In article ,
Roy Lewallen wrote:

EZNEC is now able to run under Linux using the wine emulator. EZNEC
version 4.0.34 (the current version) or later is required.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

That's great news. Now does anyone know whether it will run under
CrossOver (the CodeWeavers implementation of WINE for Intel Macs)? That
would give me an excuse for upgrading from a year 2001 G4 PowerPC
Macintosh to a year 2007 Intel Macintosh. Mac OS X is to a large extent
based on the BSD variety of UNIX.

I know that the CodeWeavers people have mainly concentrated on getting
things like the Windows versions of the Micro$loth Office suite of
programs to run under CrossOver, the point of which escapes me since
Office has been around for Macs even longer than it has for Windows
machines and thus Mac users are under no pressure to be able to use the
Windows versions of the Office programs. (Word and Excel files are, for
the most part, platform-independent, or at least are easily translatable
between Windows and Mac formats. I frequently turn Mac Word 5.1a files
into Windows XP Word files to give to my daughter, and do the reverse
when she sends me Word files. Such translation is easily done on a Mac,
and with some difficulty can be done on a Windows machine.)

Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

David, ex-W8EZE

--
David Ryeburn

To send e-mail, use "ca" instead of "caz".

David Ryeburn wrote:

That's great news. Now does anyone know whether it will run under
CrossOver (the CodeWeavers implementation of WINE for Intel Macs)? That
would give me an excuse for upgrading from a year 2001 G4 PowerPC
Macintosh to a year 2007 Intel Macintosh. Mac OS X is to a large extent
based on the BSD variety of UNIX.

The demo program is free, at http://eznec.com. While there's a small
possibility that the full program would fail on a system that can run
the demo, it's not likely. So anybody wanting to know about a particular
system should just download the demo and try it.

I know that all EZNEC program types have been run successfully on Macs
for many years using the SoftWindows emulator.

Ironically, the change to EZNEC which made it able to run on Linux was
made in order to make it work under Microsoft Vista.

. . .

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Ya know, older Pentiums can be had for a song at flea markets,
Salvation army, church donation sites, etc.. And are free from trash
bins, and curbsides - especially near the local college at the end of
every semester...

An older pentium may take a few more seconds to crunch your Eznec
design compared to some 3GHZ screamer, but that gives you time to
think (and scratch) whilst waiting...


So as opposed to spending thousands on a new Mac, how about getting an
Eznec box for cheap...

denny

Roy Lewallen writes:

David Ryeburn wrote:
That's great news. Now does anyone know whether it will run under
CrossOver (the CodeWeavers implementation of WINE for Intel Macs)?
That would give me an excuse for upgrading from a year 2001 G4
PowerPC Macintosh to a year 2007 Intel Macintosh. Mac OS X is to a
large extent based on the BSD variety of UNIX.

The demo program is free, at http://eznec.com. While there's a small
possibility that the full program would fail on a system that can run
the demo, it's not likely. So anybody wanting to know about a
particular system should just download the demo and try it.

I know that all EZNEC program types have been run successfully on Macs
for many years using the SoftWindows emulator.

Ironically, the change to EZNEC which made it able to run on Linux was
made in order to make it work under Microsoft Vista.

OK. So the demo at http://www.eznec.com/DemoEXE/EZWDemo40Inst.exe
which I downloaded at 2007-02-22 12:43 UTC includes those latest
changes? If so, I have to report that it would not run on either of
Ubuntu Dapper (April 2006 release) or Ubuntu Edgy (October 2006).

In both cases, I removed wine and its config files from my system,
removed my .wine directory and did a fresh install of wine before
installing the EZNEC demo.

With Dapper, I got "EZNEC can't be run on a network from a
workstation". I wasn't, but the home directory is network mounted
using NFS. The wine pacakge was wine_0.9.9-0ubuntu2_i386.deb.

With Edgy, I got "Run-time error '13': Type mismatch. The wine pacakge
was wine_0.9.22-0ubuntu3_i386.deb.

I'll try Debian Sid later. They have wine 0.9.30.

Please don't interpret this as a complaint. Rather, take it as the
beginning of a compatibility list. And I'm still hoping that the demo
I tested was out of date :-)

73
LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

Thanks for the info. Since there's apparently no version control or
"standard" version of Linux or wine, I guess it's not really appropriate
to claim that "EZNEC runs on Linux using wine". My statement was based
on a single report, from someone using wine 0.9.2 with linux kernel
2.4.20-42.9. But even no two Windows installations are the same, so I'm
sure this is true for Linux also.

I've never purposefully set out to make EZNEC run under Linux -- the
market is much too small to justify any but the most minimal of effort.
The current state is, as I said, a result of a change made to make it
work under Vista, plus one small change to get around an apparent wine
bug (it handles the Windows API call WaitForInputIdle incorrectly). I'll
continue to make very minor changes if necessary to accommodate various
bugs in wine, but nothing major I'm afraid.

Roy Lewallen, W7EL

Jon Kåre Hellan LA4RT wrote:

OK. So the demo at http://www.eznec.com/DemoEXE/EZWDemo40Inst.exe
which I downloaded at 2007-02-22 12:43 UTC includes those latest
changes? If so, I have to report that it would not run on either of
Ubuntu Dapper (April 2006 release) or Ubuntu Edgy (October 2006).

In both cases, I removed wine and its config files from my system,
removed my .wine directory and did a fresh install of wine before
installing the EZNEC demo.

With Dapper, I got "EZNEC can't be run on a network from a
workstation". I wasn't, but the home directory is network mounted
using NFS. The wine pacakge was wine_0.9.9-0ubuntu2_i386.deb.

With Edgy, I got "Run-time error '13': Type mismatch. The wine pacakge
was wine_0.9.22-0ubuntu3_i386.deb.

I'll try Debian Sid later. They have wine 0.9.30.

Please don't interpret this as a complaint. Rather, take it as the
beginning of a compatibility list. And I'm still hoping that the demo
I tested was out of date :-)

73
LA4RT Jon, Trondheim, Norway

Roy Lewallen wrote:

Thanks for the info. Since there's apparently no version control or
"standard" version of Linux or wine, I guess it's not really appropriate
to claim that "EZNEC runs on Linux using wine". My statement was based
on a single report, from someone using wine 0.9.2 with linux kernel
2.4.20-42.9. But even no two Windows installations are the same, so I'm
sure this is true for Linux also.

Good clue there Roy. The -42.9 would probably indicate that it is
Redhat or Redhat clone. I don't think anyone else uses that extended
kernel numbering format. The official kernels are almost always x.y.z,
with the rare special minor fix as x.y.z.a. The 42.9 signifies the
Redhat patch set applied, which often has nothing to do with official
releases, or sometimes it upgrades one kernel partially or completely to
another, unspecified, kernel. Redhat kernels are very confusing,
misleading, and have there own special bugs. This 2.4.20-42.9 may
actually mostly be 2.4.27, 7 versions newer. But you'll never know.

The "standard" in Linux is actually the kernel itself. The
distributions are the packages that surround the kernel. This includes
the desktop and all the other software that comes with the distribution
you install. Kind of like the VW bug engine and chassis and tons of
parts kits available. Except Redhat insists on changing random parts on
the engine, boring a 1600 out to 1950, and still calling it a 1.6 liter.

Before I am attacked, I am NOT running down Redhat here. I use Fedora
Core 6 at work, and am quite happy with it. As a desktop. As a server
platform however, their silly kernel numbering system often makes it
very hard to know how their kernel features map to the Linux standard
kernels. And when I need to be sure a piece of hardware such as a
particular SATA controller or SCSI RAID is supported, I am forced to
build a new kernel from scratch from a standard kernel source release.
Not hard, just a pain that would be alleviated by Redhat sticking to the
rules the rest of the distros (most) stick to.

tom
K0TAR

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

....


Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

David, ex-W8EZE

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

bob
k5qwg

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 07:27:24 -0600, Bob Miller wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

...


Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

I have WordStar 6.0 running on linux (under dosemu.) The last time I
ran WordStar in a micro$oft environment was probably around 1991.
That's when I cut over to OS/2. Starting around 2002, I started making
the transition to linux. All linux now. I keep the OS2 box for
nostalgia.

73
Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm

On Feb 22, 7:27 am, Bob Miller wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 20:16:27 -0800, David Ryeburn
wrote:

...



Ironically if I were to get an Intel Mac, one of the programs I could no
longer use is the lean, mean 1992 Mac version of MS Word 5.1a, still
working nicely after 15 years on my year 2001 computer. This program
runs faster and better under Classic (i.e. Mac OS 9) within Mac OS X
than it ever did in the old days. Two layers of emulation are going on
here -- OS X is emulating OS 9, and the PowerPC version of OS 9 is
emulating a 680x0 CPU on a PPC chip (G5, G4, G3, or earlier) -- Word 5
was written before the days of the PPC chips. Classic is not readily
available for Intel Macs (there are semi-satisfactory hacks which make
it sort of work).

David, ex-W8EZE

I remember Word v. 5; now, if you could get Wordstar 3.3 to run on a
Mac, that'd be something :-)

bob
k5qwg


I'm still using netscape 3.01 to read my e-mail... I like the lesser
amount of
clutter vs the bloated new versions of readers. Also, fairly immune to
the
security problems that can plaque MS exploder.
But I'm pretty much a windows user...XP at the moment.. No plans to
get Vista anytime soon.. The main reason I'm stuck to windows is the
flight simulator requires it.
But.. I also like it because all my sound card programs, etc run off
the
same sound config. No swapping around junk like the old DOS days.
My puter is also my TV/Video recorder, etc too these days.. All
windows
based.. I've never once run Linux yet.. They never had any app's that
were interesting to me.. Or at least nothing that wouldn't run on
windows.
Neither it, or Mac runs a decent flight sim.. And like I say, my puter
is
79% airplane... In fact, the flight sim is why I first bought a
computer in
the first place. I never really had much use for one before that.
I'm running a P4 at 3.15 ghz, and to me, it's a dated system... :/
I'm nearing upgrade time again. Course now, it's a duo core, etc,
vs the usual ramp up in clock speed you used to do.. I'm waiting
as long as I can.. Maybe end up with a quad core or whatever..
The longer I wait, the more I get for my $$$..
I also need a lot of drive space since I started recording loads of
video. I have 240 gig's, and it's always full.. I need about 500 gigs
more just to get a little breathing room. My problem is, I'm lazy,
and
I record more movies than I edit and burn to disk.. So they stack up
on me.. Editing and burning gets to be a time consuming chore I don't
really like too much.. Or at least, I can think of better things to
do.
MK

wrote:
I'm still using netscape 3.01 to read my e-mail...

I switched from Netscape when they dropped the
newsreader function. I now use Thunderbird and
I like it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com