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."

Comments

OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

OS X is already virtualised - it has been for ages. Not supported, but certainly doable.

Be nice if Apple gave a bit more help to their customers however - I am not a big fan of artifical restrictions.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Dark Kenshin]

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.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

It seems to me the article is talking more about the legality of doing it, not the possibility.

Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[timmarhy]

"No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple."

you just controdicted yourself in the same sentence. any form of reprisal WILL take the form of legal action, hence the legality of it is the issue.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Hal_Porter]

Apple's software license for OS X says that you can only run it on Apple hardware.

Actually, looking here http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/, the phrase is "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

So it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[GlassHeart]

it sounds like if you write "Apple" on a Post It and stick to your PC, you can virtualize away.

At which point you violate Apple's trademark instead.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[suitepotato]

No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.

This statement brings to mind images of young casually dressed men and women storming their offices with gayly decorated weapons with rainbow Apple logos and shouting grammatically incorrect and utterly meaningless slogans that nevertheless get great press and everyone forgets about it by three days out because they're too busy writing op-ed pieces on the relative social and economic costs and benefits of trying to break up Microsoft again.

Well, it did.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[LordNimon]

There's a difference between "legal action" and "illegal". A company could instruct its lawyer to send you a C&D letter. That's technically a "legal action". However, what you are doing may not be illegal, and you may be forced to prove that in court if the company sues you for ignoring it's C&D demand.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[GlassHeart]

it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

IIRC, US Courts have ruled that installing software constitutes copying (from CD or DVD to hard disk), and violates copyright unless otherwise licensed. The license in question stipulates that you can only run MacOS X on Apple-branded hardware.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Dark Kenshin]

Although the article does talk about the 'legality' of running OS X on non-Mac PCs, it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

'Should' is not the same as 'is'. There is a lot of things you should be able to do with the stuff you buy, but that doesn't stop it from still being illegal

No matter how vmware & parallels dress it up, the problem here is not legality, but fear of reprisals from Apple.

If the reprisal isn't going to be in legal form, then what are they going to do? Call you names, or stop selling Apple products to you? The fact is, people fear the legal reprisals from Apple, nothing else.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

you just controdicted yourself in the same sentence. any form of reprisal WILL take the form of legal action,

Whilst Apple may take legal reprisals, the easiest form of reprisal (against Parallels) would be to simply stop selling parallels at the Apple store. How do you think that would affect sales?

Oh - and if you'd actually bothered to read either article before posting, you would have seen non-legal reprisals mentioned:

Legal issues aside, Parallels doesn't want to strain its relationship with Apple, who can be rather fickle at times about which companies are in its favor. "We have a very good working relationship with Apple, and we don't want to do anything to jeopardize the great partnership that's been so valuable to both of us," he added.

and:

Neither VMWare nor Parallels is willing to risk angering the deities that reside at Apple corporate just for a few extra software sales. Based off of inside reports that I've received from various developers who have to work closely with Apple (no one at Parallels or VMWare, just in case you were curious), it can be very easy to fall out of Apple's favor for even the slightest, most petty of issues

Idiot. Please try to comprehend the discussion before posting.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[True Vox]

Yes, but in Soviet Russia, Apple's trademark violates YOU!

<.<
>.>

*runs*

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[QuantumG]

Yeah, no. Installing the software only on Apple hardware is a *condition* of the license, not a convenate. If you fail to abide by the conditions, you have no license.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

you refuse to abide by the EULA then, under copyright law, you have no right to copy the work

Utter Nonsense (at least in the US):

Looking at United States Code, Chapter 17:

117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. -- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:

(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

[emph mine]

It is amazing to me just how many people in this forum believe they have to give up their rights because an EULA tells them to.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[that this is not und]

How about if I cut off a corner of the plastic on an old PowerMac 7300 and bond it with epoxy to the case of a Dell Optiplex? In particular, I would prefer it be the corner of the PowerMac 7300 case where the Apple branded logo is set.

It also wouldn't be difficult at all to put a fast current x86 motherboard into an old Beige PowerMac case. Say, one of the later ones, a 7300 or 7500, all set up nicely with slots for PCI bus cards....

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[EvanED]

[Oops, looks like I missed closing my tag last post. Sorry about that.]

You need to study your copyright law better. 17 USC 117 explicitly allows copies that are made of a computer program that are required for using the program. In addition, I think you would have a very strong argument (at least if you were not reusing a license, and especially if you were virtualizing on a Mac) for fair use.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[kennygraham]

Actually, looking here http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/, the phrase is "This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

I took that to mean that I can only install it on one Apple-labeled computer at a time, but as many non-apple computers as i want.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[morgan_greywolf]

it would seem to me that there is nothing illegal about this whatsoever (as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

Sure it's illegal. You have to break Apple's DRM to use it in a virtual machine. That' a direct violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws in various other countries outside of the U.S.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[jvkjvk]

Or maybe if you set the PC on top of an Apple you're okay...

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Mr2001]

Buying the product does not make you an owner of a copy of the work. Yes, it does. You're mistaken: that's exactly what owning a copy means.

When you buy a book, you own a copy of the story; when you buy an audio CD, you own a copy of the songs stored on it; when you buy a data CD, you own a copy of the programs stored on it. "Copy" refers to a tangible medium on which the information is stored. Whether or not you have the rights to make any further copies (which would be governed by the EULA, or in this case by an exemption to copyright law), you still own a copy.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[myowntrueself]

How about if I cut *an* apple in half and stick *that* on my PC?

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[myowntrueself]

The Mac OS X EULA says you can only run the software on Apple hardware.

I don't get it.

If I run Firefox on an XP virtual machine running on Apple hardware, then that instance of Firefox *IS* running on Apple hardware; it uses Apple memory and CPU in order to do its thing.

If I run OSX in a virtual machine running on Apple hardware then OSX *IS* running on Apple hardware, surely this is the end of the story?

Unless Apple *specifically* exclude virtualisation, I think its a red herring.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[warrigal]

Look, teh Steve says pre-OSX is dead. Along with that goes the rainbow (except it isn't a rainbow, is it? Just ask Roy G. Biv).
Most of my rainbow Macs are stacked in the garage, in fact only two of the "beige generation" are in the house. Everything else has monochrome apples.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you had done your homework, you would know that Mac OS X does _not_ use a TPM.
http://osxbook.com/book/bonus/chapter10/tpm/

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[noisyfont]

I guess you could also buy a mac, install windows/linux and then virtualize mac os x. why would you do that is a good question, but at least you are legal, fair an square.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[bogjobber]

Not if you aren't selling it or trying to convince people that it's a real Apple.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[QuantumG]

Man, you really are dumb aint ya? VMWare can change their product to recognise the code in Mac OS X that does the TPM check and jump over it.. like they do with a bunch of Microsoft's code that is too hard to emulate. Like they do with some of Adobe's DRM stuff that doesn't like being run in an emulator. Like every virtualization product does to some degree.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Sparr0]

I believe you are incorrect. I cannot cite any specific precedents one way or the other, but the letter of the law is quite clear on the subject:

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.-- Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or

In short... if making a copy is required to use the software, then making that copy without permission isnt a violation of copyright.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[Anonymous Coward]

A funny thing happened to me the other day. I went to apple.com to check out the MacBook Pro and clicked on Get A Mac. One of the reasons they list to get a MAC is:

2. You can even run Windows.
The Mac gives you choices. With the latest software options, an Intel-powered Mac can easily run Vista or Windows XP applications.

Isn't that just hypocritical of them? They tout one of the benefits of using a Mac is that they give you choices. You can run OSX or Windows and they imply that with a PC you don't have choices and can only run Windows. What they fail to mention is that this is not because of Windows or the PC but because Apple is placing the restriction themselves. Hello?!

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[putaro]

My Apple T-shirt, vintage 1982, outlasted my Apple //e by quite a few years.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[putaro]

Actually, the //e was toast after the first wash.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The EULA says "Apple-labeled" not "apple-labeled." That means a computer labeled by Apple, not a computer labeled with an apple or even the Apple logo.

Re:OS X is already virtualised.

[bnenning]

There's plenty of good reasons to do that. Cross-platform testing is a major one; say your primary development environment is Linux or Windows, but you want to test on OS X. And when Leopard ships it would also be useful to run a virtualized Tiger under Leopard (or vice versa), to test Mac apps under both versions. And there's always the standard reasons for virtualization to run apps that aren't available on the native OS; Windows or Linux users might want to run Delicious Library or OmniGraffle or other Mac-only apps.

so...

[President_Camacho]

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?

Re:so...

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

So what do people say when vendors behave the same way towards Microsoft?

I don't know about people - I can only give my opinion. But I'd say "Microsoft Sucks for doing that."

Apple is a hardware company.

[Jartan]

It's obvious they will never give "permission" to do this. Their whole business model is based on using OS X as a driving force to sell their hardware with high profit margins. Some people might agree that they could survive going the other way but Apple doesn't seem convinced.

That being said I doubt they can do much to stop it. It'll be interesting to see what kind of court cases get brought up over virtualization though. Perhaps they could finally bring the whole EULA nonsense to an end.

Re:Apple is a hardware company.

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Exactly. The Mac is a $1,000 dongle, and Apple legal isn't going to take kindly to that dongle being out-of-the-box emulated on a PC.

it will never happen

[oedneil]

For the same reason I don't believe Apple will ever release its software for installation on PCs. Hardware sales are where Apple makes its money, and who would really buy the hardware if they could install OS X on a $300 Walmart PC?

Re:it will never happen

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

[Anonymous Coward]

After getting dumped by IBM after IBM landed all three console manufacturers as clients, Apple was pushed closer to being nothing but an overpriced x86 OEM with nice industrial polish and typography.

OS X running freely in the x86 wild pretty much means the death of Apple hardware. Apple has known this for some time now and it is why they are turning their attention towards the iPod side of the company, changing the company name to downplay desktop computers, and have started to slow the OS X upgrade cycle.

Re:Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

[wtmcgee]

I respectfully disagree. A lot of people care about the entire 'experience' of Apple products, from the quality packaging, to the clean, amazing hardware, to the OS. If Dell started selling OS X on their machines tomorrow, people would certainly jump ship and buy cheaper machines. But I can almost assure you Apple would still be around. I think they just know it's important to their brand to not have another 'clone war' like the mid 90s.

Personally, if Apple licensed OS X, I'd probably buy a cheap HP or Dell desktop for use around the house or for my parents ... but I certainly wouldn't stop buying Apple hardware.

Re:Great Example Of Why Apple Changed Their Name

[toonerh]

Someone already moderated this as "Troll", and I won't disagree.

IBM never intended to compete fully with Intel and AMD for the desktop market considering Apple's 5% market share. On the other hand, IBM appears determined to continue with improved Power processors for their high-end desktop and server market -- as well as the imbedded market which now includes highly visible gaming consoles, but it has been around for over a decade.

Also PA SEMI has a great new low power PowerPC chip.

The x86 hardware is not that bad, especially when running AMD's 64-bit extensions.

I spoke to every Apple person I could...

[csoto]

at WWDC 2006, explaining that we would pay extra for Mac OS X Server, if it were possible to run it under VMware ESX. The ability to run Mac OS X (Server or otherwise) under Fusion or Parallels Desktop or even VMWare/Parallels Workstation would also provide a strategic advantage and encourage us to maintain our subscription levels (well over 400 seats today).

Would "virtualizable" OS X lead to piracy? Probably. But as with most piracy, it would not necessarily impact actual sales. Pirates steal things they wouldn't have ever paid for anyway...

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[tkdog]

The "hardware benefit" of a Mac is indirect. It is actually the benefit of having the company build "the whole widget" which allows them to have full control of drivers, etc. etc. Whether that is a benefit or a limitation to you is a major factor in whether you would be pleased owning/using a Mac. I agree that Apple is only going to care if it looks as if it might cost them money or damage their "it just works" reputation. Geeks can hack all they want as long as they pay for it first.

Apple should go for it

[AusIV]

Anybody who has used much virtualization knows it's not as good as running the OS on hardware. Apple could permit OSX to run on virtual machines so people could get a taste of it without having to buy new hardware, but buying new hardware would have enough benefits that I don't see this cutting in to Mac sales.

The flipside though is that people may try OSX on a Virtual Machine, not realizing that VMs cut performance significantly, decide that OSX is slow and useless, then stick with Windows. I guess I can see either way.

OS X perhaps the worst OS for virtualization

[Florian]

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.

Isn't it ironic

[davmoo]

Hmmm...I don't seem to remember any companies having those concerns about running Windows virtualized. And I certainly don't recall Microsoft giving their blessings to anyone to do so.

Double standards make me laugh.

I don't see why...

[itsdapead]

...Apple couldn't collaborate with VMWare or Parallels to add some sort of hook to their Mac products that would allow OSX to verify that it was running on a Mac.

However, whatever they say about wanting to virtualize OS X, at the moment, Parallels and VMWare are initially pitching their Mac products at people who need to run Windows applications on a Mac. Those people are never going to want to virtualise OS X. Wait for the equivalents of VMWare Server and VMWare Workstation - plus graphics acceleration (which both VMWare and Parallels promise Real Soon Now and which OSX will proably need).

Actually, a more Apple-y thing to happen would be for simple-to-use virtualization to crop up in a future version of OS X. "Click here to create a sandbox for your kids".

Limited License, Not Ownership

[nick_davison]

(as long as you've purchased your copy of OS X, you should be able to do what you like with it).

You don't own the software, you've bought a limited license to it. Whether we like it or not, courts have upheld shrinkwrapped licenses.

Thus, you have the right to use OS-X in exactly the way Apple specifies (i.e. on Apple hardware only) or, if you have never done so, return it for a full refund.

It may not be criminally illegal for you to violate that contract but it is a violation of a contract and thus illegal in the sense of prohibited by civil law.

Apple sells OS-X cheaply in order to sell the hardware it's locked to at a large markup. This isn't any different to Adobe giving away Acrobat reader to allow them to sell Acrobat at a huge markup or Microsoft giving away Internet Explorer to WGA validated Windows users.

It's not in Apple's interest to unbundle the two:

• Apple has a finite list of hardware options they need to support. They don't need to worry about supporting that weird grey market motherboard or obscure Korean on board modem. They can keep their costs down by only supporting registered hardware. Microsoft balances the cost of a massive compatibility lab across 95% of the home market. Apple would have to balance it against 5%.
• Apple can give away the razor and make its money on blades. Without the hardware markup subsidizing the OS, they'd likely have to jack the price up even higher.

We may not like it but Apple evidently has their reasons (whether arguably short sighted or not). That you buy a shrinkwrapped license, not ownership, means that: yes, legally, they do have the right to do so and you don't legally have the right to do as you wish.

translation:

[toby]

'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,'

Means: "we have it running in the lab."

Be careful what you ask for

[Enrique1218]

I guess Apple subsidizes the development of Mac OSX with the hardware sales (price premium?). Now if Apple were to let OSX to be distributed independent of the hardware, the software would have to be sold at a higher price. Moreover, Apple may have to protect against piracy with the much loathe activation schemes that Microsoft currently employs. Be careful what you wish for? Besides I don't believe that OSX has enough mindshare to get many more users to make that model work. OSX link to Apple hardware is not only thing holding back the mass exodus from Wndows.

Re:Why would anyone want to do this?

[moosesocks]

Everyone brings up this argument, and I can't for the life of me figure out why.

On a Windows PC, I have never had a driver problem that affected the core, preinstalled components of the system. Sure, I've had weird things happen when using beta-version drivers, or have had a driver go bad on some extraneous peripheral, but never on a component that was vital to the operation of the PC.

The only exception to this rule I can think of is the graphics driver, and even that's not so much of an issue now that ATI and NVidia both use a unified driver architecture, and Intel graphics are so generic that they're supported on just about everything. Likewise, Apple users are in pretty much the same boat, as Apple doesn't make their own video hardware.

The only difference I can think of is that Apple's dev team spends less time on compatibility testing, because unless you're mucking about with the internals of your operating system, to the end uer, Windows' driver support is excellent. Given the various firmware and AirPort driver problems Apple's had in the past, I would call it about a draw.

VMWare "appliance" of OS X

[pschmied]

Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it? Why not let developers get a taste for the development tools without buying a new system? What do you think their next computer purchase will look like?

They could work with VMWare to create an appropriately DRMed player if they are that paranoid about piracy. VMWare already has their ACE platform that could probably be extended to include some sort of virtual TPM.

Offer OS X as a bundle with a specially modified VMWare player. Let 90% of PC users see what they've been missing. I bet any piracy will be dwarfed by the gains in market share.

The best case scenario I see for Apple would be for some smart cookie to write a minimal Linux distro that boots up VMWare and OS X inside--a poor man's OS X if you will. Users of such a configuration are likely to be the geeks. They'll start learning ObjC and Cocoa and maybe increase the platform's worth. Even if some geeks are content to run an unsupported configuration like this, and *never* purchase a proper Mac, they'll be a force for conversion and software development.

-Peter

Re:VMWare "appliance" of OS X

[jafac]

Most people who use OS X for any time at all love it. Why not give everybody a chance to love it?

They don't give a crap if anybody USES OS X.
They want to sell hardware.

That's why they let people run Windows, or Linux, or Solaris x86, on their hardware, if that's what they want to do. I agree that Apple has "hardware profits" blinders on. But what can you do?

(My guess is that soon, someone, somewhere, out there, will try this, and have it working anyway, with or without Apple's sanctions)

Great for developers

[mike3k]

It would be very useful to be able to run OS X in a VM for testing different versions. I have to test my software in 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, and 10.5. Of course it won't help with PowerPC versions, but it would be nice to be able to use 10.5 without rebooting.

Can we have it *supported* ?

[BestNicksRTaken]

We all know that OSX has already been run under VMWare, but having recently tried it, I would much prefer if it was SUPPORTED by VMWare and Apple (don't really care about Parallels unless they release a free Linux version) mainly due to performance issues than legal ones.

For a start it runs pretty slowly (especially past 10.4.1) even with the little speed fixes, probably as there are no VMWare Tools to speed up disk, network, sound and graphics; and that it doesn't seem to work at all if you have Intel-VT enabled.

Then as VMWare doesn't have a guest option for it so you have to use Other/Linux/FreeBSD/WinNT and manually edit the .vmx files, this isn't a major issue like Tools though. I seem to recall Workstation 5.5 had a "Darwin" guest.

Then there are the patches you need to actually get it working, which equally apply to getting it working on bare metal PC's - AMD fixes, SSE3 emulators and various kernels, thus ruling out actually using a legit copy of OSX.

Also 10.4.8 won't even boot to the installer so you have to boot and run the disk utility from a previous version of OSX. If it was supported by Apple, then these last two points wouldn't be an issue.

Personally I don't think Apple will ever allow virtualisation or non-Mac hardware - unless they turn completely into a software/iPod shop, which seems likely I guess - hey it's not "Apple Computer" anymore!

It seems if you want to run whatever OS you want on your computer, you have to buy a Mac and Parallels (or VMWare Fusion) but personally I'd prefer a Linux host and OSX guest. Actually that's a thought, would it be against EULA to run a virtualised OSX on a Mac running Linux, it's still Apple hardware.....?

Already Done

[RAMMS EIN]

VMWare and Parallels may not be willing to let users run OS X in their virtual machines, but there are others that do. For example, Mac-on-Linux, QEMU, and PearPC. All these are open-source, too.

Re:Already Done

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Notice anything about those solutions? They are not aimed at the consumer market, are not commercial enterprises, and are very limited in their ability. Creating software that can only be used legally in a weird edge case is one thing. Profiting by commercially marketing software that can only be used legally in an edge case is called "contributory copyright infringement." Now I can see the use case for OS X used legally in a VM (if you have Apple hardware and want to run OS X in a VM on top of some other OS, or if you live in a country with copyright laws that are different than the US). I can see arguments that contributory copyright infringement laws are a bad thing, and many of our other copyright laws are also negative for society. In this particular case, however, I do see the point of view from Apple. The market is dominated by a monopoly. Apple's best product would directly compete with that monopoly. Even if it is greatly superior, both recent history and the economics of monopolies show they will lose in that market if they try to compete. The classic strategy for competing against a monopoly is to build a separate vertical chain of supply the monopoly cannot undermine (hardware under your OS and apps on top of it). This is exactly what Apple has done.

Lots of people on Slashdot like to think Apple could abandon the tie between their OS and hardware and everyone would benefit. Those people mostly think that, not because they objectively looked at the market and understood it, but because they want it to be true because it would benefit them directly. It is not true. Unless MS's monopoly is broken up or ousted by tertiary market intrusions, Apple must maintain their tie in to survive. If EULAs are rendered null and void, Apple will stop selling their OS separately at all and probably start selling slightly more expensive boxes with a OS tied to a hardware signature and either sell upgrade versions (which suck) or provide free upgrades for some period of time, like 5 years. It is simply the reality of the market

For anyone out there who want Apple to stop tying their products, simply fixing the market will likely cause that to happen. Break MS into at least two competing companies, each with full rights to Windows, and in two or three years Apple will be forced to unbundle by the now competitive market and they will be able to do so without being killed. Problems like these are best solved at a higher level, rather than micro-managed.

Already done with no repercussions

[Realistic_Dragon]

On PPC MacOnLinux *already* runs OS X as a guest OS with no problems at all, and as far as I know Apple has never hassled them about it - probably because other than Apple sources of PPC machines are few and far between and it didn't represent a significant source of loss.

If you have an old PPC powerbook around I highly recommend it.

Future?

[wolenczak]

I already do, on VMWare workstation / openSUSE 10.2

It won't happen

[Kazymyr]

At least not while Jobs is still with Apple. Everyone seems to think these days that Apple is the company that sells OSX. Well, they're not. They're the company that sells Apple-branded computers, which incidentally run OSX. Their business plan includes selling hardware, with software added as an extra benefit - contrast with Microsoft which are in the business of selling software. Virtualization would cut into their hardware sales, so they won't allow it.