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."

Comments

One Way

[Nastard]

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.

Re:One Way

[znu]

Third parties can't really do this, as it would require cracking OS X's copy protection and violating OS X's license agreement.

It might be interesting if Apple licensed someone's virtualization tech and used it to create a sort of downloadable "demo" version of OS X that Windows users could play around with, though. Can virtualized operating systems take advantage of GPU acceleration? Seems like that would be necessary for such an application, as OS X is somewhat less impressive for demo purposes without its GPU-accellerated eye candy.

Re:One Way

[Jahz]

Third parties can't really do this, as it would require cracking OS X's copy protection and violating OS X's license agreement.

Unless something has changed, I don't believe there is any copy-protection for OSX. The last few times i've installed/upgraded OSX, there was never any key required, nor did the DVD ever resist duplication.

To be honest, I would be suprised if Apple did NOT turn a blind eye to pirating of OSX. It happens to be a great way to get Windows users to *try* OSX. Assuming Windows-to-Mac converts will buy at least one Mac computer after trying OSX, the payoff would be substantial. (not to mention that it could be made into a bait-and-switch scenario, in which Apple hooks people with the OS and then forces them to get a Mac or license).

Re:One Way

[bogado]

Now that OSX runs in intel, why not start a Wine like project to emulate the closed source API that apple offers?

Re:One Way

[DarkSarin]

The arguments about why you can't do this legally are interesting, but I've yet to hear an argument about WHY you would even WANT to.

Someone please help.

Re:One Way

[TheRaven64]

As others have pointed out, GNUstep implements some of the OS X APIs.

Both GNUstep and Cocoa implement the OpenStep specification, and GNUstep implements a number of Cocoa-specific extensions as well. It does not, however, implement any of Carbon (an updated version of the old MacOS toolkit) and it does not implement things like Core{Audio,Image,Video}. Most importantly, it is only an API, not ABI, re-implementation. A lot of Cocoa apps can be easily ported to GNUstep, but it can not be used to just run them. Most UNIXes use the ELF binary format, for example, while OS X uses Mach-o. They also use different (incompatible) Objective-C runtime libraries; Apple use their own while GNUstep uses the GNU one.

Re:One Way

[gb506]

Go and configure a Dell w/ the same or similar specs as the newly announced Mac Pro. Look at the price. We'll wait...

Other way round please

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This is good...

[cavtroop]

...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.

Strange new world...

[jthill]

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!

Did anyone not expect this?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

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

Re:Did anyone not expect this?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Well they have also been asked to support Solaris x86 as a host platform since it's also a supported guest but it seems like thats not going to happen. So having a OS X client just because OS X is now on Intel was not a foregone conclusion.

The OS X market is much bigger than the Solaris market. Also, there were plenty of comments from the developers that they were working on an OS X version, even months ago. Finally, While Solaris is a pretty cool workstation OS, a whole lot of the more influential people in the market are sitting in from of Mac laptops these days and carrying them into server rooms. If they let Xen grab the OS X part of the market, then regardless of the feature by feature comparison on other platforms, they'd be losing a significant mindshare.

Any news about VMWare Console?

[dschuetz]

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.)

The agreement allows virtualization.

[ahbi]

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.

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 ... 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.

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.

Why?

[itsdapead]

1. Geek techno-pr0n value - Apple is actually doing a service here by using TPM and ensuring only uber-Geeks who are 1337 crax0rz can play this game :-)
2. Developers testing on multiple systems - but then why not use the Mac as your host system, since it can do most of the stuff that Linux can do AND run Windows in a VM.
3. As a "live CD" demo to woo people to Mac. Danger here is (a) it could get cracked and (b) if there are gliches with graphics, device support etc. it could backfire. Also - switching OSs is always initially frustrating - you really need to have convinced the punter before they get hands-on. (Where's the freaking key that looks like a pretzel!!!??)
4. To short circuit some of the objections to making OS X available on PCs: (a) How to support all the various PC hardware (have the VM present windows drivers as standard hardware) (b) The difficulty/hesitation most Windows lusers would have setting up a dual-boot system and (c) Loss of sales - people, once converted, would still prefer to run OS X on a real mac (but see again the drawbacks of point 3).