Slashdot Mirror
The Prospects For Virtualizing OS X
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."
Both [vendors] have told Ars unequivocally that they won't enable users to virtualize OS X until Apple explicitly gives them the thumbs up.
So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility. Apple therefore, has no obligation to support something it doesn't license.
I do agree with you about the restrictions. If I legally obtain OS X, there should no reason I shouldn't be able to run it under a virtual environment.
"I only know 2 things: The love for me, and the fear of me."
Pretty much no-one. Apple proved this already during the cloning debacle - people immediately started buying Power Computing, Umax, Motorola and other clones because they offered higher CPU specs at the same or lower prices.
Mac OS X makes heavy use of hardware accelerated functions: Quartz/Aqua 3D graphics (which unlike Vista's Aero can't be turned off), GPU-rendered graphics processing among others in CoreImage and iMovie, low-latency sound in CoreAudio, ... - likely making it perhaps the worst candidate for virtualization among all operating systems.
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
At which point you violate Apple's trademark instead.
Take a deep breath, and repeat after me: The world is not the USA. The USA is not the world.
There are plenty of other countries that take the viewpoint of installing a program onto a hard drive, and running it, as being an expected part of using the software, and hence not in violation of copyright. Installing it onto a second hard drive without wiping it off the first, on the other hand, is (and fair enough too.)
In those countries, you do not need a license granted to you to use the software - it is implicitely granted when you purchase the software. This may make it perfectly legitimate to use the software in manners that contradict the EULA.
Naturally, the usual disclaimers apply: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice; seek a lawyer for information relevant to your specific situation; etc., etc., etc.