Windoze envionment on Linux?
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux? Is it on the SuSE Pro 9.1 disks? Where can i find docs on set up, config, and installation of Windoze software. About the only two things I need are an old version of Quicken 2000 to look at some old Quicken ledgers and a current version of Microsoft Publisher. All comments welcome john
On Monday 30 August 2004 21:04, John N. Alegre wrote:
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux?
Is it on the SuSE Pro 9.1 disks?
Open YAST2, go to the option of adding software, search for WINE....You could have found that when you installed Linux..
Where can i find docs on set up, config, and installation of Windoze software.
The Manual.
All comments welcome john
OK.
On Mon, 2004-08-30 at 21:04, John N. Alegre wrote:
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux?
Is it on the SuSE Pro 9.1 disks?
1) Wine is an acronym for Wine Is Not an Emulator, it handles the API calls for 'doze programs. 2) Yes it is on the disks.
Where can i find docs on set up, config, and installation of Windoze software.
RTFM? ;) You could also Google for WineHQ.
About the only two things I need are an old version of Quicken 2000 to look at some old Quicken ledgers and a current version of Microsoft Publisher.
All comments welcome.
have fun. :)
John, On Monday 30 August 2004 18:04, John N. Alegre wrote:
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux?
Is it on the SuSE Pro 9.1 disks?
Where can i find docs on set up, config, and installation of Windoze software.
In addition to the answers already given, there's also a news group: news:comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
About the only two things I need are an old version of Quicken 2000 to look at some old Quicken ledgers and a current version of Microsoft Publisher.
All comments welcome
Oh, you don't really mean that...
john
Randall Schulz
On Monday 30 August 2004 05:04 pm, John N. Alegre wrote:
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux?
No, CrossOver Office from CodeWeavers is much better IMHO. $39. http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffice/?ad=5 For true windows without dual booting, Vmware is, but its spendy. Only Wine is free -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:04:45 -0800
John Andersen
On Monday 30 August 2004 05:04 pm, John N. Alegre wrote:
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux?
No, CrossOver Office from CodeWeavers is much better IMHO. $39. http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffice/?ad=5
For true windows without dual booting, Vmware is, but its spendy.
Only Wine is free Crossover Office is an excellent product, and CodeWeavers does support WINE and host WINE on their server.
Another possibility is to use Win4Lin
(http://www.netraverse.com/products/win4lin50/)
This runs as a process under Linux and supports Windows 9x (eg. 98,
98SE, ME). It is cheaper than VMWARE, and uses the Linux file system.
--
Jerry Feldman
Only Wine is free Crossover Office is an excellent product, and CodeWeavers does support WINE and host WINE on their server.
Another possibility is to use Win4Lin (http://www.netraverse.com/products/win4lin50/) This runs as a process under Linux and supports Windows 9x (eg. 98, 98SE, ME). It is cheaper than VMWARE, and uses the Linux file system.
Another thing to contemplate as far as VMWare goes, is you need a pretty robust machine (plenty of processor, memory, and HD space). Since it emulates an entire computer running Windows, it's a bit of a resource hog. (My laptop, a Celeron 366, runs SuSE 9.1 fine, with Photoshop 7 and Dreamweaver running under Crossover Office 3. The same machine chokes to a halt trying to run VMWare.
Steve, On Tuesday 31 August 2004 07:50, Steve Kratz wrote:
Only Wine is free
Crossover Office is an excellent product, and CodeWeavers does support WINE and host WINE on their server.
Another possibility is to use Win4Lin (http://www.netraverse.com/products/win4lin50/) This runs as a process under Linux and supports Windows 9x (eg. 98, 98SE, ME). It is cheaper than VMWARE, and uses the Linux file system.
Another thing to contemplate as far as VMWare goes, is you need a pretty robust machine (plenty of processor, memory, and HD space). Since it emulates an entire computer running Windows, it's a bit of a resource hog. (My laptop, a Celeron 366, runs SuSE 9.1 fine, with Photoshop 7 and Dreamweaver running under Crossover Office 3. The same machine chokes to a halt trying to run VMWare.
I have to concur with this. The overhead for the virtual machine is not negligible and the fact that two competing OS vye for resources in a way they were never designed to do (i.e., cooperatively) mean neither OS will perform as well as you're accustomed to. Another thing to keep in mind is that in the so-called "guest" operating system (the one running within the virtualized environment), the hardware complement is partially virtualized (in the sense that they're a complete fiction of the VM). Specifically, the VM creates the video and network devices, and they're pretty vanilla ones. For the network interface, that's not much of a problem, but some people might find that an S1 video adaptor is a little meager for their needs. VMware is quality, powerful software, there's no doubt. It's also complex and expensive. Unless you really need a lot of ongoing concurrent access to two operating systems on a single computer, I don't think it's particularly advisable. If you can get buy with dual boot, then you're better of working in that mode. On the other hand, there are a lot of rough edges using CrossOver office. I deem it quality software, too, but it's no where near as robust, comprehensive or mature as VMware. And, of course, it costs only a tenth of what VMware does! Randall Schulz
Randall R Schulz wrote:
Steve,
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 07:50, Steve Kratz wrote:
Only Wine is free
Crossover Office is an excellent product, and CodeWeavers does support WINE and host WINE on their server.
Another possibility is to use Win4Lin (http://www.netraverse.com/products/win4lin50/) This runs as a process under Linux and supports Windows 9x (eg. 98, 98SE, ME). It is cheaper than VMWARE, and uses the Linux file system.
Another thing to contemplate as far as VMWare goes, is you need a pretty robust machine (plenty of processor, memory, and HD space). Since it emulates an entire computer running Windows, it's a bit of a resource hog. (My laptop, a Celeron 366, runs SuSE 9.1 fine, with Photoshop 7 and Dreamweaver running under Crossover Office 3. The same machine chokes to a halt trying to run VMWare.
I have to concur with this. The overhead for the virtual machine is not negligible and the fact that two competing OS vye for resources in a way they were never designed to do (i.e., cooperatively) mean neither OS will perform as well as you're accustomed to.
Another thing to keep in mind is that in the so-called "guest" operating system (the one running within the virtualized environment), the hardware complement is partially virtualized (in the sense that they're a complete fiction of the VM). Specifically, the VM creates the video and network devices, and they're pretty vanilla ones. For the network interface, that's not much of a problem, but some people might find that an S1 video adaptor is a little meager for their needs.
I wonder how the AMD 64 bit chip would be at running Windows as a Linux app? An example of something similar, was the way OS/2 could run Windows 3.1 in a DOS session. On some versions of OS/2, instead of running the included Windows, you could actually install Windows from the floppies. If the same could be done with Linux, with the same level of integration i.e. cut n' paste between the guest and host OS, it would make things a lot easier.
I wonder how the AMD 64 bit chip would be at running Windows as a Linux app? An example of something similar, was the way OS/2 could run Windows 3.1 in a DOS session. On some versions of OS/2, instead of running the included Windows, you could actually install Windows from the floppies. If the same could be done with Linux, with the same level of integration i.e. cut n' paste between the guest and host OS, it would make things a lot easier.
That took me back a few years ;) I can remember running a network with Lantastic for DOS/Windows/OS2 on a number of systems... That was back in the days when IBM still had some stake in the "Windows" environment... That must've been a real thorn in MS's side knowing they had little control over how IBM distributed the '3.0' Windows included with OS/2. Steve
Good God you guys are old. LOL. I've only had a computer for 4 years but I know what Lantastic is. I had to learn about that in one of my Networking classes. I feel so young. Heh. On Tuesday 31 August 2004 12:47, Steve Kratz wrote:
I wonder how the AMD 64 bit chip would be at running Windows as a Linux app? An example of something similar, was the way OS/2 could run Windows 3.1 in a DOS session. On some versions of OS/2, instead of running the included Windows, you could actually install Windows from the floppies. If the same could be done with Linux, with the same level of integration i.e. cut n' paste between the guest and host OS, it would make things a lot easier.
That took me back a few years ;) I can remember running a network with Lantastic for DOS/Windows/OS2 on a number of systems...
That was back in the days when IBM still had some stake in the "Windows" environment... That must've been a real thorn in MS's side knowing they had little control over how IBM distributed the '3.0' Windows included with OS/2.
Steve
James wrote regarding 'Re: [SLE] Windoze envionment on Linux?' on Tue, Aug 31 at 11:32: [...vmware...]
the floppies. If the same could be done with Linux, with the same level of integration i.e. cut n' paste between the guest and host OS, it would make things a lot easier.
You *can* cut-n-paste between the host and guest, using the vmware tools on the guest. In fact, I'm doing it right now, and have been for several years (not with the same clipboard contents, though). I'd throw in that VMWare works well for me, too, but then I'd have to say that I'm running dual Athlon MP 2400+'s with 1.5GB RAM, and that's not exactly a slow setup... --Danny
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 07:08 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
I have to concur with this. The overhead for the virtual machine is not negligible and the fact that two competing OS vye for resources in a way they were never designed to do (i.e., cooperatively) mean neither OS will perform as well as you're accustomed to.
Say what? The one OS is running under the other OS. They don't compete any more than any other software competes for cycles. Vmware is nothing but a process under Linux, (or vise versa if Vmware is running on a windows host). They get along just fine. Performance is good on adequate hardware. (For some values of Adequate, given some values of good). Vmware is great for emulating the entire machine, we use it for software development all the time. Yes it is a bit of a dog but anything over a P4 1.6ghz with over half a gig of ram works very snappy. We uses it for windows software development with several VMware machines running at the same time (talking to each other over tcpip. You just can't do this type of testing under wine or Coo. -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John, On Tuesday 31 August 2004 21:23, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 07:08 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
I have to concur with this. The overhead for the virtual machine is not negligible and the fact that two competing OS vye for resources in a way they were never designed to do (i.e., cooperatively) mean neither OS will perform as well as you're accustomed to.
Say what?
The one OS is running under the other OS. They don't compete any more than any other software competes for cycles.
Neither Linux or Windows is written with a VM environment in mind. They both assume they have complete control of the machine. Neither end up operating as responsively in a VMware configuration on any given physical hardware setup as they would without VMware and the other OS present. The VM context switching cost alone constitutes an irreducible overhead that comes out of total available cycle count. Since each OS at a minimum takes clock interrupts, this overhead never goes away, even if all the useful work is happening on one side of the host / guest divide.
Vmware is nothing but a process under Linux, (or vise versa if Vmware is running on a windows host). They get along just fine. Performance is good on adequate hardware. (For some values of Adequate, given some values of good).
I didn't say they don't "get along," just that both OSes plus VMware itself all consume cycles and none of them can get 100% of the machine as an OS normally does when running on physical hardware.
Vmware is great for emulating the entire machine, we use it for software development all the time. Yes it is a bit of a dog but anything over a P4 1.6ghz with over half a gig of ram works very snappy. We uses it for windows software development with several VMware machines running at the same time (talking to each other over tcpip. You just can't do this type of testing under wine or Coo.
VMware is great, no doubt about it. Naturally WINE (and CrossOver Office) do not compare, nor do they really aim to. However, my experience using VMware on a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 Gb of RAM was not necessarily what I'd call "snappy." Then again, on that system it had some problems that VMware's tech support never managed to solve (my needs changed and I gave up trying to get the problem resolved). So perhaps I never experienced its full potential on that system. Before that the last time I used it was back in the late 90s on systems with Pentium II and III processors running in the few to mid hundred MHz clock speed range. Randall Schulz
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 08:49 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
The one OS is running under the other OS. They don't compete any more than any other software competes for cycles.
Neither Linux or Windows is written with a VM environment in mind. They both assume they have complete control of the machine. Neither end up operating as responsively in a VMware configuration on any given physical hardware setup as they would without VMware and the other OS present.
You assume that the FAIR way to compare this is to compare a VM to the same OS running on the raw hardware. Thats hardly a reasonable comparison. Its not what VMware sets out to do. Unless you have infinite budget to run one Windows and one Linux computer.... Or several of each. But I don't necessarily believe its as bad as you say, because my co-worker and I have identical laptops (P4 1.6gighz 768meg ram). He does his compiles in WinXP. I do mine in WinXP running inside A VM on top of SuSE 8.2. When benched against the same long running compile job, mine finished within 3 seconds of his. Occasionally faster, occasionally slower. Apparently Linux caching and ReiserFS3 for my Virtual hard drive beats the living snot out of real NTFS. I have run as many as 3 VMs at the same time testing client server application software that we write. This is slightly slower than using two real machines, because the VM acting as the server side (not being displayed) has less priority and there is a slight pause (sub 10th second) while it answers requests from the Client side where I am working. I still think its an excellent way to run some particular application that just will not cooperate under COO or wine, for which there exists no Linux equivalent. AutoCad comes to mind. But hey, Randy send me that 2.4 and I'll tune it up for you... ;-) -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
John, On Tuesday 31 August 2004 23:46, John Andersen wrote:
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 08:49 pm, Randall R Schulz wrote:
The one OS is running under the other OS. They don't compete any more than any other software competes for cycles.
Neither Linux or Windows is written with a VM environment in mind. They both assume they have complete control of the machine. Neither end up operating as responsively in a VMware configuration on any given physical hardware setup as they would without VMware and the other OS present.
You assume that the FAIR way to compare this is to compare a VM to the same OS running on the raw hardware.
I don't know what other comparison could possibly be meaningful.
Thats hardly a reasonable comparison. Its not what VMware sets out to do. Unless you have infinite budget to run one Windows and one Linux computer.... Or several of each.
But I don't necessarily believe its as bad as you say, because my co-worker and I have identical laptops (P4 1.6gighz 768meg ram).
Perhaps the fact that I've run SETI@home on every (physical) processor I've ever had for over five years, including during my most recent attempts to use VMware was part of why I found the results somewhat disappointing. Naturally, I was running SETI@home only on the host OS, not on the guest, but it could have been hard for the VM scheduling to handle and bad for cache behavior.
...
I still think its an excellent way to run some particular application that just will not cooperate under COO or wine, for which there exists no Linux equivalent. AutoCad comes to mind.
I'm not arguing with that, only that it's never as good as two independent systems and that, for me anyway, it produced noticeably degraded performance.
But hey, Randy send me that 2.4 and I'll tune it up for you... ;-)
Dude! I'm Randall here--there could be Brits and Aussies present! <OT magnitude='very'> Actually, that 2.4 GHz (which was actually an overclocked 2.26 CPU) bit the dust--literally, when I neglected to clean out the dust in the heat sink fins! But now I have a real 2.4 GHz that's a "spare," and I need to turn it into $$. Make me an offer? It was only in use for about two days. I also have an unopened P4 800 MHz FSB motherboard (the local Fry's was selling the MB + 3.0 GHz CPU combo for less than they were selling the CPU alone). The MB is a ECS 848P-A (Fry's price $65). I've also got another used MB (an MSI board w/ a 533 MHz FSB) that is working fine but which won't recognize newer CPUs until it's BIOS is flashed, something I couldn't do with the only compatible dead CPU and the working CPU an incompatible one. When I figured that out (and was experiencing excessive downtime), I just bought a new MB. </OT> Randall Schulz
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 06:27 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
But hey, Randy send me that 2.4 and I'll tune it up for you... ;-)
Dude! I'm Randall here--there could be Brits and Aussies present!
Doh!, forgot about those buggers, er, ah, those guys... -- _____________________________________ John Andersen
On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 03:24, John Andersen wrote:
On Wednesday 01 September 2004 06:27 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
But hey, Randy send me that 2.4 and I'll tune it up for you... ;-)
Dude! I'm Randall here--there could be Brits and Aussies present!
Doh!, forgot about those buggers, er, ah, those guys...
It's not like you weren't rooting for them... ;)
You assume that the FAIR way to compare this is to compare a VM to the same OS running on the raw hardware. This is a bit OT, but years ago, using IBM's VM/370, I benchmarked OS/VS1 running native vs. OS/VS1 running under VM/370 with several online CMS users. The OS/VS1 running under VM/370 actually ran faster
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 22:46:26 -0800
John Andersen
On Wednesday, September 1, 2004 12:49 am, Randall R Schulz wrote:
However, my experience using VMware on a 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 Gb of RAM was not necessarily what I'd call "snappy."
Just to add another observation... I run VMware 4.5.2 on a 1200MHz Athlon with 1GB of RAM. SuSE 8.2 is the host, and I often run four or five Windows VMs, primarily to prototype Samba configurations. But there are also a few key Windows apps we must run, and we run these in a Windows VM. This machine used to dual-boot Windows 2000 and SuSE 8.2, and the Windows performance in a VM is not noticeably slower than when running natively. My experience has been that VMware performance is really all about RAM. We configure VMware so that it rarely swaps out, and we set the RAM requirements for each virtual machine about 50MB over each machine's normal footprint. YMMV, and apparently it did. Best regards, Mark -- _________________________________________________ L. Mark Stone Reliable Networks of Maine, LLC 477 Congress Street Portland, ME 04101 Tel: (207) 772-5678 ************************************************ * Please note that my cell number has changed! * * The new number is (207) 615-1529 * * The old number will be retired by Sept 15th. * ************************************************
The Monday 2004-08-30 at 20:04 -0500, John N. Alegre wrote:
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux?
It's the free one (both senses).
Is it on the SuSE Pro 9.1 disks?
Yep.
Where can i find docs on set up, config, and installation of Windoze software.
As for all packages, there is always more or less info on the corresponding directory under '/usr/share/doc/packages/'. In this case, you have: /usr/share/doc/packages/wine/doc-html/ wine-devel/index.html wine-user/index.html winelib-user/index.html You may try the newest version of wine from ftp....people/meissner -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
John wrote regarding '[SLE] Windoze envionment on Linux?' on Mon, Aug 30 at 20:17:
Is WINE still the Windoze emulater of choice on Linux?
Is it on the SuSE Pro 9.1 disks?
Where can i find docs on set up, config, and installation of Windoze software.
About the only two things I need are an old version of Quicken 2000 to look at some old Quicken ledgers and a current version of Microsoft Publisher.
Note that there's also Plex86 to be "like VMWare, except free and not as polished" or bochs for real old windows. http://google.com/search?q=bochs (or similar) for more info. :) In addition, I'm pretty sure that gnucash can read quicken files. That just leaves Publisher, which is probably best left behind anyway. You did say that *all* comments are welcome, right? :p --Danny
participants (11)
-
Allen -
Carlos E. R. -
Danny Sauer -
James Knott -
Jerry Feldman -
John Andersen -
John N. Alegre -
L. Mark Stone -
Mike McMullin -
Randall R Schulz -
Steve Kratz