Mageia forum

What is the most reasonable option to run regular 32bit Win applications on a 64bit linux system?
I had some issues with wine64+wine32 on Mandriva 2010 x86_64, when it took the applications 5-7 minutes to start, so I ended up with installing just a normal 32bit wine package.
Would it be safer to have just a 32bit wine on a 64-bit Mageia?

Thank you.

I may be mistaken (I don't run 64bit), but I think wine64 is only needed if you want to run 64bit Windows applications.

Jim

Maybe, but it seems to me that Wine64 can run both 64 and 32-bit apps, while wine - only 32-bit. Maybe Wine64 suits better the 64-bit host systems? Anyway, the both wine64 and wine require the same "wine32" package as a dependency... so that's why I am curious about the differences between them.

Wine 64 (the one from the repo) is the same thing with Wine 32, just packaged for 64.
In other words they will both run in 32 bit mode, no matter what system you are using (32 or 64).
The performance is the same.
This 32bit Wine is able to run 32 and 16 bit windows applications.

For true 64 bit windows applications you'll need the experimental 64 port of wine. This one is not in any repos, so you'll need to compile it yourself.
This experimental 64 port is able to run 32 and 64 bit windows applications.

No this is not true.

Wine64 contains the Win64 version of Wine and is only for 64bit applications,
of which there are not that much available for Windows XP 64bit.
Just look at the package description:

urpmq -i wine64 wrote:Name : wine64
Version : 1.3.20
Release : 2.mga1
Group : Emulators
Size : 104671643 Architecture: x86_64
[...]
This package contains the Win64 version of Wine. You need the wine32
package from the 32-bit repository to be able to run 32-bit applications.

I stand corrected then.
(Seems that things changed a bit since my last venture with Wine in 64 bit mode)

doktor5000 wrote:No this is not true.

Wine64 contains the Win64 version of Wine and is only for 64bit applications,
of which there are not that much available for Windows XP 64bit.

It seems to be correct, but as I mentioned above, if you check "wine64 x86_64" for install, you'll get "wine32 i586" as a dependency and if you check "wine i586" you'll get the same "wine32 i586" as its dependency too. That is the thing which kind of embarrasses me... It would be totally understandable if you need just "wine" for 32bit system and a bundle of "wine64" and "wine32" for a 64-bit one. But what is the reason behind having installed the both "wine" and "wine32"? Or maybe they are installed as a bundle only on 64bit systems?
On the other hand, as I said, I used wine64+wine32 on a 64-bit system to run 32-bit win applications. Actually, everything worked, but the application launch time was soooo long... I thought it was a bug or something. So I switched to wine+wine32 instead.
So here is the question - for a 64bit system, what should I choose in order to run 32bit win apps safely - wine64+wine32 or wine+wine32?

zugunder wrote:So here is the question - for a 64bit system, what should I choose in order to run 32bit win apps safely - wine64+wine32 or wine+wine32?

wine+wine32. wine itself is actually only a metapackage, which requires the needed package.
Normally you wouldn't need wine64 at all

doctor5000
OK, got it. So it looks like I'll never need wine64 - at least for a lifetime of Mageia1 on my laptop or laptop itself...

The commit message when the package was first split, http://svn.mandriva.com/cgi-bin/viewvc. ... ion=549898:

- split 32-bit package to 'wine' and 'wine32'
o 'wine32' contains only the files needed for 32-bit support on 64-bit
o 'wine' contains all the other files
o one can now install both 'wine64' and 'wine32' on x86_64 and run both
64-bit and 32-bit applications
o on 32-bit systems both 'wine' and 'wine32' are needed

I think it's self-explanatory :)

FWIW, for a less hassle-free experience I'd use wine and wine32.

@dubigrasu, wine is not a meta package in our packaging scheme.

Thanks Ahmad.
BTW ,I really suck when it comes to 64 bit (since I don't really use it)

ahmad wrote:I think it's self-explanatory
FWIW, for a less hassle-free experience I'd use wine and wine32.
@dubigrasu, wine is not a meta package in our packaging scheme.

Thank you, now it is clear to me!