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."
Um, I have OSX running in Windows right now. It's called PearPC. I can run the same image from windows or linux.
The OSX License says the following:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
Unless Apple relent, a virtualisation solution by a third party is not an 'Apple-labeled computer'. Anyone care to test this in a court of law? Thought not.
It can be done. If you know where to look, you can find premade OSX VMWare images.
I've been using it for a few Windows things that just aren't great on a Mac, like Quicken. been using it since the public beta, bought the production copy... works fine for me.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Only two problems I know of:
Ubuntu Server will install, and then hang on reboot. Use the Alternative install CD and all is fine.
And using a Parallels image on a Fat drive will give a cryptic error when the file hits the 4gig limit.
HPFS saves the day on that one, but I prefered FAT for my backup drive so I could use it between my windows machine and mac.
You mean GNUStep, right?
The real litigious bastards...
VMWare is a virtualization system, not an emulator. What VMWare in Basic terms does is Emulate Sections of the hardware, like the BIOS, Translate other sections Like Interupt calls and Memory Location Calls, and Passes threw other information like CPU Calls. This mixture of designes allows it to run at nearer native speed. But the tradeoff is that the Host OS's will need to run on the same platform that the software is on, otherwise they will not talk the same language.
VMWare was out in the late 90's I used it first in 1999, and it already supported Linux and Windows. OS X was still in development and the Processor that Apples ran on was PowerPC, which is a different archecture. So making VMWare for Apple at the time would be more of an Emulator Design (like Virtual PC for Mac) and take a lot more effort for little benefit.
Now that Macs run on Intel Processors, VMWare can now start poring to OS X. And a lot of it can't be 1 for 1 of the Windows port or the Linux port, Different OS Level Graphic Calls, OS X Development is like combining Unix Programming and Windows Programming. So it takes time to get it to work nativly in OS X Being about 1 year when Apple Annonced the Intel Transition, Then having actuall system a half a year later, in which after they were released they noticed a strong demmand for virtualization on that platform, then needs meeting and analysis to determin if it is profitable so I say it took about 4 months of coding to get where it is today. Paralles beat them to it because they started working when OS X for intel was in Development stages, VMWare took a wait and see and our brand name will allow us to win aditude. So they offset some of the risk by waiting a little while longer.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
There is a dongle. The Mac itself. The intel one has a TPM module.
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.
[Disclaimer: I work at VMware]
... to your config file and then using an off-the-shelf VNC client for the Mac. There are some caveats, however; please read the KB article (1246) on this:
K C&docType=kc&externalId=1246&sliceId=SAL_Public&di alogID=589398&stateId=0%200%20591108&doctag=Author ,%20KB%20Article
It should be possible to do what you described, i.e. to remote your X session over to your Mac and run the console. You might see screwed up colors on your display. If you don't care about actually running the full VMware Remote Console and you just want remote access to the guest's display, however, it's much easier to just activate the VNC server for the VM by adding:
RemoteDisplay.vnc.enabled = TRUE
RemoteDisplay.vnc.port = xxxx
http://kb.vmware.com/vmtnkb/search.do?cmd=display
I am not disputing that. If you purchase a license, then yes, you purchased a license and there are probably draconian restrictions. In the mid-1990s, I saw situations where my employer bought and resold little packages that contained MS Windows license -- it didn't even include the software. Presumably, the papers in the packages authorized the end-user to make non-fair-use copies of some existing MS Windows media, I guess.
But that's unusual outside of large businesses. Most users get their software by purchasing copies, not licenses.
No, this is incorrect and easy to see with careful observation. Go to a retail computer-stuff store and buy MacOS. Then buy a piece of hardware, such as a USB hub. You will observe that both transactions are handled identically. It's not like they sell you the hardware, but present you with a contract to sign when you try to buy software. In both cases, the store sells you goods.
Yes, I have heard of EULAs, and I have seen very few cases where users found a reason to bind themselves to the terms. I worked for a software company that did actually use sales contracts -- the customer would sign a license (in addition to forking over a lot of money) before they were given a copy of the software. The signed contract went into our file cabinet, to be used against the customer if we were to ever find out that they had done something with the software that they had agreed to never do (such as reverse-engineering). But in retail stores, that simply does not happen. EULAs take way too much transactional overhead for most vendors to bother to use.
If you have a few dozen sales per year, EULAs are viable for business. If you sell many thousands, as is the case with OS X, then selling EULAs is probably not profitable (unless you make the price high enough to cover the overhead and make the product desirable enough to overcome the loss of goodwill since many people are turned off by contracts). And that's why most software companies don't do it. They print a EULA and put it in the box, and maybe they even display a EULA when the user tries to install the software. But it's just a sample, or at most, a bluff. If you study the transaction, it is very clear that a copy of the software changes ownership long before the EULA is offered.
You don't to take my word for it; you can see this for yourself any time. Just go to a CompUSA cash register and watch what happens. Watch a software sale and a hardware sale, and see if you can detect any difference. See if you can spot something where the hardware changes ownership but the software copy doesn't. You won't find it.
If you want to see an example of a situation where a vendor and a user actually do establish a contract, sign up for cellphone service. Compare this transaction with a retail software purchase, and then you will see the drastic difference between contracts and sale of goods.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.