Codeweavers Releases Crossover Office 296
rleyton writes "Codeweavers have just announced Crossover Office, a Wine derivitive which allows MS-Office 97 & 2000 products as well as Lotus Notes to run without a Windows OS License. If it's as cool as the Crossover plugin product, then it could mean a significant step forward in Wine's progress." NewsForge got hold of a final beta copy a couple of days ago and has a Crossover Office review up already, and DesktopLinux.com has one too. This looks pretty cool, yes.
Now if a PHB tells you can't run Linux, because you need Office - tell him you'll save money by not needing a Windows license, and call still use Office.
I don't need it, but I sure am glad to see it. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not likely to buy this one because I don't need MS Office and $55 will buy some things I do want or need...
however...
Boy, do I hope this works as well as the plugin.
Office is a major stumbling block for many people (not that it should be, just is).
More to the point: If they can run Office well enough to be worth the trouble, how much more software is just around the bend?
The reasons to resist are melting, my pretty, melting, melting...
Re:I don't need it, but I sure am glad to see it. (Score:2)
Re:I don't need it, but I sure am glad to see it. (Score:2)
Because they're not giving you Microsoft Office: you still have to buy that from Microsoft, at Microsoft's prices. What Codeweavers are giving you is something which lets you install and run MS Office on Linux using the MS Office CD.
Still cheaper than a Windows licence though...
Re:I don't need it, but I sure am glad to see it. (Score:2)
Re:I don't need it, but I sure am glad to see it. (Score:2, Informative)
"This product only makes sense for people who already have a Microsoft Office CD. If you don't, stick with StarOffice or pay Microsoft USD $370 plus tax for the suite. But if you do have Office 97 or 2000 laying around, Codeweaver's Crossover Office will let you fire up Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and Access in Linux, and even surf the Internet with Explorer, or check your mail with Outlook."
Re:I don't need it, but I sure am glad to see it. (Score:2)
Well I'll be damned (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well I'll be damned (Score:2)
But heres the Rub, I would of migrated before XP, but after Cleartype, this great anti-aliasing is just too pleasing on the eyes all day.
Anyone know if Anti-aliasing is supported with the cross-over plugin?
Re:Well I'll be damned (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it is possible to write an AA plugin for Crosssover, though...that would be sweet (even though it still won't look as good as my hacked gdkxft fonts...)
I'm still going to buy this, mind you. StarOffice is great, but sometimes I just need total compatibility (and also it loads faster).
Re:Well I'll be damned (Score:2)
Compile freetype with fonts hinting enabled (read the README.UNX file which is included in the freetype) then copy it to the "cxoffice/lib" directory in crossover office. Start your windows apps - you'll get EXACTLY the same look with fonts as with standard Windows.
Re:Well I'll be damned (Score:2)
So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Flamebait)
Yeah - that's gonna fly just great with my boss.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Interesting)
"Despite these facts of life, Microsoft has decided to introduce a new licensing scheme that forces organisations to upgrade products according to rigid timescales or pay higher prices."
http://www.vnunet.com/Features/1127149
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Informative)
There are also the other advantages (security, stability) over Windows that Linux offers.
mod parent up! (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, and FYI, the price of Windows drops as well with large orders. In essence you save no money at all even if you can manage to get PCs without Windows licenses.
Touting "security" and "stability" and then running MS Office on top of a hacked up Wine implementation really smacks of hypocrasy to me. I'd be willing to bet that MS Office + Windows is a lot more stable than MS Office + Codeweavers + Linux.
In the end, I can see the need for maybe one copy of the Codeweavers Office product to be put on a box somewhere that people can run X Servers from and convert any incoming Office documents to whatever native format they are using. The "buy it for each desktop" argument just makes no sense.
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2, Insightful)
Even though Office on Wine is likely to be less stable than Office on Windows, Office on Wine will have a much harder time crashing more than the application when it goes down. ie., Office on Wine may crash the application more, but it should crash the OS much less.
Tough call (Score:3, Interesting)
There are also the other advantages (security, stability) over Windows that Linux offers.
I'd like to see a comparison of stability between, say, "Office 2000 running on Windows 2000" and "Office 2000 running on Crossover on (whatever)". I don't know if it would turn out the way you think (despite Linux being more stable in general).
I don't know how much play Linux advocates are getting out of security issues right now. I think you'll need to see another big (ie. well covered by regular news channels) security breach or two before security really becomes a factor in migration again.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version? Only MS (well, depending on how courts move) really knows the answer to that.
Who knows, maybe MS will just start selling Office for Linux. Could happen...
.
Re:Tough call (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tough call (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll tell you about it when I try it out...but you shouldn't just assume that it's going to be less stable than running it on Windows (that shows a definite bias). Codeweavers have done a great job with Crossover Plugin - I have yet to have either Quicktime or Windows Media Player crash on me. Not once.
The other consideration is future. Many businesses spend much more than $55/desktop to keep current with the latest version of Office. Is Crossover going to work for the next version?
That's an interesting question, though. Why do businesses need to buy new versions of Office? Do their needs change that much? What about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?" The problem is that such an approach isn't ideal for keeping Microsoft's revenue stream at a regular level, so MS has developed an elaborate swindle: they put out new version of Office that are almost compatible with preceding ones, but add new features that aren't essential. They could very well implement these new features as plugins, but they don't, therefore forcing people to get the new version. Now, if other people want to be 100% compatible, they'll have to upgrade too, and so on. To me, Office 2000 is more than enough for a company. The Linux/Crossover/Office solution seems like a good way for a business to get out of the Microsoft trap...Anyway, I'll try it tonight and see.
Re:Tough call (Score:2)
Re:Tough call (Score:2)
It'll be interesting to see. You're right, you can't assume anything. Especially on a project this complex.
That's an interesting question, though. Why do businesses need to buy new versions of Office? Do their needs change that much? What about "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"
Many in our company still run Word 95 on NT 4.0. Both of these products still work, just as well as when they were new.
But people like new versions, even if they can't name one new feature they'll use. Might be a good subject for a research paper.
Have a good day.
.
Good point.. I'll add - (Score:2)
"Well, every OS has security problems."
and the whole issue is filed away. It's hard to sell change because change is inconvenient.
"This can help you cover your bum" is a good way to sell to managers, but it only works if public perception is overwhelmingly set in one direction. As long as managers feel MS is sufficiently covering them (or at least appearing to do so), security will be a tough sell as a reason for migration.
As long as you're doing what everyone else is doing, nobody's going to fire you.
.
So what IS the cost of Windows.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mention the $50 an OEM might pay but there is much more. Keeping MS Windows running isn't cheap and being forced to upgrade the OS and MS apps every 1.5 years doesn't help either. Let's not forget those wonderful security features Microsoft has built into MS Windows for you. That's right, you should include the cost for that virus software too. And that only catches the virus after you've been infected since MS Windows gets infected so quickly. I think it was estimated that over $10 billion dollars were lost do to MS Windows virus infections over the last couple of years. Keeping that registry fixed up isn't cheap either.
Keeping a business running on MS Windows is like keeping your car running by giving a crocked neighborhood mechanic your checkbook. You start it up and it's gonna cost ya....
LoB
Re:So let me get this straight... (Score:2)
Till MS changes the license (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Till MS changes the license (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Till MS changes the license (Score:3, Informative)
And why should MS sue? do I still need a licensed copy of Office? yes. Does MS still makes money by selling me office? yes. So whats the point to sue?
Counter action (Score:5, Insightful)
And your second point takes the words right out of my mouth as I was reading the article. I think as soon as the monopoly trials are over they will have enough wiggle room to put a requirement into the license for Office that it must run on Windows.
Using it (Score:3, Informative)
I have to say it works really well, even Access seemed to work for me (although CodeWeavers say on their site it doesn't)
It was a bit wierd having access to the company's shared calendar after using Evolution for the year that I've worked here.
I don't think I'll use it full-time, but it will be useful occasionally, and I'm sure other people who have to have M$ Office will find it invaluable.
M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:3, Interesting)
OTOH, maybe the Justice Department might find that requiring a MS Windows installation when it is unecessary on a technological level is some sort of reverse bundling (i.e. forcing users to buy a copy of Windows, even though it is technically possible to use Office without it). Explotation of their (near) monopoly on office suites to sell more copies of Windows!
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do you see MS start chasing after thousands of customers who will buy this? I hardly think so. Its better for MS since you still need to have Office 97 or 2000...
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:5, Funny)
Chris Beckenbach
Poor point (Score:2, Interesting)
Kind of like criminal conspiracy to catch mobsters, who never really did anything wrong.
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure they'll lose out on some converts for whom the only block for going to Linux was Office. However, Microsoft does gain a new platform on which their software runs and which they don't have to officially support.
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:2)
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:2, Informative)
Re:M$ is gonna be pissed! (Score:2)
Linux = piracy
If someone was badmouthing M$, M$ Would step up with lawyers and lawsuits. Where is the people defending Linux?
Office for Linux on Corporate world? (Score:2, Interesting)
Really, a PC's life in the corporate world is perhaps 3 years. $2000 compared to the productivity lost by the employee whose salary is at least 40 times more than the PC in that same 3 year span is just not worth it.
They just don't want to take the chance. It's a pity.
Why the timeline? (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the great claims of the OSS movement is how RAPID OSS programs are developed. Yet WINE, which is one of the larger OSS efforts out there, can not achieve this seemingly meager goal year after year.
Indeed, the only thing that seems to have kept WINE anywhere close to being on-target is the support of private companies who contribute their code back to the WINE tree. Some of these companies,like Codeweavers are decidedly on the OSS bandwagon. But others, like Corel aren't (though they did play nice with OSS, to their credit).
In the meantime, closed source efforts to port similarly complex API's succeed in much less time with far higher quality results (VM Ware anyone!).
Can someone explain how the failure of a project to hit a stationary target (the Win95 API has not changed though implimentation bugs may have) after such a lengthy period of time is anything but a proof by counter example of the grandiose claims of how much better OSS is for just this sort of development?
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about MS applications is that they have full access to the APIs, even features that may not have been documented for some reason or another. It is hard for a project like wine to create a environment when there might be API calls to functions that aren't documented outside of MS. All this said, I have never tried Office 2000 under wine, (don't have it) but Office 97 seems to work under wine...
I would say wine is an exceptionally successful project considering the scope of the problem they have decided to address.
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:2)
That is a lot harder than writing a new system. Emulating a PC is probably on the whole, is also simpler than M$ APIs. (VM ware)
Secondly there probably is a smaller demographic that works on/knows about M$ products and *Nix.
Third, they are grafting two OSs which are quite different together. One would always have to make accomidations for the way one works. This must be a headache.
Hats off to the wine people! Running Office is quite a feat.
Cheers,
-b
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:2)
Wine, instead, strives to implement all of the Windows API as faithfully as possibile, and that includes the undocumented stuff.
So I would not define the effort meager...
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:3, Interesting)
Now just because you're working for a company doesn't mean that you can't be doing OSS development, and I think that OSS development is still a much more "productive" way to develop software, because in addition to the employees you've got working on the software, you'll cultivate a base of external coders who are excited about the project and care about it, too.
For people NOT on a company payroll to develop software, I think OSS is really the only way to go. Would Wine be doing any better if the volunteers decided to close the source and keep it to themselves? I suspect it'd be much further "behind" than it is right now (although I'm sure the Wine developers would object to the word "behind" there; sorry guys).
It's not the development model that's holding the software back; it's the available time to do it in. (How's that for a bold statement? <g>)
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:3, Informative)
Wine is in no way analogous to vmware except in how end-users tend to use it. VMWare can't be used, for example, to port a windows app to native code (ala winelib).
A comparable project to vmware is plex86 (www.plex86.org). Though it lacks the spit and polish of VMWare, they have had less time to develop and have made great progress in their relatively short life.
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is absolutely false. The very act of installing Office 2000 on Win95 extends the Win32 API. When you install, you not only get Windows Installer added to the system, you also get updated version of DLL's installed under your WINDOWS directory.
What kind of Application installs OS updates without informing the user or giving you a choice?
Perhaps you never noticed why mouse scroll wheels started working in all sorts of dialogs and whatnot even if you never installed Intellimouse? The answer is that Microsoft applications routinely extend the OS and API.
Lastly, the WINE team has never said their target is to emulate the Original Win95 API. Even if they had done that, they would be dependant on the new DLL files, the same as Win95 is today.
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:2)
True, Office doesn't ask you for permission, but then again it's targeted at (stupid) end users. End users don't care, they just want Office up and running. Visual Studio, which is targeted at developers, does ask for permission before installing its updates. In either case, the application won't run without the OS updates, so if you want to install it (something you've clearly demonstrated that you want to by starting the setup program) you've got no choice but to install them. And I've never heard of a case where a computer broke down because the Office installer put in some little feature like mousewheel drivers or whatnot.
If you really need to be able to manipulate every bit of your OS, and want software that's pretty much all written with advanced users in mind, use Linux, BSD or whatever. Windows is targeted at consumers, and therefore will do stuff differently, and limit (somewhat) the user's influence. Live with it, or use something else.
All wallets NOT created equal (Score:2)
If you want the OSS stuff to come around quicker, pick up GCC and start contributing. Help is always welcome. I for one wish I had the time to do that myself. Instead, I try to contribute a little time/money to existing OSS projects when I can. I feel it's a well spent investment.
Also, if KDE seems to crash on you all the time (even though I've never had it crash on me since I actively started using it over a year ago), try Gnome, Sawfish, WM or their variants. At least you are offered the choice.
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other had wine has to emulate the huge bloted windows API. Several orders of magnitude more complex than the pc bios.
I think where open source is better than closed source it is in finding developers that *care*. However if what you need is hundreds of developers to hack on an API - money talks. Hence wine struggles.
Re:Why the timeline? (Score:3, Redundant)
You can bet that Microsoft hasn't been helping the WINE coders any, by supplying decent documentation for instance. Reverse engineering something as complex as Windows is no mean feat. And programs like Office and IE 4+ essentially patch the OS when they're installed, by inserting DLLs and other code deep into the system. Running WinHelloWorld.exe is one thing; running IExplore.exe is something entirely different.
Think back: how many times did Microsoft have to push back the release date of Windows 95? And they're Microsoft, for goodness sake, the guys with a gazillion programmers chained to desks in the subterranian levels of Big Bill's Zoo of Death(tm). I think WINE is making decent progress as it is.
Of course, I wouldn't complain if they got the job done sooner rather than later...
Nope. VMWare only implements the BIOS and a framework to proxy between Windows and the PCI, IDE, etc. busses. VMWare doesn't emulate Windows, it runs Windows. No mean feat, either, but it's a totally different approach.Re:Why the timeline? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's what I can't figure out: Office 2000 will run on Win95. That means that to make Office 2000 (or damn near any other product out there that runs on the windows tree) all that needs to be done is support an API that is now almost 7 years old.
-1 (Malinformed)
Sure, it's easy to say how writing an API should take less than 7 years, and easy to say that the Wine Project [winehq.com] is failing by missing that target, but it's a moving target. The API changes, and when reverse engineering an API, there are multiple right answers for the limited tests they have the resources to do.
Say a program uses APIs 1-50, but only 25% of them. In order to make that program work, you only need 50 APIs 25% done. Not too bad. And, maybe your solution doesn't collide with other variables too badly. Now, when you take that up to 50%, you might start to get some collisions, realize that, while a certain program functioned using an API before, it was based on two assumptions that were both wrong and happened to cancel each other out.
It's 7 years old (and being extended with every release). It's undocumented (at last check Microsoft denied there were undocumented API features, but the Wine project happened to be documenting them on the way through their implementation).
It's not easy to hit an invisible moving target.
Very cool, but it won't take off (Score:2)
I really don't think a lot of people will want to run MS-Office on Linux, given the existence of StarOffice and OpenOffice.
This is very cool as a technology demenstration though. If big apps like Office run under Wine, it's a good sign for the little applications. It's no longer basic productivity tools that keep people from switching to Linux, it's the fact that you can't go into a store and pick up a tax program, or a spelling game for your toddler, and be confident it will work.
Re:Very cool, but it won't take off (Score:2)
In fact that's what I was trying to say and I do think this is a good sign. I'm a little worried though that CodeWeavers (or other observers) will write this off as a failure (or worse, run into finanicial trouble) if it doesn't sell.
Re:Very cool, but it won't take off (Score:2)
Re:Very cool, but it won't take off (Score:2)
Maybe. I hope so at least :-). I've worked at a couple of ".com"s though, and I know it's easy for intelligent people to get hooked on an idea that can't work.
But yeah, you've got to figure that they're a little more grounded nowadays since the .bomb.
Interesting times (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, judging by the test (they used RC1, not 1.0), this software still have some way to go before it can be said to be ready. But it is already a huge step forward. Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Explorer running correctly under Linux are a huge incentive for corporations willing to move their desktops to Linux. Once there, moving people to Star/OpenOffice or even the recent gobe will be just a matter of corporate policy and time for the bean counters to add up the license savings of the switch out of Windows and the license savings to be gained by switching out of Office.
Re:Interesting times (Score:2)
Also, tying their product to the OS would look like bundling. The dont need any more DOJ lawsuits.
And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, sure, you're getting rid of the Windows license...a savings of $50 or so in the OEM world. But you're still giving money to Uncle Bill for Office itself...and even in an OEM atmosphere I bet Office is a damned sight more than $50.
Making cute nick-nacks that will run Microsoft's office suite on another OS doesn't reduce Microsoft's grip on the desktop what so ever. Only a native office suite that is not purchased from Microsoft will make that difference on Microsoft's bottom line.
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:2, Insightful)
Easy one.
You're completely missing the boat
by imagining that the whole point of Linux is
to save $50 on a Windows license.
Microsoft's whole empire is built on
forcing people to buy MS by making
their software work poorly with everything else.
This way people can't buy best-of-breed
products or - since MS owns the playing field -
write their own apps to surpass those of MS.
Decoupling MS products from each other and
migrating to an open playing field would
rejuvinate the whole industry.
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Office is _THE_KILLER_APP_ for Windows. Email, surfing, and most everything else has options on multiple platforms. I would dare say Office for the Mac is a huge reason Apple is growing outside the multimedia developers.
People can try to guess the word formats, but they never seem to be quite right (same goes for any other word processor importing and exporting formats for that matter). If the app runs well under Linux or Mac, that knocks over a huge wall.
Really opening the office formats would really hit Bill hard - Office tends to carry much of the company's revinue. This just makes the OS not matter (as much). You think companies get to pay the OEM price? Bah ha ha ha.... They usually pay that, then again when they image it, and then again (yearly) with a "enterprise agreement". The imaging "tax" changed some time last year, but it does add up - more than $50..
It's called: Small changes (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't change to Linux because it brings too many changes. You have to adapt everything starting from e-mail, documents and ending at any special apps you may run on Windows.
If this product lets you still use Office and even run all those special apps, a change to Linux becomes a set of small changes. Change the OS first. Then gradually change more during months or years.
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not anti-Microsoft, I'm anti proprietary. I'm especially anti-proprietary file formats and network protocols. If the MS anti-trust proceedings don't diminish MS's control over file formats and protocols that we all need to use in order to do our work, then the states are prosecuting this case in vain. Microsoft will continue to monopolize the computing industry until such time as competing products are able to read and write Word, Excel, SMB, etc. A little proprietary hook here or there is all MS needs to forever erase the threat of competition.
This is why we should beware so-called "compromise" settlements in which MS promises to open their API's. All that accomplishes is a further dependance on MS product. As this product indicates, apparently their API's are already open enough to produce an emulation layer for Linux. This is not good, this is terrible. It's terrible because the operating system is not the threat! The applications are the threat! They are a threat, because they further entrench our dependance on proprietary data and protocols. And because MS controls the protocols, and because we must all use them in order to communicate with our collegues, peers, friends and family, MS will forever dominate the computer industry.
Again, I am not anti-Microsoft. I am pro-competition. I want choices. I want desktop applications to compete on the merits. This will never happen, until MS file formats and network protocols are made completely public.
Come on Microsoft - show us you can win an application showdown fairly. What are you afraid of? You have a pretty good shot, you know. Stop playing dirty tricks, and get back to basics. Make applications that people want to buy because they work better, not because they are the only choice.
Re:And this reduces dependence on Bill how? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would not mind living in a world where Office is proprietary if MS was an APPLICATION company producing Office for many platforms.
Gotta love this quote (Score:2)
Now if only they can just get Office to integrate with Evolution and Mozilla (or, better yet, Galeon)...
I may switch back to a linux desktop full time (Score:2, Insightful)
BTW one thing to keep in mind is that if they can get Office running other apps like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Autocad etc can't be far behind. Yes native is better, but native is not coming anytime soon from companies like Adobe. So I say full steam ahead for wine.
Unless it has... (Score:2, Funny)
Of course, I'm not buying it anyway. [Insert standard "no reason to further the
Post Useful Reviews please (Score:2, Interesting)
Folks,
it would be really useful if people would post reviews. Some short ones have been posted, but "rocks as hell"... well.
Any power users out there? Are there problems with fonts as told in the review of the beta? Can you create Access databases? Do macros/VBA programs work? Does the menu editor work? Do images in tables print well from word? Spell check? Help? Does the mouse feel right? Clipboard? Can you embed excel tables? Do ODBC connections from Access databases work? ...
Thanks!
Re:Post Useful Reviews please (Score:4, Informative)
Fonts problems - due to Apple patents, the fonts hintings are off - a simple workaround would be to recompile freetype with fonts hinting on (read the README.UNX inside the freetype package), and copying it to the cxoffice/lib. This should give you same look as in windows.
Access - is pretty problematic right now - its slow. Wait for 1.0.1 (or you can buy crossover office today and get the free upgrade) for the fixes.
Macros/VBA stuff - works perfectly.
Clipboard - you'll need to install an old DLL (mfc42.dll) to the cxoffice/support/dotwine/fake_windows/Windows/ directory and then it will run (will be fixed in 1.0.1).
Excel tables, embedding - works.
ODBC connection - cannot test due to Access running problems (read my first part).
Good enough to develop win32 programs in Linux (Score:2)
Now What we need is... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be more than useful also, for them to quickly address the problem of font control under Linux; this means creating an Adobe Type Manager® clone. Then, we will be able to gleefully work uninterupted for days on end.
The Problem I have with Wine . . . (Score:3, Informative)
That's all fine and good, except that there's no Windows to be rebooted. Somehwere in the registry or whatever, that program's put an identifier so the next time Windows boots up, it'll run the rest of the installation program, but I don't know where that is. When I try and run the installation program again, it just gives me the same song-and-dance about needing to reboot, so I can never actually get the things installed! This is mostly the case with the "newer" MS products, like the Office 2k line.
What's nice about the Crossover Office thing (aha! this post is on topic) is that they've evidentally got an install procedure that actually WORKS, so that might be the answer I've wanted. Of course, now I'm in a position where I don't need to worry about running those MS programs, so I probably won't get it, but still. :)
Re:The Problem I have with Wine . . . (Score:2)
Now you're all set to use the current verison of wine, assuming that works 'better' than codeweavers (IIRC it's from 12/05/02)
Just remember any new apps need to be installed in crossover, before you copy your directory into ~/.wine
What about the registration timebomb? (Score:2)
Re:What about the registration timebomb? (Score:2)
Priceless (Score:2, Funny)
Crossover plugin $55
sticking Windows up Billy Boy's ass PRICELESS!
Can you use it to "centralize" Office? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Can you use it to "centralize" Office? (Score:2, Informative)
That said, we should've known better. MS has gone almost completely to a per-user (or per-seat) licensing scheme.
What would be more useful. (Score:2)
For someone to write a little engine that takes in MS office docs and spits them out in a open file format for any other application to use. (And converts the other way too). That would mean the people could switch from MS Office, the average office drone wouldnt notice the difference between Gobeproductive and msoffice - the real lock in is the file formats because there isnt yet an Open Source application that will 100% read/write them.
Re:What would be more useful. (Score:2)
License Change (Score:2, Insightful)
Who this is for (Score:2)
The question is, is it even for me? I need to run Office 95, not Office 97. My copy of Office 97 is installed on another machine, so I don't have the right to install it on my Linux box. The copy of 95, however, is currently unused. But they don't say that they can run Office 95, and I'm not likely to scout around to find a copy of Office 97 to buy.
OTOH, this is one step closer to the time when the older windows games can be played. Perhaps Civilization III (I prefer Civilization to any other game, but CTP does become old). I'd say Civilization II, but there were multiple versions of that, and most of them even had trouble running on a native win95 system.
Could be a great multiuser solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Take it from me, I run boxes at a hosting center where some of our customers are ASP's. Terminal Server licensing is an absolute nightmare. Being able to share out Win32 apps without paying OS license fees would be a very big deal.
Which version of IE? (Score:2)
Re:Except.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:MS Won't Like This (Score:2)
Re:MS Won't Like This (Score:2)
Right they won't like this.
But you have to consider the context of the times to know what they'll do
// present codeweavers plugin as evidence
// that no one is "tied" to Windows
// send in BSA auditors to outfits daring
// enough to buy Office without Windows
// and insure next Office has API calls down
// into the deepest bowels of the HAL and .NET
// for good measure
if ( antitrust_trial_active() ) {
}
else {
}
Re:Visio (Score:3)
Kivio (Score:2)
Support native Linux ISV's!
Re:Encouraging but... (Score:2)
I have read the review. It says no such thing.
What is says is that Office under 'ordinary' WINE, ie. not the plug-in, proved more unstable than under Windows.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:Wow (Score:2)
No doubt! I really wanted to kick Windows to the curb, but really got attached to Trillian [trillian.cc] for IM (yeah, Gaim, Gaim, but My friends use Trillian and we use SecureIM to plot our world domination)
I bought Crossover PLugin 1.1.0 and bang - Quicktime, Trillina, RealOne, etc, etc. VERY cool. Best $25 I ever spent on software.
Granted, wine likes to suck up my CPU cycles, but hopefully the success of Crossover xxxx will help improve that.
Keep up the great work guys!
Re:Or you dont have to pay for it.. - sorta (Score:2)
I've been watching the wine lists for a while now, and I believe Notes does NOT work reliably with the current wine releases. You can apply an unofficial patch to make it work, but it's unofficial because it doesn't conform to Wine's programming guidelines (IIRC).
So you can't easily get it for free, but yes, it's possible.
Another example is Installshield. Crossover works wonderfully, but the code is a hack, and won't be accepted as-is into the Wine tree.
By buying Codeweavers products (I have Crossover myself), you're buying the "end result". While sticking with the 'Official' Wine releases gives you the "correct" code (which you may need to hack to get your apps working, then it's no longer 'correct').
CodeWeavers is bringing the reality of Windows apps on Linux, while WineHQ brings structure and discipline to the codebase.
Re:I'm sure they are in MS's sights (Score:2)
Office for Mac OS X isn't bad, but I'd prefer to use something else.
The problem is that I can't think of anything else that doesn't suck that's still sold, but I refuse to believe that there isn't such a thing.
Re:Photoshop (Score:2, Insightful)
The Gimp. Why didn't I think of that? (Score:4, Interesting)
Simple fact: The Gimp, like many other Open Source programs, has a poor user interface. Unlike Photoshop, which, despite its massive feature-set, is easy for an average user to pick up, the Gimp's functions are all buried in multiple levels of right-click menus. It also uses an annoying multi-window interface that clutters your taskbar horribly. The simple fact is that Photoshop is just a lot more pleasant and easy to use.
Likewise, MS Office is a much smoother experience than StarOffice (which, admittedly, has improved by leaps and bounds since its thrice-damned 5.0 incarnation).
Now, I'm behind Open Source 100%, but I don't get so caught up in my zealotry that I lose sight of ease of use issues. If an everyday user can't sit down and use an Open Source program just as easily as they could use a proprietary one, then they're not going to want to switch. It's as simple as that.
Re:The Gimp. Why didn't I think of that? (Score:2)
One is raising windows on clicks. This makes it impossible to have a number of control panels that the user can easily rearrange in the order they want. The only solution is to enforce an ordering by "parent/child" (the only ordering interface provided by Windows or X window managers) which is so annoying that more than one control panel is nearly impossible.
Fortunately some X window managers have avoided the above problem or can be configured to turn it off (but not KDE, alas...). However the second problem (also on Windows) is that when you raise a "child" window the window managers insist on raising all "parent" windows to immediately below them.
The end result is that anybody trying to make a multi-window interface is forced to make every window a main window (thus cluttering the task bar, as you noticed) and trying to tell people that they need to reconfigure their window manager to get best performance.
Let me plead again with the KDE/Gnome (and MicroSoft) designers: NEVER NEVER NEVER raise a window unless the user clicks ON THE TITLE BAR of THAT WINDOW (or one of it's parents). DO NOT RAISE WINDOWS WHEN USERS CLICK BUTTONS, DO NOT RAISE WINDOWS THAT ARE PARENTS OF THE CLICKED WINDOW. And maybe get rid of NeXTstep-like "layers", I can raise the taskbar myself.
PLEASE! You are completely killing any innovations in user interface with this stupid behavior.
You make a good point. (Score:2)
You say it yourself: people are generally more comfortable with what they're used to. It's fairly safe to say that most Linux users are more familiar with single-window style applications. KDE, Gnome, and Windows GUIs have standardized on this. Documents (pictures or whatever) go inside the main window, which also includes all toolbars and the like. Options should also be reachable from the main application menu bar.
I'll backpedal slightly from my previous argument and admit that The Gimp isn't *unpleasant* to use. It's just not (in my opinion, and others I've spoken with) *as* pleasant as Photoshop. New users, for instance, often have a bit of trouble figuring out how to cut and paste, run filters, or perform any number of other advanced functions.
Of course, I've been deliberately avoiding the price issue. All of my arguments are based on the fundamental assumption that whoever is going to be using this program has several hundred dollars to blow on purchasing it. And The Gimp isn't so complicated that people can't pick it up by spending a little extra time familiarizing themselves with it. I just think they shouldn't *have* to.
Lendrick
Re:does this work on FreeBSD? (Score:2)
FreeBSD - well, it really depends on the amount of people who want it - ask CodeWeavers..
Re:Site Licenses (Score:2)
You still need the number of Office licenses per users..