Ok if your going to cop out of an explanation. You can not run code compilied for windows on a linux system, not natively anyway forget Wine, VMware etc. And while your coming the almighty, how about getting the OP to explain exactly what he meant because his post was meaningless.
Happy now!!
What I mean is that I installed Open Office, which runs under Linux, then tried to run some MS Office apps that I had on file. The Open Office Apps did not interpret the MS Office apps correctly even though Open Office said that both were compatable.
In particular, MS Power Point presentations turned up in totally different colours in the Open Office equivalent.
I think the problem was your incorrect terminology; Word, etc. are applications. The files are just...files! That's why people had trouble understanding.
What you observed is what I said; 100% compatibility just isn't there; M$ do their best to ensure that.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 17:24:33 +0100, Bob Eager wrote (in article ):
That's why I opted for a MacBook Pro for my business use machine - this is one of the new dual core Intel based machines.
It gives me a number of options:
- Mac OS X, which is a Unix-based environment (a BSD derivative I believe). There is a version of MS Office with the main applications - even Outlook if you must. It will correctly interchange Word, PPT and Excel documents with Windows versions - even when complex facilities are used.
- There are Mac applications for virtually everything I need to do and one also has development environment including X11. CLI access gives everything the seasoned Unix user knows and loves.
- There is a VM environment (Parallels) which is similar in concept to VMWare but seems to be a lot more efficient. I have a couple of things that I need to run with XP so I keep a very minimal XP VM for this plus a backup of a pristine copy. When the VM inevitably gets broken (because it is from MS) then I just make a copy and I am running again in a few seconds. It will also run Linux as a VM if I wanted.
- There is a dual boot environment (Bootcamp) which allows a choice of Mac OS X, XP, .... at boot time as one can do on a PC. In effect I can have XP running natively if I wanted.
For other purposes, I tend to run Linux or FreeBSD machines, but these are for cases where there is no need to have much change to the environment - i.e. servers, firewalls etc. I don't want to spend a lot of time applying patches and updates.
Back to the plot :-)
To make it a little more '98 (and responsive)
right click on the desktop and select properties select the appearance tab set up windows classic style, windows standard in the dropdowns click the effects button untick the "use the following transition effect..." untick "use shadows"
Yes, FreeBSD. I just run the real thing...I know BSD best!
So it should, since M$ provide it.
But one relies on Apple for updates...
I understood that Parallels was coming to a dead end.
Apart from anything else, the technology behind it is outdated by the newer Intel chips, which provide a much, much more efficient way of doing the same thing. I've been moaning about this for years (basic design flaws dating back to the 386) and it seems they've finally fixed it.
I just have separate machines!
I do the same, except with BSD; it's a much more mature system.
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 20:13:40 +0100, Bob Eager wrote (in article ):
I use it for firewalls etc. where I want a reasonable level of discipline of what goes in.
and it does, although the UI is more Mac than Windows like.
I don't really mind for this purpose, in fact that is part of the point.
Don't think so. It's brand new for the new Intel Macs. Runs pretty well and to be honest at $39, I don't really care.
Bit of a bugger when you have to cart them around with you, though.
I wouldn't disagree there.
AIUI Apple bought the rights to the NeXT cube's Mach OS (maybe Apple chose it for the name? :-)
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.