http://www.osnews.com/story/17282/Parallels_VMware_Won_t_Virtualise_Mac_OS_X Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2013, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Thu, 23 May 2013 03:22:04 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://www.osnews.com/thread?213078 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213078 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (riha) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213092 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213092 AFAIK (and read) Parallels will allow virtualization in a Mac box, but not in a generic PC Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ActiveMan) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213115 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213115 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (chas_martel) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213117 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213117 That is hardly the same! Not even remotely a fair comparison! Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (milles21) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213124 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213124 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (irwindesigns) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213134 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213134 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 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (alucinor) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213146 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213146 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (subterrific) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213150 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213150 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jcgf) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213156 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213156 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" Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Redeeman) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213179 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213179 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tshehan) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213180 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213180 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (chas_martel) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213189 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213189 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 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TaterSalad) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213194 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213194 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (riha) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213198 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213198 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (chas_martel) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213211 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213211 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fretinator) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213213 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213213 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (subterrific) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213214 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213214 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (thavith_osn) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213220 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213220 I allready have MacOSX x86 running in VMWare.
Its not very stable, but totally doable. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grable) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213221 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213221 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (ActiveMan) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213227 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213227 > 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (taschenorakel) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213228 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213228 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). Thu, 15 Feb 2007 21:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (thavith_osn) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213242 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213242 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JohnX) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213246 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213246 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 Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (yakirz) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213250 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213250 Care to post some screenshots? ;-) Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Moochman) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213257 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213257 Sure.. why not =)

http://grable0.googlepages.com/vmwaremacosx1.png
http://grable0.googlepages.com/vmwaremacosx2.png
http://grable0.googlepages.com/vmwaremacosx3.png

And heres some helpful links for the adventuress
http://www.osxx86.info/
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmware_how_to Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (grable) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213263 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213263 You're right, all artificial restrictions are always bad. What is it with these fools always splitting hairs on these simple issues? Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (codehead78) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213266 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213266 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shapeshifter) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213267 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213267 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Ringheims Auto) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213272 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213272 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shapeshifter) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213273 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213273 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Sabon) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213277 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213277 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. Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:52:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (shapeshifter) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213285 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213285 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 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (deathshadow) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213325 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213325 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? Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (jimveta) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213334 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213334 It's your own fault. Why should one run a second rate OS on a first rate hardware? Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Babi Asu) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213336 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213336 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Tyr.) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213340 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213340 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... Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (r_a_trip) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213343 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213343 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Znark) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213344 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213344 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 03:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (mattboy99) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213349 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213349 " 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 Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Robocoastie) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213351 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213351 "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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Robocoastie) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213354 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213354 But VMWare is useful to run many OS and for development and testing. I think this is still a better deal than mini. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (CrazyDude0) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213358 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213358 Who cares about bloody EULAs?!?
I've read it once, just for fun. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 04:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (BlackTiger) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213360 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213360 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). Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (richmassena) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213361 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213361 Bunch of sellouts!.... Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (dmc_dtc) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213363 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213363 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 05:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (irwindesigns) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213384 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213384 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... Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (pfortuny) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213394 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213394 > Who cares about bloody EULAs?!?

Probably only US citizens, since such shrink-wrap agreements are not legally binding in the rest of the world. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (drynwhyl) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213397 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213397 > 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". Fri, 16 Feb 2007 11:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (drynwhyl) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213416 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213416 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! Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (babaloo) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213420 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213420 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!") Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (r3m0t) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213426 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213426 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (cwdrake) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213439 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213439 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (roger64) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213447 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213447 There's no need to say that with many words...

Vendor lock-in is bad! Fri, 16 Feb 2007 16:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (JrezIN) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213478 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213478 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 18:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (butters) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213499 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213499 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? Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tarpit) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213515 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213515 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. Fri, 16 Feb 2007 21:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bit_Rapist) Comments http://www.osnews.com/thread?213655 http://www.osnews.com/thread?213655 >> 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. Sat, 17 Feb 2007 03:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (deathshadow) Comments