[HN Gopher] Wine 7.0
___________________________________________________________________
Wine 7.0
Author : TangerineDream
Score : 228 points
Date : 2022-01-18 21:19 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.winehq.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.winehq.org)
| acdha wrote:
| I'm hoping that I'm correctly interpreting the WoW64 portion of
| the notes as meaning that I could run a 32-bit x86 Windows binary
| using the 64-bit Wine on ARM. I don't have a common need for this
| but I've had a couple of cases where I needed to test
| compatibility with something ancient and it would have been great
| to be able to install something in my development environment. In
| one of the cases, it was a 64-bit executable with a 32-bit
| installer so the actual program worked as long as you could copy
| a previous install.
| daypay wrote:
| That's how I interpreted it as well for running 32-bit apps on
| 64-bit Host.
| The_Colonel wrote:
| Wine Is Not an Emulator, so I doubt it will be able to run x86
| apps on ARM.
| acdha wrote:
| I'm aware of what the acronym originally meant, but this was
| listed as working in the 6.x series for 64-bit x86 apps.
| _joel wrote:
| > - The new Apple Silicon Macs are supported, including
| running x86-64 binaries under Rosetta 2.
|
| Depends which ARM :)
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| Not really though, it's just another layer which isn't
| wine. They might put effort in to help Rosetta translate,
| but wine is not an emulator.
| Findecanor wrote:
| Apple Silicon has special support for running ARM code with
| the "Total Store Order" memory model of x86.
|
| JIT-compiling emulators for other ARM processors otherwise
| need to be stuff the code full of memory fence instructions
| to be able to utilise multiple cores properly. Optimising
| those away can be hard.
| ogogmad wrote:
| This is a semantics debate, but it kind of is an emulator.
| Instead of emulating a CPU, it emulates the Windows API.
| That's obviously a major difference: One is inherently
| slower, while the other is inherently more complicated.
|
| WINE originally stood for "Windows Emulator", but for
| trademark reasons it was changed to "Wine Is Not An
| Emulator". That's giving you some mixed messages now, isn't
| it? [edit] I just checked Wikipedia, and that's not true --
| the name wasn't changed due to a trademark problem, it was
| changed due to a genuine confusion about what the term
| "emulator" meant.
| dtech wrote:
| That probably won't work, WoW64 is running x86-64 on x86-32.
| You can combine Wine with QEMU to run x86-32 on AArch64 though.
| melissalobos wrote:
| > Once the remaining modules are converted to PE, this will make
| it possible to run 32-bit applications without installing 32-bit
| Unix libraries.
|
| That sounds really amazing, I can't wait. That will really
| simplify using 32bit windows programs on a 64 bit OS.
| shmerl wrote:
| Agreed, this reduces the need to keep 32-bit libraries around,
| though there are still native games that need that. May be
| something similar can be done for ELF libraries? That would be
| really cool.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| Crossover has had this feature for awhile[0]
|
| 0:
| https://www.codeweavers.com/blog/jwhite/2019/12/10/celebrati...
| melissalobos wrote:
| It is nice to see the changes being moved to the open source
| version, I appreciate the fact that they do let non-paying
| users use those features.
| cqz wrote:
| So as a Wine end-user, it looks like this release means no more
| having to have multiple wineprefixes to support both 32/64 bit
| applications, and also no more need to ensure libraries like
| libpng zlib etc are installed, either 32 or 64 bits? That seems
| quite nice.
| shmerl wrote:
| I can enjoy playing Cyberpunk 2077 on Linux thanks to Wine,
| vkd3d-proton and Mesa projects. Kudos to all involved developers!
|
| As for PE updates, looking forward to these to be rebased:
| https://github.com/wine-staging/wine-staging/tree/master/pat...
|
| Switch to PE broke that.
| akersten wrote:
| I'd like to take a moment to be grateful for the small graces of
| the current copyright climate that allow projects like this to
| exist. If the parameters of a few lines of US Code were slightly
| tweaked, or a few court rulings different, we'd simply not have
| this amazing feat of interoperability available.
|
| It's really an amazing thing that we're able to foster projects
| like this in the open, and we should be careful to preserve those
| freedoms.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| I love to see these updates. Wine has been so useful here that I
| started buying some old Windows games from Gog even though they
| don't specify Linux compatibility. I also went back to a vendor I
| used to use for Windows software and bought their latest version
| once I found it worked perfectly for my purposes in Wine. So,
| huge thanks to the Wine developers.
|
| Also, somebody has packaged Wine for Haiku OS, and it runs inside
| of virtualized Debian so that users can play with Windows apps. I
| thought that was a pretty neat idea.
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| I use Wine to run Photoshop CC 2018 on Ubuntu LTS and my life
| would be very different if that were not possible.
|
| For those curious, no I don't use a licensed version, but I would
| if that were possible. Maybe it is with Wine 7.0. I will give it
| a try. Both Photoshop CC 2018 and Illustrator CC 2019 run
| flawlessly with hires monitor support and all.
| rwmj wrote:
| I have a patch that adds AF_UNIX support (added in Windows 10).
| It needs help to get it upstream.
| https://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine-devel/2021-May/187049....
| HeckFeck wrote:
| I recently used Wine to run Office 97 on Debian, just for old
| time's sake.
|
| I ended up liking it so much that I now use it for my word
| processing and spreadsheet tasks. This classic version is feature
| complete to me. Wine ensures it lives on, long past its support
| date and on an alien operating system.
|
| And clippit says hello!
|
| Screenshot for the curious: https://imgur.com/a/GmVUAfC
|
| It shows Word 97 on Linux editing a lengthy docx converted by
| LibreOffice. Images, text boxes and arrows all came back to 1997
| unscathed.
| csdvrx wrote:
| Same, but with Office 2007. I'm getting ready to upgrade to
| Office 2010 mostly for 64 bit support. Any suggestion to run it
| best on wine64?
|
| Alternatively, how to migrate an old wine32 bottle to wine7
| amd64?
| xd1936 wrote:
| My IT department still uses a home-grown work ticketing system
| built in Access 97. The leadership in the department built it
| custom to their wants in the 90s and, just like you, it's
| feature-complete-ish. Pain in the butt for newer employees like
| me.
|
| Please don't tell them that it works in Wine. It needs to die.
| haunter wrote:
| I do the same with Office 2003! There is even a compability
| pack for docx/xlsx files so it's really good
| Legion wrote:
| I've never thought to try this.
|
| Now I _have_ to try this.
| mongol wrote:
| How well does it run?
| HeckFeck wrote:
| Excel, Word and PowerPoint run as well as they did on
| Windows. All the main functionality is very stable. Wine even
| integrated the icons and mime-types into my DE.
|
| It is only very occasionally I hit any critical error. It has
| only happened when trying something obscure, like "Microsoft
| Maps for Excel".
|
| I haven't tried Outlook 97 yet.
|
| But poor old Access won't even get off the ground. I'm
| guessing due to some ODBC driver too stodgy to have a sip of
| Wine.
| stuartd wrote:
| Outlook 97 was the last decent version (and I think the
| last version to fully support Lookout, whose ability to
| index public folders before people thought ACLs were
| necessary resulted in some interesting discoveries).
|
| Then again I have (reasonably) positive memories of MS-
| Mail. The version of desktop Outlook I have to use (2016?)
| is a horrible buggy mess.
| mongol wrote:
| Interesting. My main use case for using Word would be for
| my CV. Since I don't want it to render a single bit
| different than on a recruiting manager's screen.
| Unfortunately PDF still seems to be a bit of a disadvantage
| in some cases.
| gnulinux wrote:
| This doesn't quite make sense to me. Sending your Resume
| in .docx is kind of a terrible idea, and I've seen
| countless people running mainstream Windows version
| getting bitten by this. On top this, in my experience
| it's *much* easier for me as an interviewer to review
| your resume in PDF rather than docx (even if I have
| access to MS Word or Google Docs). I have never seen any
| company or recruiter (in the US) who prefers docx but
| I've seen multiple companies (including my own) that
| prefer PDF.
|
| So, someone going out of their way to type their resume
| in wine word, only for it to be a scrambled mess... I
| would strongly recommend you not to do this. If you're
| emailing your resume and you absolutely want to go ahead
| with your plan, please consider adding _both_ the pdf and
| docx. Good luck!
| mongol wrote:
| It is actually not for employment, but as I work as
| consultant / contractor I have these agencies between me
| and possible customers. They enjoy to edit out any
| contact information from CVs to act as middlemen. It
| sucks but does not reflect on the actual assignment in
| the end.
|
| The idea to send it in both versions is actually very
| good. Thank you!
| gnulinux wrote:
| Ah I see. Never worked as a consultant/contractor so I
| wouldn't know!
| HeckFeck wrote:
| If you install modern fonts and get busy with the drawing
| tools, you can produce a modern styled CV. I would say
| the chances are good if you made a modern one and saved
| it as a .doc it would open identically in modern Word.
| (Though, I have already some ideas for a blog post on
| this, I might try this scenario too and see what modern
| Word makes of it!)
|
| I actually used Word 97 to write a report for university.
| I switched Arial for Calibri and they were none the
| wiser.
| lucb1e wrote:
| I have never heard anyone have problems with a PDF CV. If
| that's a disqualification reason... I don't know.
|
| This is speaking of IT of course; if you are talking to a
| small business doing woodworking or whatever, all bets
| are off on what tech they can and cannot handle. I'd
| still bet on PDF more than doc(x), though, since maybe
| they don't have an expensive Word license but PDF should
| render in browsers.
| mongol wrote:
| It is actually not for employment, but as I work as
| consultant / contractor I have these agencies between me
| and possible customers. They enjoy to edit out any
| contact information from CVs to act as middlemen. It
| sucks but does not reflect on the actual assignment in
| the end.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Oh, okay yeah if they want to make edits, then giving
| them rendered output is indeed not the nice thing to do.
| fragmede wrote:
| There are still corners of the world where docx is the
| One True Format, and PDFs make you seem like the weirdo.
| I can easily imagine it being too different/difficult and
| a candidate being rejected from the enormous pile for
| that. The Internet has made it far more common to get
| outsized responses; eg 800 applicants for 3 positions,
| with no easy way to sort through them all.
| nudpiedo wrote:
| So interesting... does it work well with modern word documents?
| I don't expect it to run docx but somehow I think it might be
| better than open office in some aspects
| HeckFeck wrote:
| It fares quite well, actually. Here's a screenshot:
|
| https://imgur.com/a/GmVUAfC
|
| I converted my dissertation from Docx to Doc using
| LibreOffice Writer. It opened in Word 97 almost identically
| (some page breaks notwithstanding). In my dissertation I had
| a screenshot with some text boxes and arrows floating over
| it. Good old Word 97 rendered it perfectly, position,
| formatting, the works. To complete the picture, after opening
| my dissertation, Clippit looks suitably bored.
|
| And on Office97 running Docx, funny you mention that. While
| there is no _official_ way, there are those in this thread
| who have got the MS FileFormatConverters to work:
|
| https://msfn.org/board/topic/133124-ms-
| office-2007-compatibi...
|
| When I have a spare weekend, I'm going to try this in my
| Wine'd setup and see how far I get. The results will become a
| blog post.
| ogogmad wrote:
| What modern MS Office features are missing from '97 but still
| useful?
|
| I'm thinking you won't be able to write formulas using Latex.
| There's also a 32-bit limit for the amount of memory a program
| can use.
| loosescrews wrote:
| Crash recovery
|
| OpenOffice.org and LibreOffice always used to do this much
| better than Microsoft, but my understanding is that Microsoft
| has made more of an effort more recently.
|
| It is also useful if the program gets unexpectedly closed
| (for example by a reboot).
| nopenopenopeno wrote:
| I'm not so sure. I lost a day of school work in November
| because Word crashed and I wasn't syncing the file to the
| cloud. It seems you need to use the cloud service for
| decent crash recovery.
| ghostly_s wrote:
| My experience is that every Enterprise IT department
| deploys their Office installs / workstations in such a
| way as to render Office's crash recovery useless.
| jhpaul wrote:
| It looks like you're writing a letter.
|
| Would you like help?
| tagoregrtst wrote:
| I think the worst would be .doc extensions instead of .docx
|
| Other than that, give me WP5.1 baby
| adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
| IMO, .doc might be the second worst format ever invented
| (second to PDF). It is a proprietary, binary only format
| for storing text documents. Who thought that was a good
| idea?
| tagoregrtst wrote:
| I cant judge .doc on its technical merits, but its closed
| nature is really something.
|
| Rumor is that, in the end, even MS didn't understand the
| format?
| ghostly_s wrote:
| PDF is possibly the most successful technology in
| computing history.
| idiot900 wrote:
| It's an artifact of a time when RAM was extremely
| expensive and CPUs were slow. Dumping the in-memory
| binary representation to a disk was apparently the
| logical choice at the time.
| Taywee wrote:
| Too bad SQLite didn't exist at the time. It would be a
| pretty good candidate for something like that without
| eating bogs of memory for large documents.
|
| To be fair to the Office team of the day, when your
| company also develops the compiler and can guarantee the
| safety of writing and loading raw structures under
| specific constraints (even in ways that violate
| programming language standards), it's not too bad of an
| idea. Not that it's the greatest, as even then there were
| certainly better ways of doing it, but the landscape of
| serialization wasn't as nice as it is now.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Quick and easy for the devs too I bet.
| selectodude wrote:
| I'm not sure if it's considered a feature, but high DPI
| support in text editors/viewers is such a game changer for me
| that I can never go back.
| kilroy123 wrote:
| I thought its name was clippy?
| Lammy wrote:
| Not officially, but "Clippy" is way more common
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant
| notreallyserio wrote:
| It's amazing to think that the technology behind Clippy is
| the foundation for all of Microsoft's AI and ML work.
|
| I mean it probably isn't, but it's still amazing to think
| it.
| HeckFeck wrote:
| His public persona, yes. We're close enough that I'm
| permitted to use his real name.
| mulle_nat wrote:
| Is it possible to run Corel Painter on Linux with a recent
| version of Wine ? The database says "Garbage"
| https://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=applicatio...,
| but the versions don't seem up to date...
| jdlyga wrote:
| Conversion, software version 7.0
|
| Looking at life through the eyes of a tire hub
| azinman2 wrote:
| Looking forward to when Word Perfect works and I can finally move
| my parents office off Windows.
| wanderer_ wrote:
| I'm looking forward to the day when everyone gets moved off of
| Window$... :)
| raffraffraff wrote:
| I use Wine for one thing: running MusicBee. It's a pain in the
| ass to get it working 100%. Every time I've tried to upgrade past
| wine 4.x it completely breaks my MusicBee wine prefix, so I've
| locked the version and will never upgrade. Ultimate goal is to
| wait until _any_ native Linux music player is even 10% as good as
| MusicBee.
| Siecje wrote:
| Which features do you desire? What is your ideal music player?
| neilsimp1 wrote:
| I used to have this problem, I ended up stopping using
| MusicBee. I found Sayonara to be a near 100% replacement.
| https://sayonara-player.com/
| kup0 wrote:
| Wow, an incredible amount of work/updates in this version. So
| glad to see a project like this continue moving forward in
| significant ways and I hope that these improvements bode well for
| things like Proton
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| I think it might be the other way around, Valve(proton)
| improves wine. Since they(valve) started working on game
| compatibility both wine, and dxvk has gotten a lot of love.
| Which continues to show that "real" enterprise investments are
| needed to advance some complex software, be it open source or
| not. Everything can't be done on a hobbyist basis.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| As far as I know, Wine has not primarily been a hobbyist
| project for about 15 years, with the bulk of development
| being done by CodeWeavers, which uses it as the basis for
| their CrossOver product. I don't believe any of that has
| substantially changed with the advent of Proton, though I
| assume that Valve is paying CodeWeavers to also pay attention
| to Proton issues.
| carlhjerpe wrote:
| You're probably right, I don't know for sure but I believe
| Valve has employees working on these projects too,
| considering their investment in SteamDeck.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-01-18 23:00 UTC)