to lose anything. That being the case still shows me that any of these products in a Linux platform are still not ready for everyday use. Until these major programs will work under Linux (and a few others), desktop Linux will only be a novelty system to most users. For Linux to become a real alternative for most people the software makers will have to create there programs to run in Linux systems natively.
Direct link for this comment
Cruise up to the article on windows vista and you’ll see that they have been having problems with ie7 on windows xp and vista!! So , you won’t find it any better there, and you’ll still be out whatever cash you payed for thier software.
However, i can run ie6 on Ubuntu with no troubles at all.
Definately going to try this software, as it sounds like they’ve come along ways in a short time ( like most oss) recently.
I am definitely going to try this new version and hope it works out well. I am downloading the newest ubuntu to try instead of fedora core. maybe it will work out better. It seems to me that a linux platform is more stable than windows when running software made for linux, if this new crossover would make these programs work as well as they do in windows then there would be no need for me to use windows at all. however i have not tried to run IE at all in linux, i have another system i can use just for testing websites in IE and firefox on windows