Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: CrossOver Games Coming Out Tuesday

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default CrossOver Games Coming Out Tuesday

    I forgot to mention this earlier, but CodeWeavers is releasing CrossOver Games this coming Tuesday. March 25, 2008.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Good it's about time someone put cedega out of it's misery.

  3. #3

    Default

    Hmm... Codeweavers is drawing up battle lines. I wish both of them focused more on porting than this crap.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mexico City, Mexico
    Posts
    900

    Default

    Though I would rather have efforts focusing on ports, the fact that there is a third line for getting games that already have been released for Windows and have them working on Linux and other i386 Unix systems, is actually a good thing. However, just like ninendowarrior it would be much better to have actual ports.

    I, however, understand the many impediments in the way of ports, and for starters if the parent company of a given product doesn't see a profit or potential market, they won't enable any other potential porter company to do it. In the mean time "compatibility layers and API wrapper code" will have to do.

  5. #5

    Default

    I do wonder at the development cost of building a devel library package that would accept the Windows game code as is and compile it under Linux. Perhaps the reality of it still has some port coding overhead, but I'd like to see something like this under GPL and have any game company just pick up the library and recompile.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,583

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niniendowarrior View Post
    I do wonder at the development cost of building a devel library package that would accept the Windows game code as is and compile it under Linux. Perhaps the reality of it still has some port coding overhead, but I'd like to see something like this under GPL and have any game company just pick up the library and recompile.
    You mean like winelib?

    http://www.winehq.org/site/winelib

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    You mean like winelib?

    http://www.winehq.org/site/winelib
    Heh... If it were just that simple, we'd be using it for pretty much everything and have a lot more titles out than we do out of LGP, RuneSoft, etc.

    You have to replicate ALL the bugs for that to work that way- and even with 1.0, we really don't have that yet. May never have it. It's also worth noting that some of those bugs aren't in the ABI for Windows, but in VC++ which they use. It allows very, very attrocious things to be compiled and mostly work. Doing a winelib wrapper doesn't fix that or fix that you're binding against a Windows-centric view of everything. It's why WordPerfect for Linux isn't still selling. They used Winelib for the later on version of the product- and it sucked bigtime, as much for the bad code as the clunky result from using Winelib.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Heh... If it were just that simple, we'd be using it for pretty much everything and have a lot more titles out than we do out of LGP, RuneSoft, etc.

    You have to replicate ALL the bugs for that to work that way- and even with 1.0, we really don't have that yet. May never have it. It's also worth noting that some of those bugs aren't in the ABI for Windows, but in VC++ which they use. It allows very, very attrocious things to be compiled and mostly work. Doing a winelib wrapper doesn't fix that or fix that you're binding against a Windows-centric view of everything. It's why WordPerfect for Linux isn't still selling. They used Winelib for the later on version of the product- and it sucked bigtime, as much for the bad code as the clunky result from using Winelib.
    Good point. I don't necessarily think about entirely reimplementing things. It's more like a wrapper api for something else. Perhaps reroute to QT/GTK and some to SDL and so on and so forth. But anyhow, it's never straight forward. Benefit-wise, I don't know how useful it would be, but it did sound like a good idea.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mexico City, Mexico
    Posts
    900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by niniendowarrior View Post
    Good point. I don't necessarily think about entirely reimplementing things. It's more like a wrapper api for something else. Perhaps reroute to QT/GTK and some to SDL and so on and so forth. But anyhow, it's never straight forward. Benefit-wise, I don't know how useful it would be, but it did sound like a good idea.
    The real problem starts at the coding of the original application, and not having portability in mind. That is what hinders all ulterior efforts for porting.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    You mean like winelib?

    http://www.winehq.org/site/winelib
    Sort of. But I'm not happy with winelib. I just don't see it ever being anything substantial. Those guys are too busy trying to emulate Windows.

    I just think the focal point should be on the api that developers use, not reimplementing Win32 API. It was just an idea anyway.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •