The Prospects For Virtualizing OS X 344
seriouslywtf writes in with a look at the current state of the question: will people eventually be able to run Mac OS X in a virtual machine, either on the Mac or under Windows? Ars Technica has articles outlining the positions of two VM vendors, Parallels and VMWare. Both have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up. First, Parallels: "'We won't enable this kind of functionality until Apple gives their blessing for a few reasons,' Rudolph told Ars. 'First, we're concerned about our users — we are never going to encourage illegal activity that could open our users up to compromised machines or any sort of legal action. This is the same reason why we always insist on using a fully-licensed, genuine copy of Windows in a virtual machine — it's safer, more stable, fully supported, and completely legal.'" And from VMWare: "'We're very interested in running Mac OS X in a virtual machine because it opens up a ton of interesting use cases, but until Apple changes its licensing policy, we prefer to not speculate about running Mac OS X in a virtualized environment,' Krishnamurti added."
OS X is already virtualised. (Score:5, Informative)
Be nice if Apple gave a bit more help to their customers however - I am not a big fan of artifical restrictions.
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC, US Courts have ruled that installing software constitutes copying (from CD or DVD to hard disk), and violates copyright unless otherwise licensed. The license in question stipulates that you can only run MacOS X on Apple-branded hardware.
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:2, Informative)
Whilst Apple may take legal reprisals, the easiest form of reprisal (against Parallels) would be to simply stop selling parallels [apple.com] at the Apple store. How do you think that would affect sales?
Oh - and if you'd actually bothered to read either article before posting, you would have seen non-legal reprisals mentioned: and: Idiot. Please try to comprehend the discussion before posting.
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:5, Informative)
Utter Nonsense (at least in the US):
Looking at United States Code, Chapter 17 [copyright.gov]: [emph mine]
It is amazing to me just how many people in this forum believe they have to give up their rights because an EULA tells them to.
Re:Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name (Score:3, Informative)
IBM never intended to compete fully with Intel and AMD for the desktop market considering Apple's 5% market share. On the other hand, IBM appears determined to continue with improved Power processors for their high-end desktop and server market -- as well as the imbedded market which now includes highly visible gaming consoles, but it has been around for over a decade.
Also PA SEMI [pasemi.com] has a great new low power PowerPC chip.
The x86 hardware is not that bad, especially when running AMD's 64-bit extensions.
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why would anyone want to do this? (Score:2, Informative)
A shiny wrapper that says "Designed in California"!!!
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:2, Informative)
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/ [osxbook.com]
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:3, Informative)
Already Done (Score:5, Informative)
Future? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OS X is already virtualised. (Score:3, Informative)
The EULA says "Apple-labeled" not "apple-labeled." That means a computer labeled by Apple, not a computer labeled with an apple or even the Apple logo.