Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wine 7.0

winehq.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 153 posts

Re: Wine 7.0

#111

Post by vetinari »

kbenson wrote: post #71
HeckFeck wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to join! Installation requires the 32 bit Wine runtime, which will require pulling in your distro's 32 bit libs. After that set export WINEARCH="win32" in your env, just run setup and all is golden. It is worth noting that Office 97 + all deps required for 32 bit Wine is still a smaller installation size than any recent Office.

Interestingly, this announcement makes it sound like you might not even need 32-bit libraries anymore: - The 64-bit Windows-on-Windows (WoW64) architecture is implemented, and supports running a 32-bit Windows application inside a 64-bit Unix host process, using thunks to map 32-bit NT system calls to the 64-bit NTDLL. - WoW64 thunks are implemented for most Unix libraries, enabling a 32-bit PE module to call a 64-bi…

I wonder how that will work on M1 macs. Right now, trying to run any 32-bit executable with Wine 6 is being met with "bad CPU type in executable".

Re: Wine 7.0

#112

Post by adgjlsfhk1 »

kaba0 wrote: post #82
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why is pdf bad in your opinion?

It's a 2000 page spec that links to other specs (eg JPEG, PNG). It is a turing complete document format that can run arbitrary code without a sandbox. It is a mix of a binary and text format (some opcodes are in binary, some in text which just why?). All in all, it is a format designed to be incredibly hard to implement so people just give up and pay adobe.

Re: Wine 7.0

#113

Post by vetinari »

zureka wrote: post #72

I'm curious to see if this means I'll be able to use Wine again on MacOS post-Catalina (10.15) when Apple removed 32-bit support. I'm still on an Intel-based machine back from 2019 so I'm hoping this means support in the near future when a new version is available on Homebrew. Then again I might be interpreting the release notes incorrectly and getting my hopes up for nothing.

Wine 6 works on M1 macs with 64-bit binaries.

I'm using it for Mikrotik Winbox and it works wonderfully. (Though Mikrotik cares for Wine compatibility).

Re: Wine 7.0

#114

Post by jamesy0ung »

nopenopenopeno wrote: post #36
loosescrews wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

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.

I usually save every time I make a major change (around an hour)

Re: Wine 7.0

#116

Post by todorov84 »

yyyk wrote: post #77
HeckFeck wrote: post #3

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 l…

An interesting question: which Office version is the best assuming one does not want a modern version with the ribbon interface (so 2007+ is out)? Looking at wikipedia new feature list, most features following 97 aren't very compelling for a single user: "HTML support"? "Collaboration features"? "Customized XML schemas"? Meh. However, Office XP IMHO has a few minor improvements (minor UI refresh, print preview in Pow…

I think you should go with Office 2010 even though you dislike the ribbon.

Office 2003 is a delight to use, but any version prior to 2007 will lack support by default to docx, xlsx and pptx formats, which are the current file formats and the ones someone would share with you in the "real world".

Using an older version, even if you install the compatibility pack as someone suggested in another comment, you will experience many issues -- especially in Excel, which was heavily modified (e.g. rows increased from 2^16 to 2^20, new color model replacing the old palette of 16 user-defined colors, new functions such as SUMIFS and COUNTIFS, new implementations for sorting, filtering, conditional formatting etc).

Excel 2010 is almost like 2007, but with many tweaks, corrected statistical functions (they were notoriously unreliable in previous versions) and with improvements to charts which are still almost 100% compatible with the latest version. You should have no problems at all creating and editing documents between Excel 2010 and the most recent version in either direction.

Being an older version of Office, it's also very responsive even on low-end machines -- just be sure to install the 64 bits version.

As for the ribbon, remember that you can double click any tab (for instance, "Data") to automatically hide the menu. You can also customize each and every button on it (right button, "Customize the ribbon").

Re: Wine 7.0

#117

Post by ncmncm »

weaksauce wrote: post #75
dTal wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and it makes you wonder what other amazing things we're missing out on, but for some quirk of law or successful lobbying.

> Yes, and it makes you wonder what other amazing things we're missing out on, but for some quirk of law or successful lobbying. A few simplified examples from off the top of my head: pre ww2 most employers didn't provide insurance. during ww2 healthcare was offered as a perk of the job back in the day because wage freezes caused by world war 2 inflation concerns. you can say that because of hitler that it is the way…

The downside is that whatever you can find to buy is ripped off from whoever invented it, usually neglecting rudiments of quality control.

Re: Wine 7.0

#118

Post by kradeelav »

egypturnash wrote: post #107
jmrm wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike how Adobe forces you to have the latest version of their software, even if you don't care about not having their support, but I think some people could could sue them for not having that support and some other legal issues. I know this because I have to help a friend to update from Windows 7 to Windows 10 due to this. She know have a relative slower OS, a slower Photoshop version, and no benefit to the work…

I have seven versions of Illustrator sitting on my computer. The last five work just fine if I try to run them (albiet with a bunch of "this is from an unknown developer" errors from OSX on the plugins for 2018). OSX says 2014 and 2015 "may be damaged or incomplete". There might be some deliberate breakage of very old versions, I dunno, but you can definitely keep on working with old versions for several years. Which…

I think CS2-5 might be the golden era for adobe products that won't retroactively break. I know a purchased CS5 still works absolutely seamlessly on my 2010 osx, and I've ahem played around with CS2 in a different context experiencing the same.

Rule of thumb I'd go for is pre-CC.

Re: Wine 7.0

#119

Post by sundarurfriend »

Yaa101 wrote: post #105
andrewstuart2 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it interesting how large the maker movement is in China despite the very lax copyright. It simply has no or net positive effect, it would seem. I know I'm oversimplifying, but I think the general argument against relaxing copyright protections, at least the most common I've heard, is precisely that.

Because they are lax on foreign copyrights and not domestic ones?

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Re: Wine 7.0

#120

Post by sir_brickalot »

Was anyone able to run Foobar2000, the best music player/manager of all time, on Mac?

I always had audio glitches on Macos 10.15 due to x64.

The native Mac version is by far not sufficient unfortunately.

Post reply on HN