Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 15th Feb 2007 17:46 UTC, submitted by MacosXrumors
Mac OS X "Parallels recently made a definitive statement saying that the company won't be making it easy for users to run OS X in a virtual environment anytime soon. The reasoning behind this was because they don't want to put their users at risk of breaking the OS X EULA - unlike Windows Vista, there is no version of OS X that can be run under a virtual machine - and more importantly, they don't want to strain their (currently good) relationship with Apple. As a followup to that statement from Parallels, I was able to also get in touch with Srinivas Krishnamurti, VMWare's Director of Product Management and Market Development in order to get VMWare's official position on the matter. "Apple does not currently allow running Mac OS X in a virtual machine," he said. "Apple is an important partner and VMware respects Apple's intellectual property."
Order by: Score:
To bad
by riha on Thu 15th Feb 2007 18:07 UTC
riha
Member since:
2006-01-24

Becauase that would be an great feature to have an dedicated installation of macosX for development or testing or anything else in parallel with the already running system.

It is just so annoying to have to reboot to switch OS.

Reply Score: 5

Not exactly
by ActiveMan on Thu 15th Feb 2007 18:17 UTC
ActiveMan
Member since:
2006-01-15

AFAIK (and read) Parallels will allow virtualization in a Mac box, but not in a generic PC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not exactly
by riha on Thu 15th Feb 2007 20:31 UTC in reply to "Not exactly"
riha Member since:
2006-01-24

I am not sure if i get what you mean, but what i can read and have heard is that even if you have Parallels desktop for macosX (ias i have and i virtualize both linux and windows in that), you will not be able to virtualize macosX on macosX and that is an shame.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not exactly
by ActiveMan on Thu 15th Feb 2007 21:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Not exactly"
ActiveMan Member since:
2006-01-15

That is my point, it is not clearly explained: They a referring to Parallels for Windows, Parallels for Mac, or both. IMO they are talking only about the Windows Version because Apple is interesting in selling Mac machines but, a priori, doesn't must mind what you virtualize in your mac box.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Not exactly
by thavith_osn on Thu 15th Feb 2007 21:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Not exactly"
thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

My guess would be that you can't under another OS.

Having said that, right now I don't think you can run OS X under OS X (I tried - but maybe I did something wrong).

Reply Score: 1

chas_martel
Member since:
2006-12-04

They slam DRM yet don't want you to run
OS X in a virtual box!

Makes me want to ditch my Mac's.

I also don't care for the fact these other
guys are 'protecting' Apple.

Reply Score: 5

milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

That is hardly the same! Not even remotely a fair comparison!

Reply Score: 1

subterrific Member since:
2005-07-10

It is exactly the same. Both Apple and the record labels are imposing artificial limitations which prevent fair and legal use of the products they sell. For example, I own a MacBook, but I'd rather run Ubuntu as my primary OS and have OS X run inside VMWare. Apple has prevented this by crippling OS X. As a result I am unable to use OS X, which I paid for. Unlike Microsoft, Apple does not provide refunds for their OS.

Reply Score: 5

tshehan Member since:
2006-12-08

Oh please, it is their product, which they produce to run on their hardware. When you purchased the hardware the software was included as part of the purchase price, not offered al a carte. Your sense of entitlement is misplaced.

Reply Score: 2

chas_martel Member since:
2006-12-04

entitlement has nothing to do with this conversation.

Man, I did not realized how many Mac fanboys
visited this site.

Oh, and I am typing this on a MacBookPro (Intel).
But I am not a mac bigot. We all realize that
OS X is Apple property to do with as they see fit
nobody is arguing that point. It is just like
the people that own songs. What I am talking
about is 1) Apple being hypocritical and 2)
my desire to use Linux as the host in a virtualizing
environment. I wonder if those that favor apple
in this discussion feel about MS not wanting Windows
to be a virtualized OS. Recall, they favor
Windows being the host.

Reply Score: 5

thavith_osn Member since:
2005-07-11

Chas, you do make a good point, it's not a scenario I'd considered, but for some makes perfect sense.

However, in Apples case (not being a fanboy, just know a little (stress "little" of the history here), Apple need to sell h/w.

Ever since day one for them they have been a h/w company that just happens to make good software too. If Apple were to "allow" //'s and VM to run OS X, then so many people out there would continue to use their current PC and put OS X on that. Apple may sell the OS, but not the h/w. OK, if those PC users were never going to buy a Mac, then no harm done.

Who knows, maybe this would work, maybe if you run OS X virualised you'd realise what you were missing and go buy a real one. But maybe not. Apple has been hurt by opening up the OS once before, so will tread carefully here.

This means that you (for the short/medium term at least) won't be able to run OS X by Apples terms under Linux (or Windows).

However, maybe osx86 is an answer for you, you already have an OS X licence, and from what I understand, you can get OS X to run under VM (not sure about //'s). I understand why you could have a problem with this too (as I would), but it's just a though.

Personally, I do think Apple want to allow this eventually, but they need to control it (as any company should I guess)... Remember, Linux and MS aren't concerned about selling boxes, only the OS. I don't think you won't see MS opening up the XBox anytime soon.

Reply Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Apple has been hurt by opening up the OS once before, so will tread carefully here.

In other words, people don't care for the hardware that Apple produces, but they do like their software. Sounds to me like Apple is in the wrong business...

Reply Score: 3

subterrific Member since:
2005-07-10

You have been trained by companies to believe they have the right to tell you what to do with the products you buy from them. We are the ones buying their products, giving them money to stay in business. Companies exist to serve our demands and when they stop doing that, other come along to replace them. We have the right to do whatever we want to with the product after we've purchased it. EULA are BS. Loyalty to companies is BS.

Reply Score: 5

cwdrake Member since:
2005-08-09

You are completely wrong in two of your statements...

1) "Companies exist to server our demands..." - NO THEY DON'T! Companies exist soley to serve the interests of those who OWN the company. If I start a business, the NUMBER ONE priority is to make me money. Now, if I want to maximize the potential of my business making me money, I better make my customers happy, but I have absolutely no obligation to anybody but the owners. This is the most basic principle of business.

2) "We have the right to do whatever we want with the product after we've purchased it." - The problem here is that with software and music, you do not own the product you purchase. You only pay for the right to USE that product and you must do so in accordance with the license you have been given for that use.

Reply Score: 1

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Oh please, it is their product, which they produce to run on their hardware. When you purchased the hardware the software was included as part of the purchase price, not offered al a carte. Your sense of entitlement is misplaced.
No, when you offer a service or product to the public then you have a responsibility (often enforced by law) to treat your customers fairly.

Reply Score: 1

jimveta Member since:
2006-09-21

Oh please, it is their product, which they produce to run on their hardware. When you purchased the hardware the software was included as part of the purchase price, not offered al a carte. Your sense of entitlement is misplaced.

No, it's not even a "sense" of entitlement--it should be our right to do so. How would you like it if you bought a set of wheels and the manufacturer made it "illegal" to mount those wheels on various cars?

Reply Score: 3

chas_martel Member since:
2006-12-04

That was one point I forgot to make, I want an
Open Src OS as my host. Even on my Mac I want
Linux as the host and OS X as the virtuallized OS.

Reply Score: 3

irwindesigns Member since:
2006-12-21

The two companies quoted are not in any way protecting Apple - they are doing the exact same thing that Steve Jobs just did to the music industry - putting the blame where it belongs.

Apple doesn't allow this so as a legal entity there is not option for them but to stand behind it. Thankfully they are pointing out that they don't like it are leaving the door open so that user's like you will be able to solicit Apple to allow this in the future.

Reply Score: 5

Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

" door open so that user's like you will be able to solicit Apple to allow this in the future."


Wrongo! Have you not read Apple's specific web page where they state they don't want our solicitations or feedback? They even went so far with that a while back as to have their legal department send a letter to a 9 year old girl who submitted an idea for an ipod feature to them for a school project where the letter slammed her for doing so and crushed her so bad that it made her cry.It was only AFTER a local tv news station got wind of the story that Jobs himself stepped in to avert a public relations nightmare.
source:

http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1672

Reply Score: 2

irwindesigns Member since:
2006-12-21

Sorry if i was not clear, by they I meant VmWare and Parallels. Those are the companies opening the doors.

And yes I remember the whole hullabaloo about the letter, sad really. Apple still has to listen to their customers, who line the pocketbooks and allow them to stay in business, and we may find that while they have denied developing any kind of virtualization technology to host other operating systems it would not be out of the realm of possibility for them to have created some kind of virtualization for OSX to be included in 10.5 - one of the secret feature we could always hope for.

And by restricting virtualization of their OS inside their OS they stay true to the hardware side of the business model that they so rigidly adhere to.

Reply Score: 1

shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

They slam DRM yet don't want you to run
OS X in a virtual box!

If you're referring to the recent talk by Steve Jobs then you should realize that you can never take anything he says at face value.
Guys like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates never give you the straight truth. They always feed people half truth or outright lies in order to make their companies look better or influence public opinion.

Reply Score: 1

r3m0t Member since:
2005-07-25

No, Steve Jobs did not slam DRM.

He slammed DRM in music. He mentioned that 90%+ of music sales are on CDs and are therefore unprotected, so DRM is doing nothing to protect the studios' music. He also said DRM is an inconvenience to consumers and companies that want to sell music.

He didn't slam OS X. All copies of OS X have protection on them, and OS X is being protected effectively (with a very small group bypassing the restrictions, whereas almost everybody has used P2P or copied tracks off a friend's music player). I don't think it's inconveniencing many consumers, because Apple paint OS X and Macs as one unit, and nobody expects to be able to seperate them. (Compare this to a friend who bought a few tracks from iTMS and then called me up saying "I can't do anything with them!")

Reply Score: 1

hardware sales
by alucinor on Thu 15th Feb 2007 19:12 UTC
alucinor
Member since:
2006-01-06

Apple is smart in keeping their revenue tied to a physical device. Otherwise, Apple would in effect be pitting Mac OSX as a Window/Linux competitor, which is not a profitiable venture unless they want to get Mac into the services arena. It's still to be seen whether Microsoft's revenue model of selling nebulous OS licenses is sustainable for the longterm; a more conservative and sure business model is software services (as with Linux) or selling a physical product (as with Apple).

Besides, if you want to run a virtualized UNIX, just run Solaris, BSD, or Linux. If Apple thinks it's smart to say their application ecosystem should be tied down to the sale of physical property (which is how consumer's naturally perceieve the PC market anyways, as well as their purchases of any other product), then let them try that.

What would be really interesting I think would be if Apple worked with Sun to sell subscriptions to a virtualized OSX on Sun's Grid infrastructure. Mac developers could perhaps use it at a cut rate or for free, and then be able to test their software against many different versions of OSX, Safari, etc.

Edited 2007-02-15 19:14

Reply Score: 2

RE: hardware sales
by shapeshifter on Thu 15th Feb 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "hardware sales"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

Apple is smart in keeping their revenue tied to a physical device. Otherwise, Apple would in effect be pitting Mac OSX as a Window/Linux competitor, which is not a profitable venture unless they want to get Mac into the services arena.

Well, the actual results in real world demonstrate otherwise.
Apple is a midget company compared to Microsoft.
So Microsoft demonstrated that there is a lot of money to be made in software. And they never sold any computers afaik.
I will never buy a Mac simply because I like choosing my own hardware.
But I would gladly spend money on a copy of OSX if I could install it on any computer I wish.
Even if it was just to support someone other than Microsoft.

Reply Score: 3

RE: hardware sales
by butters on Fri 16th Feb 2007 18:47 UTC in reply to "hardware sales"
butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Your point is valid, but Apple is fighting trends that conflict with the way they want to do business. Apple wants to view their OS as software that runs on hardware. Unfortunately for them, the computer industry wants to view the OS as software that can run either on hardware or on a virtual machine.

Apple can tout its software/hardware integration strategy as much as it likes, but this idea comes from the previous decade. We are moving in the direction of virtual drivers that support any underlying hardware driver of that type. In a sense, we are trying to achieve better software/hardware integration by decoupling the software from the hardware completely. This invalidates a large part of Apples product strategy.

The key for today's client market is software/software integration, an idea at which Apple has been very successful in the past. But the key for today's workstation and server market is hardware/hardware integration--running multiple isolated virtual machines on the same physical hardware system. If Apple wants to remain strong with developers and power-users, it needs to embrace hardware/hardware integration with the same level of commitment is has always brought to software/software integration.

Reply Score: 2

RE: hardware sales
by jcgf on Thu 15th Feb 2007 19:28 UTC
jcgf
Member since:
2005-11-14

What would be really interesting I think would be if Apple worked with Sun to sell subscriptions to a virtualized OSX on Sun's Grid infrastructure. Mac developers could perhaps use it at a cut rate or for free, and then be able to test their software against many different versions of OSX, Safari, etc.


Yeah, I would like to see OSX available on Sun hardware, that would make for an interesting combination.

Reply Score: 2

well
by Redeeman on Thu 15th Feb 2007 19:32 UTC
Redeeman
Member since:
2006-03-23

i could understand if they simply made no effort to support osx, but if they specifically "dont allow", it simply means that i will not be buying their product

and not that i have ANY wish to run osx, on real hardware or virtualized, but if they specifically dont allow it, it means they spend time on it, increasing development costs, increasing the cost of the application, and for no reason.

well too bad, i'll not be buying your "product"

Reply Score: 5

RE: well
by Znark on Fri 16th Feb 2007 03:42 UTC in reply to "well"
Znark Member since:
2006-01-09

They "don't allow" it because it doesn't work by default. They aren't going to spend any extra effort getting it working. The EULA does not allow it and Apple would not like it.

Reply Score: 1

This hurts me
by TaterSalad on Thu 15th Feb 2007 20:23 UTC
TaterSalad
Member since:
2005-07-06

I could really benefit from being able to run OS X in a virtual machine. I'd have no problem spending the money for a copy of OS X as I'm not a Mac owner. But the real benefits come in training and learning the OS. If I could run OS X in a virtual machine that would give me an excellent opportunity to learn OS X on affordable hardware and make my skills more marketable in the work force. I just would not like to pay out $600 for the Mac Mini or $1200 for the iMac to do so. Who knows, Apple might even get a couple of more switchers that way.

edit: Is it possible to run OS X inside of an emulator/virtual machine that supports PPC? Like the PPC version of qemu on Windows?

Edited 2007-02-15 20:35

Reply Score: 2

RE: This hurts me
by fretinator on Thu 15th Feb 2007 21:05 UTC in reply to "This hurts me"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

Is it possible to run OS X inside of an emulator/virtual machine that supports PPC? Like the PPC version of qemu on Windows?

Last I checked, it was possible to run a virtual OSX on x86 architecture using PearPC. However, the legality is what is in question, and I don't think Apple is going to budge on that. I, too, wish they would.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: This hurts me
by richmassena on Fri 16th Feb 2007 05:05 UTC in reply to "RE: This hurts me"
richmassena Member since:
2006-11-26

I believe it is possible, but the performance is poor.

I don't think this is a reflection on the project itself, but more due to the differences between the ppc and intel architectures. Emulating the larger register space on the ppc takes extra stack space (and RAM read/writes) which adds significant overhead (at least that's my limited understanding of it).

Reply Score: 3

RE: This hurts me
by taschenorakel on Thu 15th Feb 2007 21:54 UTC in reply to "This hurts me"
taschenorakel Member since:
2005-07-06

> If I could run OS X in a virtual machine that would give me an excellent opportunity to learn OS X on
> affordable hardware and make my skills more marketable in the work force. I just would not like to pay out
> $600 for the Mac Mini or $1200 for the iMac to do so. Who knows, Apple might even get a couple of more
> switchers that way.

Lame complaint: Got my learning and testing Mac for just 150 on eBay last week. Ok - just a G4 - but definitly enough for entering the world of MacOS X and definitly effortable.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This hurts me
by yakirz on Thu 15th Feb 2007 22:46 UTC in reply to "This hurts me"
yakirz Member since:
2006-05-11

With lower-end G3 iBooks in the $250 range, that wouldn't be too much to learn OS X (not that it takes much learning). I wouldn't buy anything less than 700 MHz, but my G3 iBook (800 MHz) runs Panther (OS 10.3.9) fine.

http://www.lowendmac.com/ibook/ig3deals.html

Reply Score: 1

RE: This hurts me
by Robocoastie on Fri 16th Feb 2007 04:15 UTC in reply to "This hurts me"
Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

"I just would not like to pay out $600 for the Mac Mini or $1200 for the iMac to do so."

umm do the math. after you buy VMWare plus MacOS you're almost to the price of the mac mini anyway.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: This hurts me
by CrazyDude0 on Fri 16th Feb 2007 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE: This hurts me"
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

But VMWare is useful to run many OS and for development and testing. I think this is still a better deal than mini.

Reply Score: 1

hmm
by grable on Thu 15th Feb 2007 21:29 UTC
grable
Member since:
2006-11-24

I allready have MacOSX x86 running in VMWare.
Its not very stable, but totally doable.

Reply Score: 1

RE: hmm
by Moochman on Thu 15th Feb 2007 23:01 UTC in reply to "hmm"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Care to post some screenshots? ;-)

Reply Score: 2

Uhh
by JohnX on Thu 15th Feb 2007 22:39 UTC
JohnX
Member since:
2005-11-06

You guys just don't get do ya(sic).

Patents, drm, tpm and other artificial restritions are only bad when microsoft does it. When it's Apple, all it's ok, they're a hardware business after all.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Uhh
by codehead78 on Thu 15th Feb 2007 23:29 UTC in reply to "Uhh"
codehead78 Member since:
2006-08-04

You're right, all artificial restrictions are always bad. What is it with these fools always splitting hairs on these simple issues?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Uhh - No...we DO get it.
by Sabon on Thu 15th Feb 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "Uhh"
Sabon Member since:
2005-07-06

Let's talk money.

Let's say YOU create an operating system and you don't care who installs it and you don't care on what computers. You just want it everywhere if possible.

There is a REASON why other non-free OSs all fail and disappear or end up being a very, very small nitch product. That reason is volume. Most people do not want to buy and install OSs on their computers. The number of people that do is very small numbers wise.

It takes a LOT of people to create an OS and you are selling to a small amount of people UNLESS you can get your OS pre-installed on computers.

The question is whether you think you can sell enough of your OS to not only break even but make enough of a profit to make it worth your while. History is littered with with companies that thought they could do this and failed.

There are also a lot of companies that made their own hardware with their own OS and failed to. Two of the biggest names are Amiga and Be. I suggest you check out the history of these two companies.

Apple was VERY close to dying. VERY close. There came within three months of running out of money and credit.

It's a matter of survival.

At the time that Apple almost died they had companies selling computers with OS 8 or 9 on them. Guess what. Apple wasn't making enough money selling licenses of the OS to other companies. So they cut-off the Mac clones.

THAT's why Apple doesn't sell licenses to other companies to install Mac OS X on. Be Inc is a great example of a pretty good OS where it couldn't get enough people to buy their BeBox and later just their OS to install on their computer. There just wasn't enough money in it.

If you think you are a lot smarter than a lot of people that tried. Fine. Go out there and do it. Just remember that you are also competing again Linux which is Free. Others are still trying such as, well, you read OS News so you should already know.

Reply Score: 1

OS X on servers...?
by Ringheims Auto on Thu 15th Feb 2007 23:37 UTC
Ringheims Auto
Member since:
2005-07-23

Well, then Apple won't be making their inroads on the servermarket either. Not that they care much, of course, but in principle it could be interesting to run OS X on a server since it's Unix based and all. Being able to virtualize is more or less mandatory from what I gather, in the servermarket.

This is really what I think Microsft wanted from the Novell deal: Being able to deliver a system wich can run several instances of Windows (and several licenses, of course) on the same machine(s) quite efficiently.

Reply Score: 1

My solution
by deathshadow on Fri 16th Feb 2007 00:05 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

Isn't exactly legal, but as someone who's put up with apple's bullshit in the past, thier 'our hardware or nothing' attitude is enough for me to say '**** it'. If they expect me to shell out a hundred bucks every few months for what basically amounts to a service pack on an OS that the ONLY reason I need it for is browser testing... I'm going to use the solution that fits my needs, not theirs - I can't even justify the cost of a mini given the generation out of date optical and disk sizes.

so:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16811164060
Linkworld 'art *** handles' case w/500 watt supply

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16813131088
Asus Intel 945 chipset mainboard (100% supported by OSX)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116213
Pentium D 820 2.8ghz (actually benches in WAY faster than the bottom end core duo in the mini)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16820145525
1 gig corsair DDR2 533

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16822152031
Samsung 250 gig ATA133 hard drive

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16827151136
Samsung 18x Lightscribe DVD+/-RW

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?item=N82E16817107310
Belkin 2 port KVM

$396.65 before shipping

OSX 10.4.6 single user - $129 (notice I'm nice enough to actually BUY a copy of the OS - since to me EULA's should have about as much legal standing as a unsigned prenuptual agreement)

OSX 10.4.9 torrent - one day bandwidth via bittorrent

Problem solved. Who needs a VM when you can hit scroll lock twice, a number key and switch between two machines and have actual native environments? (also NOT an option with the mini unless you want to switch to USB mouse and keyboard - which I don't for other reasons... like the fact you'll pry my IBM Model M from my cold dead hands)

How much does an equivalent mini cost again? Well over a grand and you STILL don't get a DVD burner or hard drive this big? Much less the 'ancient' ATA-133 full size drive actually being FASTER than the notebook drive in the mini (wow, watch that 5400RPM drive kick ass - NOT)

Besides, a G3 iBook and G4 Powerbook (both of which I own) will only get one so far.

Man, Apple needs to get the **** out of the hardware business and let people who have a CLUE make computers for them. Granola art *** veneers and ikea-like cultishness can only carry you so far... Especially when the ATI Rage 128/Rage Mobility chipsets in said laptops (which were a generation out of date when the G3 iBook was INTRODUCED) don't support all the bells and whistles like QE... much less that the dicking around you end up having to do with XPostFacto to even get the bloody OS to install - who'd have thought a cracked x86 version would be easier to install than Apple's OS on their own hardware?

Edited 2007-02-16 00:21

Reply Score: 3

All the virtualisation you will ever need
by Tyr. on Fri 16th Feb 2007 03:02 UTC
Tyr.
Member since:
2005-07-06

PearPc ( http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/ )
Mac-on-Linux ( http://mac-on-linux.sourceforge.net/news.php )
Mac-on-Mac ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/maconmac/ )

Besides, second hand G4 mini's are dirt cheap and great little machines. You could get one right now with OsX for less than you'd pay for Vista. Hell, you might be able to pick one up for the price of Parallels + OsX if you're lucky.

Reply Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> PearPc ( http://pearpc.sourceforge.net/ )
That's an emulator, NOT a virtualisation

>> Mac-on-Linux ( http://mac-on-linux.sourceforge.net/news.php )
PPC only, no G5 support - not the biggest help...

Mac-on-Mac ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/maconmac/ )
Again, PPC only, no G5 support, since it's just a port of Mac on linux

and frankly - the vast majority of people don't give a **** about running OSX under another OS on a Mac.

Reply Score: 1

OS X
by mattboy99 on Fri 16th Feb 2007 03:50 UTC
mattboy99
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think the EULA was written before the prospect of virtualized OS X on OS X hardware was realized. I suspect it will be in future releases when they understand the competitive advantage.

Although it would require extra OS X developer commitment to make sure the kernel worked on the VMWare/Parallels virtual machine.

Reply Score: 1

...
by BlackTiger on Fri 16th Feb 2007 04:58 UTC
BlackTiger
Member since:
2005-07-22

Who cares about bloody EULAs?!?
I've read it once, just for fun.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ...
by drynwhyl on Fri 16th Feb 2007 11:14 UTC in reply to "..."
drynwhyl Member since:
2006-05-14

> Who cares about bloody EULAs?!?

Probably only US citizens, since such shrink-wrap agreements are not legally binding in the rest of the world.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: ...
by Bit_Rapist on Fri 16th Feb 2007 21:56 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Probably only US citizens, since such shrink-wrap agreements are not legally binding in the rest of the world.

Its disputed that EULAs are legally binding in the US, no one seems to know for sure.

What is certain is that your software and users will have to abide by the local laws in whatever part of the world you sell the software.

That could mean quite anything depending on where exactly you live.

Reply Score: 2

sellout
by dmc_dtc on Fri 16th Feb 2007 05:06 UTC
dmc_dtc
Member since:
2005-07-07

Bunch of sellouts!....

Reply Score: 1

VMware and Parallels
by pfortuny on Fri 16th Feb 2007 10:02 UTC
pfortuny
Member since:
2006-02-05

Cannot legally develop such a product (unless they do it blindly, without testing), for what I gather. (In principle, the EULA does not allow you to do it).

This is a problem for Apple, as developers for OS X are forced (legally) to buy a computer from them (and that may not be an option or they simply may say "I don't care"). However, Steve Jobs does not seem to see this as a problem.

It may well be that their aim is to "be a posh and exclusive brand", something akin to Lexus, but this does not play well with the "I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC" adverts unless they are NOT aimed at everybody (?).

I do not like it but I do like their computers and OS...

Reply Score: 1

RE: VMware and Parallels
by drynwhyl on Fri 16th Feb 2007 11:33 UTC in reply to "VMware and Parallels"
drynwhyl Member since:
2006-05-14

> VMware and Parallels cannot legally develop such a
> product

They can move the development (or just the testing) to any country outside the US, and sell to non-US customers, since Apfels EULAs are not binding anywhere else out there.

> However, Steve Jobs does not seem to see this as a problem.

Why should he, when it makes him money?

> It may well be that their aim is to "be a posh and exclusive brand"

And it may well hurt them, and let OS X look "outdated" in a few years, when any other system out there supports virtualising other systems and its own virtualisation, with OS X "still" being tightly bound to some "hardware".

Reply Score: 1

my prediction
by babaloo on Fri 16th Feb 2007 13:38 UTC
babaloo
Member since:
2007-02-16

Howdy folks.
I've been lurking around OSN for years, I've learned a few things about computers and human behavior, had a few chuckles, but never posted a comment, so here goes.

I think that Parallels and VMW are in the know about something coming down the road with the release of Leopard, and are content to sit quiietly until that time.

I would almost be willing to bet a quarter, that you will see some kind of advert from Apple, or Parallels and VMW that says, "a Leopard can change it's spots", and people will be able to buy the virtualisation software and a version of OS X that they can run on their current computers.

All three companies would make tons of money, and I don't think it would affect or jeopardize Apples hardware biz, if anything it might increase sales down the road if users have a good experience with OS X under VM.

Only a prediction, nothing in stone, but wouldn't that be a hoot!

Reply Score: 1

it's way too late
by roger64 on Fri 16th Feb 2007 14:55 UTC
roger64
Member since:
2006-08-15

II stumbled upon this not too old piece of news:
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/19/technology/fastforward_parallels.fo...
this is news from the 22sd of January 2007. where Vmware and Parallels looked as they were competing on being the first to virtualize Mac OSX.

Read the two paragraphs beginning with VMWARE's CEO Diane Green...

Less than four weeks later, there is a total turnaround. I guess there must have been quite a strong behind the scene explanation between Apple and these two companies.

This does not change anything. The genius is out of the box, and soon, a hacker will publish his way to virtualize OSX...Because many did it already.

Reply Score: 1

vendor lock-in
by JrezIN on Fri 16th Feb 2007 16:01 UTC
JrezIN
Member since:
2005-06-29

There's no need to say that with many words...

Vendor lock-in is bad!

Reply Score: 1

Enterprise Grade Operating System
by tarpit on Fri 16th Feb 2007 21:02 UTC
tarpit
Member since:
2006-10-16

Especially with Apple's updates to OSX server you would think that they would at least allow the server to be virtualized. This would really be one strong arguement against osx server in the enterprise.

Even Microsoft has been more willing to embrace virtualization in the last few years, and linux of course has full support for anything possible. Why can't apple see the benefits?

Reply Score: 1