Wine is not bad at all - it can run software without problems as long as it doesn't use undocumented hacks. To sum up I think what MT does is brilliant - offer a simple binary which is windows complaint without extensive hacks and rely on Wine to run it on other platforms. We had this happen before, it was called Java and very few got it right. Universal apps development looks great and handy-dandy until you actually try to develop a more robust or more advanced experience. This leads quickly to problems very similar if not the same as with maintaining applications for multiple platforms. Even giants like Spotify have significant problems and had to resort to developing native components after some time. less than ideal and in practice hard to work with. Without going into specifics they're well. In order to create truly universal app most often require usage of a web-based frameworks. DJI drones companion apps) struggle a lot in keeping the feature set and compatibility consistent. Even companies where apps are essential for the product (e.g. While the initial efforts are usually there, the continuing development diverges quickly - any user of Netflix or Plex can probably relate to that. However, this is the smallest problem here. The cost of such process is much higher than keeping a single platform application. The current application is easy to use, robust, powerful, and serves the purpose perfectly - if it ain't broke, don't fix it.Ĭreating native application for every operating system means that the development is split. From a software developer perspective I can tell anyone that this is no easy task, no matter how simple app seems to be. So at the moment we simply really need to have a 64-bit build of Winbox, and at least to me it would only be a nice bonus if Mikrotik is actually working on making a good Mac native client in one or the other way.Ĭontrary to most of the posters here I don't think MikroTik should create native macOS app or try to make a cross-platform one.įirst of all choosing any of the options will mean they have to rewrite the existing app. On some level I would also want a Mac native client, but if the iOS client is simply ported over with the help of Catalyst, it would probably mean that we would lack important features like having several windows with different functions on the same router open at the same time (which is one of the awsome features that makes Winbox soo good, even if it looks 90s-like ).Īt the moment the iOS client is great for being a mobile client, but far from as good as Winbox is on the desktop, and it would need to become better before a desktop version of it would be able to replace Winbox on Mac for most of us. I tried it with a 64-bit build of Notepad++ for example, and that works as expected under Wine on Catalina as long as I launch it with the wine64 command. Under Catalina you need both the Wine process to be 64-bit (which is solved with wine64), and the Windows application itself too, which is the problem with Winbox but works well with applications that is actually fully 64-bit. No, when you run it with wine64 you run the wine process itself in 64-bit, but it can still run 32-bit code from the Windows application you launched when run that way under Mojave if i'm not mistaken. Maybe I am too dumb but the latest Google Earth Pro seems to be 64bit and I am running Wine 4.0 stable on MacOS 10.14.6 and if I start winbox.exe with "wine64" I get the following in Activity Monitor:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |