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/
want to run Windows programs or games on Mac or Linux?
getyour version of Codeweavers CrossOver free today!an actual computer and your own copy of Windows today!
www.microsoft.com
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.
Only if you decide to run applications like Microsoft Office.Is it better than WINE for Linux, though?
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.1) Disk space of Windows install vs. emulator. //Welcome to the 21st century, where high-capacity drives are cheap.
2) Price of (legit) Windows vs. price of (legit) Parallels / VMWare, or free Wine for OSX and Linux. //VMWare still requires a Windows installation. Wine and the likes do not have full compatibility. Often hardly an alternative.
3) Time it takes to switch OS vs. time it takes to load emulated / wrapped software. //Time to switch OS's is much shorter and you have more resources available when you're not using wrappers or emulators.
4) Personal preference of Windows dislike, or favoring a Unix system for whatever reason. //If you dislike Windows, use native Unix alternatives.
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.
I was expressing my opinion on that kind of software, the comment was not directed againts you.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?
snip
...people still do that?Or maybe you're a Web Designer who needs to see what your site looks like under Internet Explorer...
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?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.
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.I also never understood owning Mac's, period.
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).They're being marketed as "not-PC's", but that's just a fat lie - they're PC's like any other.
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.In this day and age when the great majority of applications is released for two or more systems at the same time
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.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.
...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.
If I were to download it for my Windows 7-enabled laptop, could I run Windows programs while I run Windows programs?
Like you can with Virtual PC?
Way to take an opinion to the next level.Snippity snip snip!
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).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
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.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).