Slashdot Mirror
VMWare Announces Version for OS X In Development
pdscomp writes "VMware has just announced at today's Apple WWDC 2006 Conference that they are developing a port of VMware to Mac OS X. People interested in beta testing the product later this year can visit this link to sign up for the public test. It will be interesting to see how things play out between VMware and Parallels. Will Microsoft bother porting Virtual PC now that there will be two other Intel OS X virtualization solutions available? Now all we need is to get Mac OS X running under Xen."
I find it interesting that nobody is making a move in the other direction. OS X virtualized in Windows, anyone?
Then again, the market would mostly be curious PC users who end up switching, and I don't know how much money there is to be made there.
Now all of our textbooks will get to look like this:
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I'd much rather be able to use OS X on another platform. I already have have vmware on a linux host. Being able to move my powerbook apps to an existing and much faster machines would be very nice indeed.
What about running OS X under VMWare on windows?
WWDC isn't started yet! This was announced like yesterday and TFA clearly states that it will be _demoed_ not announced at WWDC.
That beta link has been up for some time (at least a few hours.) I signed up at 6AM EST.
...I've been using Parallels for now, and while it works, I've had some problems with it I haven't been able to figure out. I've submitted several support tickets to Parallels, with zero response (Yes, I paid for the software.)
Competition like this is good for the market - now I can try out VMWare, and if it works better than Parallels, I can use it. Choice is good.
So, VMWare's gonna host on OS X, and Microsoft likes Xen? And the Xen guys are getting dinged for their proprietary attitude?
Ok. We've arrived. All ashore that's going ashore!
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
A week or so after the Intel switch announcement I went to VMWare's forums. The most requested feature was an OS X version of the workstation product. It is pretty foolish to ignore that kind of demand in that particular market. Parallels beat them to market, but with a lot of missing functionality that may or may not be important to the customer base. So we have VMWare and Parallels with VMs using the Intel processor's emulation hardware. We have two WINE Windows API re-implementations, and we have Xen and MS with potential solutions as well. The only real unknown quantity is Apple themselves. If they release VMs built into OS X the market segment will adopt that standard. If they do it using a cross-platform standard, it will boost that standard considerably. If they don't release a built-in VM, the market segment will fragment with some companies using the re-implementation technologies to make quick ports and some users using each of the VM solutions and dual booting to cater to their own needs for running other OS's
If so, that'd mean they are virtualizing the treacherous computing hardware (TPM) and foiling Apple's copy protection. I assume Cupertino's legal thugs would have a problem with that.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
As predicted back in May 2006, virtualization is a hot topic.
y =virtualization_meme
http://www.realmeme.com/roller/page/realmeme?entr
You know, I just don't get it sometimes. VMWare developing for OSX shouldn't be news, and it shouldn't have taken this long. I don't understand why VMware would have a released Workstation for Linux sooner than for OSX (given the Linux-to-Apple Marketshare conundrum). I guess my question is: Why wasn't this done sooner? I've been running VMWare Workstation on Ubuntu since 5.10, but have been stuck with VPC for Mac forever. I admit I do not have a strong technical grasp of the underlyings of the OSX vs. the Linux kernels, but as both are Unices, shouldn't this kind of development occur in parallel (no pun intended)?
Governments are not necessary.
I think, that as soon as both products will get both reliable (Parallels?) and fast (VMware?) enough, then it will be just a question of price what to chose. Competition is good for our wallets :)
Also all these make Mac more and more viable platform. Nice.
I'd also like to see them support the standard VirtualCenter app on OS X. We've got a number of VM linux boxes under VMWare and I have to use windows to control when they're running/suspended/etc. A single control app on all platforms would be great.
First, Mac OS X running under XEN isn't going to happen without a lot of help from Apple. I don't see Apple participating on.
Second, I welcome VMWare for it's advanced features (snapshots, etc) over Parallels. That being said, I bought Parallels and it works well. It doesn't do everything, but it does work well and I got it long before the price increase.
Competition is good. I can't wait to play with VMWare on Mac OS X.
Won't work, generally because Win computers are bought considering only the initial cost ( called Total Cost of Ownership in WinWorld). The server market tends to be an exception to this, because these decisions are made by educated people, not MBAs.
I'm typing this on a G4 PowerBook, the hardware quality is far superior to any (ANY!!!) Dell. And it's mediocre hardware and drivers that is the source of most WinXP troubles.
By the way, for virtualization on Mac, GuestPC is very good and trouble free, for $60. It's a commercial version of Qemu, which works for someone with a lot of tinker time. GuestPC does an excellent job with DOS, Win 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, and ME (shudder, it runs better virtualized than native. XP is stable but needs >2GB ram.
Um, GNUStep has been around for ages now.
Cooperative Linux is the first working free and open source method for optimally running Linux on Microsoft Windows natively. More generally, Cooperative Linux (short-named coLinux) is a port of the Linux kernel that allows it to run cooperatively alongside another operating system on a single machine. For instance, it allows one to freely run Linux on Windows 2000/XP, without using a commercial PC virtualization software such as VMware, in a way which is much more optimal than using any general purpose PC virtualization software. In its current condition, it allows us to run the KNOPPIX Japanese Edition on Windows (see Screenshots).
Live Long and Prosper - Thanks Leonard. You are missed.
All the Macs I have are PowerPC, so the announcement doesn't really help me any. But does anyone know if VMWare has considered a fat-binary OSX version of the VMWare Console program? So I can run VMWare Server on my Linux server, and use my older iMac and Minis as consoles with it?
The last time I tried anything like this, having no Console program, I logged directly into a GSX server and tried to run the console there, sending it back to the Mac over X-Windows, but could never get it to work (and it was a couple years ago so I forget the problem, but I seem to recall that I thought it was something endian-related.)
If I remember correctly, the standard Microsoft Office for Mac OS X is about $399 and the "professional" version is $499. Only difference? It includes Virtual PC with a copy of Windows XP Home. Now, how much is Virtual PC by itself, and how much do they charge for off-the-shelf copies?
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
If so, that'd mean they are virtualizing the treacherous computing hardware (TPM) and foiling Apple's copy protection. I assume Cupertino's legal thugs would have a problem with that.
They could just pass through TPM calls to the system TPM chip - TPM as apple uses it is not really copy protection, since you can copy OS X onto any other Mac. And of course only the Intel version of OS X even checks for that.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
...if this is VMWare's subtle riposte to Transgaming's 'Cider' engine for the world of Mac gaming? It's a bit of a stretch, I know, but the timing is a little too convenient.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
No way will Apple allow that to happen.
I'm one of those people who wanted to see OSX running in VMWare (under Linux, in my case). Have you heard of Maxxuss? He had actually done quite a lot to get Tiger running under VMWare. Even got networking to run fine. And it was easy enough for me to get running in VMWare. About the only thing left for him to accomplish, to my knowledge, was to get sound working. Apple shut him down, before that happened. Too bad. He could have been a real asset to Apple.
Just so you know, since even before OSX Intel was publically released, you've been able to run OSX on most standard PCs supporting SSE2 (SSE3 is much better as Rosetta apps will actually run).
e _how_to
You can run it natively, or inside VMWare either under Windows, or Linux. This should get you started: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmwar
In my opinion, moving to intel hardware is the smartest move Apple has made since... well... the Apple IIe. Yes even smarter than the iPod IMO.
I think a lot of what keeps people stuck using Windows, is not an inherent love for Windows itself, but rather a reliance on the software base, and ease of use / maintenance. I also believe that a lot of Windows success is directly related to software piracy. I can see piracy really helping Apple.
I would never pay the extra money for an Apple... but if I am given a choice between using OS X and Windows without having to pay extra money for one over the other, I'll choose OS X any day.
nice to know :) lets see when it will become available for download :)
http://secgeeks.com/
Actually, the real competitor to Transgaming is this (and Codeweavers actually releases its changes back to WINE!).
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
So don't license it. Just buy a copy instead.
There are copies of OS X for sale at my nearest CompUSA (i.e. I can give them money and they will give me a copy, the exact same type of transaction as when I buy a book or music CD). Or if you have a Mac around (though if you do, you probably are less interested in virtualizing) it probably came with a bundled copy of OS X.
I realize that large companies can sometimes save money by buying OS licenses rather than copies, but for most of us "little people" that just isn't how it works. Most of us can use our software under the terms of copyright, rather than having to sign some weird contract where we sacrifice fair use rights in exchange for the lower price.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Well, the proponents of TPM, in order to try to comfort people into accepting it, have a long history of repeatedly stating that TPM is useful for far more applications than just DRM. Security, for example, and they even talk about malware-prevention to try to sell this stuff to the masses.
So if we "accept" what they say, then the purpose of virtualizing TPM would not primarily be to bypass access controls. It would surely be primarily intended to, and marketed as, antivirus protection. ;-) "New! VMWare now protects you from viruses... uh, somehow. Oh and also, it can run MacOS."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
... computer" Here Apple has written the license to tie you to the hardware. The physical hardware. It doens't even mention the existance of a VM. With a VM the physical hardwrae ultimatly executes the VM's code. So, anything running within the VM is also running "on" the physcal hardware. Now you still need 1 license for each VM as earliier in the senentce you were limited to "one copy". But, if you choose to install and run that one copy in a VM as opposed to directly on the physical hardware you still only have 1 copy.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
OK let us do some legal parsing of the requirement "on a single Apple-labeled computer"
Let us assume you have an Apple purchased PC, running Windows. Can you run OSX in a VM under a Windows host.
1) Well, the license requires "on", not "under", not "within" and most damning not "as the operating system of" so as long as the underlying PC is running the software you are "on" the PC.
2) Next, "Apple-labeled" We'll just stipulate this is means an "Apple-branded" or "Apple-sold" computer. No one (especially a judge) is going to go along with the idea that you can just peel off a label and stick on something and voila "Apple-labeled". However, I set up the problem so that you are using a PC purchased from Apple. So, no big deal.
3) "on a
So, I see no reason why you can't run OSX within a VM if you follow the rules. This may not have been what Apple wanted, but they made the rules we are just playing within them.
Also, if VMWare uses this methodology to test running OSX within a Windows VM I see no legal reason why they can't have support for running OSX within VMWare. They are not selling OSX. You are either breaking the OSX license or not (depending on if you follow the rules). Vmware is not contributing as there are plenty of non-infringing uses for VmWare.
Now VmWare might run into an issue of virtualizing or passing through commands to the Trusted Computing infrastructure OSX needs, but that is a technical issue nto a legal one.
I realize that "misleb" has already commented on this - but I just have to say it again to be perfectly clear - You are wrong! Of course you dont own a copy of Mac OS X/Microsoft Windows when you purchase your *license*. Think about it - if you did own a copy you could do anything you like with it - like reverse engineer the software, modify it and do anything you like except distribute it. When you purchase any piece of software you are effectively purchasing the right to use it (a license). Ever hear of "shrink wrap" licensing?
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
The headline is wrong. It's like saying /. instead of /.
I don't want a signature.
I doubt Jobs would ever see it this way. But turning a blind eye to piracy is away to get huge market share. Did you hear MS complain loudly about piracy during their climb to monopoly status? Not really, it worked to their advantage.
Think Deeply.
The usability of this over, say, using WINE? I find that thanks to Darwine, and the new WINE release, I can run pretty much everything (save some games) on my mac. What benifits would all these programs have over WINE?
Not meaning to sound a troll, but if someone can explain to me the value of the program, then I may buy it. I am currently considering in investing in a copy of Crossover Mac. Would this be a better program?
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
Now all we need is to get Mac OS X running under Xen. Oh besides the fun and excitement of violating Apple's EULA, why would this be desirable?
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
All I want is a osx client so I can manage my VMware ESX+GSX/Server VM's. Don't really care about workstation.
Unless I'm missing something, virtualization still is not sufficient for running a decent game, due to DX9. So if your big reason for keeping windows is MS Office or Outlook, then virtualization sounds wonderfull to me. But if you're a gamer looking to consolidate to one machine, you still need to dual-boot as far as I can see.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
Hopefully the gang at Cambridge U. will have Xen running on any Intel (like GreyTech's $500 complete computer Intel Pentium D 805 2.66 GHz (Dual-Core) - eoverclocked at 4.1 Ghz ) - and enable running Mac Os Tiger and beyond.
Or two Pentium Ds for $1000 and save $1400.00 on Apple's newest box. .....Or buy 3 D 805's and have six cores ...... or .....
time to change your apple technology icon. intel outside and inside now. but i'm not telling you anything you don't know already.
f
http://images.slashdot.org/topics/topicaptech2.gi
Someone should also be working on a way to share the VMs between these two programs, just like VMWare can load VirtualPC machine files.
has the hacked OSX had any updates since the versions released just after the intel macs?
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Can I run System 7.5 on it? I always thought that was pretty stable, and I still have a bunch of old games lying around.
This login name for sale.
So let's develop a compatibility layer between Apple's ABI and GNUstep's ABI.
And let's call it PineApple (Pine Is Not an Emolator for APPLE)
(runs fast and ducks)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
I think that the Mac will soon be able to run any windows program without the need run windows in Boot Camp, Parallels or VMware. More at sixnine101: Apple Cider
sqribbles.blogspot.com/.