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

[__aaclcg7560]

So you want to run one of finest operating systems in a virtual machine on one of the worst operating system available? You must be smoking something good.

Re:One Way

[Richard_at_work]

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.

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

[andrewman327]

Darn license agreements. Always getting in the way of things that are fun.

Re:One Way

[MBGMorden]

Not a problem. I'll just get an Apple label and stick it on my PC :).

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

[maztuhblastah]

You mean GNUStep, right?

Re:One Way

[iapetus]

No. OS X isn't compatible with Golden Delicious. You should be able to run it on a Cox's Pippin or a Granny Smith, though.

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.

Awesome!

[Duncan3]

Finally announced.

Now all of our textbooks will get to look like this:

+---------+
| OS X |
+---------+
| VMWare |
+---------+
| Rootkit |
+---------+

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!

Already done

[flithm]

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).

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/Vmware _how_to

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.

Re:Shrink Warp

[Sloppy]

Of course you dont own a copy of Mac OS X/Microsoft Windows when you purchase your *license*.

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.

When you purchase any piece of software you are effectively purchasing the right to use it (a license).

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.