There is a file I would really like to use on my mac, but it is .exe and I cannot open it. It is called MCreator, and the file is mcreator.exe, and is used for making minecraft mods without knowing any java. I have tried numerous applications that supposedly can do this, such as wine, mono, and crossover, but none of them seem to work. When I use mono, I type in this, and it returns an error:
Howards-Mac-mini:Mcreator 1.4.2 [1.6.4] Jared$ mono mcreator.exe
Cannot open assembly 'mcreator.exe': File does not contain a valid CIL image.
When I use wine, it just quits and doesn't do anything, even though it displays the icon for MCreator. I cant figure out how to get open a preexisting file on crossover. Does anyone have any ways to fix my problems and/or run this file?
Your best bet is probably to run a virtual machine. Windows XP is good for this inside VirtualBox, as it can run on as little as 512mb of RAM, and 1 single-core virtual processor. Download VirtualBox by going to www.virtualbox.org and as for Windows XP, you can probably get your hands on that but I unfortunately cannot help with that unless you have a genuine COA.
Thanks
You could also try running it in Wine. It allows you to run Windows apps in OS X without a copy of Windows. I've used it successfully before; your mileage may vary.
1)Install Wine and Winebottler from http://winebottler.kronenberg.org/
2)You may have to change the System Preferences >Security & Privacy>Allow Apps downloaded from>Anywhere
2)Run the xyz.exe using winebottler.
Related
One of my friends sent me a link on how to use terminal to get OSU! to run on mac. It worked perfectly, but now I am wondering if it is only for certain things, or if I can use terminal commands to make a .exe program run?
Anyone know if this is possible, and if so how would I go about doing it?
Thanks.
Macs aren’t compatible with Windows apps.
But you can try an app called wine.
Wine tries to provide an environment to run Windows exes.
Download the binary packages at here
Get the stable installer.
Make sure that you’ve got xquartz installed using homebrew: brew install xquartz.
The easiest and free way to run .exe files is to run it on "PlayOnMac". It might show some bugs(never faced a major bug). but it solves the problem. You can easily copy paste files on it like if you want to crack the software.
I built a Lazarus program and it's now in exe form.
I am able to run it on two of my computers running XP and Vista.
However, there are other computers as well running XP, Vista and Win7 but I cannot get it to run at all on them.
There are no errors, nothing... Has anyone else had this issue?
The program is connecting to a postgres DB on my LAN server.
Any idea on fixing this is really valued.
NEW INFO:
Maybe I'm wrong but here's a thought... On the development machine, I initially got an error like **libpq.dll* not found when I first tried to connect to postgres. Then after setting the path, it was fine. I'm thinking now if it cannot find that library and that's why it's not able to run.
If this is the case, should my line Application.OnException:=#CatchErr; catch the error? If not how else should I check if this dll or anything else is missing?
First, a sincere and big THANK YOU to Marco and MArtyn for the great tips and guidelines hat got me thinking of this strange issue.
Here's what happened...
I installed a fresh copy of Windows 7 and XP. As usual it did not work.
Then I suspected the old problem of libpq and then I copied libpq.dll from my working OS and put it in the application folder. By the way this machine has no Lazarus or Postgres. The moment I did this, I got my first error message saying that msvcr100.dll was missing.
And then I copied that as well. So the cycle of copy pasting went on for each and every error until I had finally brought these files to my 'non-working'.
libpq.dll - 9.2.1.12263 - PosgreSQL Access Library
msvcr100.dll - 10.0.40219.1 - Microsoft C Runtime Library
ssleay32.dll - 1.0.1.2 - OpenSSL Shared Library
libeay32.dll - 1.0.1.2 OpenSSL Shared Library
libintl.dll - 0.18.1.0 - LGPLed libintl for Windows NT/2000/XP/Vista/7
Once these files came in, the problem was gone!
Now the program works great :)
Thanks for all your inputs!
I now have to see what the above files have to say about their licenses as I have to distribute the app to other users. But I'm glad at least we figured out the problem.
No, base Lazarus programs don't require special permissions. Of course it could be that a specific functionality in the program requires special permissions (like access to ports below 1024, access to certain paths etc).
Also be aware that EXE's downloaded from what the system considers insecure sources (internet, certain kinds of shares) might be blocked by default. If that is the case, if you take the properties of the .EXE in windows explorer, there will be an "unblock" button.
Anything network related of course requires proper configuration of the firewall. The popups that query you might not always come, in case of doubt configure the firewall manually.
I am having issues with finding all of the necessary files to actually install Cygwin correctly when not using the premade setup utility. The reason behind this is the fact that my company computer blocks the usage of the .exe, and won't give me clearance to install it, (they say it isn't needed for the job) but expects me to perform certain tasks that Cygwin would make much simpler.
So my question is thus; is there somewhere/someone that would have a list of packages that I would need to manually install from one of the mirrors to make Cygwin run correctly?
Well,
This is a new answer to an old question, but it might be helpful for someone...
Just run the installer with -B switch, for example:
setup-x86_64.exe -B
You should install it then on a path where you have rights.
If you don't need the full POSIX compatibility (which I'm guessing you don't, if the Unix subsystem isn't required for your job), I'd generally suggest you go with Mingw rather than Cygwin.
Sadly, Mingw also has an installer these days. It probably also requires admin (try it and see). However, you can download the individual components you need if you want to do it that way. That shouldn't require admin, so it would probably get you exactly what you want.
Mingw is also more corporate-friendly from a licensing standpoint, as its compiler doesn't render code built with it GPL like Cygwin's does.
Generally the rule is:
If you want to use Unixy tools to help with your native Windows development, you want Mingw.
If want to port a full (POSIX) Unix program to windows, you want Cygwin (and perhaps a support deal with Red Hat to get around the licensing problem).
There's a writeup on getting Cygwin [to work] on portable storage devices.
Boiling it down, you'd have to do this on a machine that does give you .exe/admin access to write to a 'stick, then run from the stick at work.
On the off-chance that super-lockdown-site allows you to run USB devices.
Use the GNUWIN32 utilities instead. http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/
That way you can choose only the .exe installs that you need, and it will be much easier to justify specific utilities than a humongous system install. If you hunt around on the site you can find the files directory where you can download a single utility, and if you get the -bin.zip version, then you can extract just the needed .exe file which would be even easier to justify and would not require your IT people to test an untrusted install package.
Stupid draconian rules or no, I would not recommend trying to thwart your employers rules. Try working to improve the situation or find another one.
But technically speaking if you can get a complete Cygwin install somewhere, you can copy the entire cygwin folder enmasse. There are a few things that you will want to change similarly to how I configured my cygwin installation to run from a thumb drive. I actually installed on my HD, copied it to the thumbdrive and then changed the batch file and a few other things to make it work. Here are the details: http://fadedbluesky.com/2011/portable-cygwin/
You could try installing it on another machine outside of work. After installing, copy the installed product's tree and Registry keys and environment settings to a CD or flash drive. Then you would have a DIY installation that you can copy and import settings manually. The installer doesn't do a whole lot else.
Don't count on job security if you're bypassing IT mandates after being explicitly told no, though. Getting an exception to the rule by submitting proper documentation through the proper process is usually the way to go.
You'll also have to hope that they aren't blocking the Cygwin programs and any Registry edits as well. It's not hard to find this sort of thing on a machine, either.
I have a game that I have made in C# and it installs and runs as expected under Windows XP. However when I install it on a Windows 7 machine, then it either simply doesn't work (without any error message) or it gives a generic error message. Is there anything special that I have to do in order to be able to use SDL.Net with a Windows 7 computer?
UPDATE: I have just been informed that it doesn't even work on XP. Both XP machines I tried it on had SDL.NET installed (I didn't know that one of them already had it when I used it for testing). So pretty much if SDL.NET SDK is not installed on a computer my program doesn't work. Does anyone have some insight into what exactly needs to accompany my program from SDL in order to make it work properly? right now I have all the base SDL_*.dll and SdlDotNet.dll and Tao.Sdl.dll. More needed? Or is there some kind of SDL runtime that I have to install with my program in order to use it? I am really stuck with this one.
Have you tried running it as admin? I don't mean happening to be logged in as an admin account, I mean right click the exe and Run As Administrator? If you do that and don't get the error, then your problem will be quite easily solved, without requiring it to always Run As Admin.
Added every Dll including those that weren't explicitly needed and it now works. Apparently there are some hidden links between dll's that I didn't know about.
I was reading the post Installation file names in Windows Vista when I thought about Installation File Names. I'm a addicted software downloader, and frequently I've got installation names like "setup.exe" or "install.exe", that says nothing about the program to be installed.
I think that an installation file must be like:
Install[ProgramName][ProgramVersion][Platform].[exe|msi|etc]
or
[ProgramName][ProgramVersion][Platform].Setup.[exe|msi|etc]
What your thoughts?
I much prefer descriptive install file names. Sometimes, you want an emergency 'restore' disk to get a machine up and running even without internet connectivity. When all your installs are named "setup.exe", you either have to rename them all, or create a directory with a descriptive name for each one.
An example of where such a disk would have been really handy was when I took my brand new laptop in to work to use while I upgraded my desktop to Vista 64, and then Windows 7. I only have one wired LAN point, so my laptop needed a wireless connection for internet access, to download my installs. I had to download them all on my desktop, and then transfer by flash drive to my laptop. Very inconvenient.
Not sure this is entirely programming-related... but installer files are usually meant to be transient. You download them, run them, and delete them. (Or at least, I think most people do) So it doesn't matter much what the filename is.
I don't think there's any reason not to give the installer a descriptive name... but I certainly wouldn't say it "must" have one.
For CD-Rom based installation, I'd suggest sticking with SETUP.EXE which helps with autorun detecting software to install from the disk.
For downloadable files, just add the appropriate manifest to the EXE and Vista won't have a problem with it. I'd suggest something semi-descriptive, but there's no need to go into great detail unless it's something like hardware drivers that a person may archive off for reuse, otherwise the file name is confusing to non-technical people.