Running Mac OS X on Generic PCs with Parallels/VMWare? [Update]

[ddubbo]

The first thing I always mention when I argue with someone who debates the merit of a Mac, based on price, is that OS X is worth $400 to me. Sure, it's available for less than that, but the cost of OS X is subsidized through hardware sales.

If $400 seems like too much to you, let's say $200. That's less than the cost of a loaded version of Windows. And let's not forget iLife (even though I feel somewhat cheated for not receiving iLife '07 with any of the computers I've bought this month ). $80 is what it goes for new. But subtract $280.

So my Mac mini really cost $320, the cost of a similarly-specced tower computer which wouldn't and shouldn't be placed right under my TV.

My MacBook (C2D) really cost $1100, and my wife's (CD) cost $700. Not too shabby.

But these price/performance arguments are inherently moronic because they only consider performance. I might be the only one out there, but I really like OS X a lot more than Windows. I also like my remote controls, iSights, optical audio, and the painful physical beauty of these machines. Call me a girly-man, but I like **** that looks nice.



It doesn't (or shouldn't, unless you try to "fix" your Mac) cost you if it's a fault in construction or design, or if it's a result of normal usage occurring in the warranty or AppleCare period. other, while an unlucky bastard, is proof of this because he has not had to pay for three logic boards for each of the computers that has been basically DOA.

As far as machines out of warranty/AppleCare are concerned, that's when taking apart your Mac is perfectly acceptable. A year or two ago I replaced the logic board in an iBook. A harrowing experience, but I got through it okay, and I'm @#$%ing stupid.

I gave you all the prices including Windows OEM installed already

Apple Care? It's a joke. Another way how Apple extracts money from their congregation. A lot of PC manufactures gives 3-year warranty to their more than 1000$ machines(incl Dell,HP,Lenovo). Apple doesn't do it even of their highest-end machines. Don't they trust theirs hardware.?

 

[iW00t]

You are kinda exaggerating a little, I got it installed on a PC after growing tired of waiting for Apple to update the currently overpriced Mac Mini and installed it on a Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz PC with 2GB of ram and a 7600GT.

No problems apart from not being able to reboot and Activity Monitor quitting the moment it is launched.

It is not perfect - so what? I realised that I don't need the Mac Mini. Besides I'd put good money on a bet that says this machine with a Conroe is a lot faster than most iMacs.

Best of all? It is only a bit more expensive than a Mini.

I love how the CEO of VMware bragged about their software being used to run illegal hacked versions of Mac OS X.

I've run it, and boy, is it a pain in the ass. Just to update, you must enter 6,000 damn commands, wait for a hacked patch, and even though the patch is hacked, it doesnt have the actual kernel, I believe they're still using 10.4.4 as the hacked OSX86 kernel. Once you do get it running, and it takes a very long time and certain hardware, it can be as fast as a new Mac, but its still a pain.

I hope works on the protection in Leopard final more. Because I've seen beta versions running on regular PCs. o.o

Its all been done at www.insanelymac.com.

Though, some people that ran the hacked versions went out and bought a real mac, seeing how great the OS is.

Besides, the hacked versions can be buggy, due to the fact that some drivers for hardware was created by teams of rather smart people, but isnt sactioned offically by Apple. Remember kitties, when you take OSX, open it up for any hardware to work on it, it'll suck just as bad as Windows does when it comes to hardware. Buggy drivers = Crashy compy.

 

[a456]

Macs are not overpriced, they just have value added in ways that your average PC buyer doesn't think about. They see price not longevity, design, ruggedness, compactness, convenience (e.g. built in iSight). My Mac has lasted me longer than any cheap PC - because it still has a good sized HDD even after four years, it still has a processor that runs the latest version of OS X and it still amazes me with its compact (12" PB) size that means it can be thrown into a rucksack with ease. Even when I have fitted PC laptops into rucksacks they haven't survived long because the cheap HDD has packed up from movement. A good quality Mac lasts longer, and not just in terms of still working but still doing the job it was built to do.

A minor point but one that shows Apple's attention to detail, and how they add value: I don't have a single key on which the letters have rubbed off, something I have never seen on other PCs the same age - or even half the age - and I use it all day every day.

 

[2ndPath]

It appears that the server market, and to a lesser extent the workstation market, will be one of the big areas where virtualization is applied in the business world. M$ bought the virtualization technology for that specific reason. With the arrival of commonly available mult-core processors various cores can be assigned various OSes (and applications) to handle whatever the company needs run. As the power (and number of cores) grows I would expect virtualization will become more mainstream. Just imagine a server that could run a finite element analysis program that has not been updated since DOS, but still fills a need, simultaneously with Vista or whatever M$ is then pushing, along with Linux and OS X for those so inclined. Each independent of the other and able to assign additional corese to one or the other depending upon demand.

Actually do you know how much Apple is into these markets? The impression I get from the description of their server products is that they are mainly geared towards beeing workgroup servers for up to a few tens of people. Are they also used to run large scale data base applications. My impression was that these are still dominated by other Unix systems and Windows. The big strenght of OSX is the user interface and that is not really important for server applications. But if Apple really want to establish OSX as an important server OS, they probably need a virtualisation solution. And even if not, it would still be good to have it.

 

[ankhman]

Can't tell from markup on article : Time will tell what Parallels will release

The article is so marked up and updated, it is hard to follow. Anyway, the only thing that will really matter is what Parallels will release. They supposedly did say at MacWorld there will be a significant release available in a couple of weeks. I only hope the existing bugs are fixed before anything really "new" is added. Great product, lousy or no product support, and their focus seems to be on "Beta" releases (I guess they are at least honest, MS has been getting away with crappy Official Windows XX builds for years).

 

[other]

I received my third MacBook today. Guess what? It still whines.

 

[Zadillo]

I received my third MacBook today. Guess what? It still whines.

Sorry to hear that. Enjoy your ThinkPad.

-Zadillo

 

[other]

Sorry to hear that. Enjoy your ThinkPad.

-Zadillo

That is if I can actually return this one. Apple wants me to take it to a service center for evaluation, who knows what will happen after that. I'm getting very tired of all this.

 

[Zadillo]

That is if I can actually return this one. Apple wants me to take it to a service center for evaluation, who knows what will happen after that. I'm getting very tired of all this.

Well, good luck either way.

-Zadillo

 

[other]

Hopefully OSx86 works alright.

 

[azentropy]

I was always against Apple licensing Mac OS X to others. But my opinion has changed.

Like many now I'm extremely frustrated with Apple's current offerings and the lack of a midrange expandable desktop. To get a Mac configured with 4gb of RAM it will cost $3200 from Apple. Which is a Mac Pro changing to the most minimum config except for the RAM... No other Mac can even handle 4gb and that isn't even getting into the limited expandablity of the Mac mini and iMac (or that I already have a monitor and don't want to pay for or even want an integrated one).

A HP or Dell (gasp) with a 2.4ghz Conroe and 4gb of Ram runs around $1300 (or less with the deals dell always runs or HP rebates)...

If Apple is going to ignore that segment for themselves, than I would like to see them allow others to legally fill that hole.

 

[RBR2]

I was always against Apple licensing Mac OS X to others. But my opinion has changed.

Like many now I'm extremely frustrated with Apple's current offerings and the lack of a midrange expandable desktop. To get a Mac configured with 4gb of RAM it will cost $3200 from Apple. Which is a Mac Pro changing to the most minimum config except for the RAM... No other Mac can even handle 4gb and that isn't even getting into the limited expandablity of the Mac mini and iMac (or that I already have a monitor and don't want to pay for or even want an integrated one).

A HP or Dell (gasp) with a 2.4ghz Conroe and 4gb of Ram runs around $1300 (or less with the deals dell always runs or HP rebates)...

If Apple is going to ignore that segment for themselves, than I would like to see them allow others to legally fill that hole.

"Right now" there is an effective 3 GB RAM limitation on the new Intel systems, whether from Apple, Dell, HP or you build it. "It's an Intel think" as some people have put it. I am not certain, but think that it is related to the support chip set being a 32 bit system rather than a 64 bit system. A 64 bit system will supposedly be out in the Spring. I am sure that many of the institutions which have G5 clusters are waiting for the ability to utilize more RAM before making the switch to the Intel systems.

Your point about mid-range systems is right on though.

 

[azentropy]

"Right now" there is an effective 3 GB RAM limitation on the new Intel systems, whether from Apple, Dell, HP or you build it. "It's an Intel think" as some people have put it. I am not certain, but think that it is related to the support chip set being a 32 bit system rather than a 64 bit system. A 64 bit system will supposedly be out in the Spring. I am sure that many of the institutions which have G5 clusters are waiting for the ability to utilize more RAM before making the switch to the Intel systems.

Your point about mid-range systems is right on though.

That isn't how I understand it. The chipsets using the Conroe (E6XXX) processors can address 4gb... it is the notebook chipsets that do not. And both the iMac and Mac mini are based on those...

 

[janstett]

And this is over with Vista.

Especially the 64-bit version. They are making a hard break against legacy compatibility there. That's where MS has drawn the line.

 

[RBR2]

That isn't how I understand it. The chipsets using the Conroe (E6XXX) processors can address 4gb... it is the notebook chipsets that do not. And both the iMac and Mac mini are based on those...

It is true that you can install 4 GB or RAM and it will appear as such on your system, but there will be only 3 GB which you can utilize. Apparently the other 1 GB is tied up with the system. The exact details are rather more than I cared to figure out when briefed on the matter. The bottom line is that current Intel systems are limited in their ability to utilize RAM when compared to the G5 systems.

 

[virduk]

If apple sold OS X for generic PCs, The price of OS X would go up tremendously!

Well..they could sell a sep standalone version. I know I'd be happy to pay Vista prices to run OSX on non-Apple hardware legally.

 

[MikeTheC]

Ooh boy, where to start on this...

I think there are several factors that are actively impacting this entire situation.

First, people are growing more and more frustrated dealing with Windows. Since Apple has been educating the general public that there is a viable alternative to Windows, and that most of the general public's problems stem from Windows, they've effectively been ginning up demand for their products. However, they're ginning up more demand than they can satisfy, particularly in the sense of people wanting a Mac OS X-running computer but not wanting to either pay what Apple's asking or be limited to the configuration options that Apple has made available.

Second, if Apple is to succeed, they need to be getting their platform (which is arguably the operating system, not the hardware) in front of as many people as possible.

Third, Apple needs to remember that even back during it's infancy, the iPod's volume of success was based on sales to non-Mac-using customers. That same basic market still exists, and getting Mac OS X out to that group would have the same basic kind of benefit.

Forth, Apple's not the only player in town providing a non-Microsoft solution. The GNU/Linux platform is expanding rather rapidly, and is threatening to outpace Apple's Darwin/Mach underpinnings development. At this point the only two advantages Apple has over Linux (and this is for the average computer user, not the expert) is end-to-end ease of use/controlled user experience; and secondly the availability of mainstream production apps with name recognition and specific feature sets.

And given that Linux runs (collectively speaking) on almost any kind of hardware (to say nothing of modern hardware), Apple has no built-in protection from Linux. The Linux development community will be the ones applying a full-court press on Apple's own development efforts. And clearly, the GNU/Linux crowd doesn't have a hardware agenda and will likely be quite happy to absorb all the Windows/Mac user base at the earliest opportunity.

As the Seventh Doctor once said, "Time will tell; it always does."

 

[iW00t]

"Right now" there is an effective 3 GB RAM limitation on the new Intel systems, whether from Apple, Dell, HP or you build it. "It's an Intel think" as some people have put it. I am not certain, but think that it is related to the support chip set being a 32 bit system rather than a 64 bit system. A 64 bit system will supposedly be out in the Spring. I am sure that many of the institutions which have G5 clusters are waiting for the ability to utilize more RAM before making the switch to the Intel systems.

Your point about mid-range systems is right on though.

That is not true. The new Core 2 Xeons obviously can do > 32 bit memory addressing, otherwise we wouldn't see much sense in the Mac Pro.

The only reason why the bulk of Apple's line is stuck in 32 bit land is not so much Intel's fault. Intel currently has the best desktop processor in the world which sports the new i965 chipset that carries 64 bit memory addressing. But Apple in their infinite wisdom decided to "think different" and spend extra cash on more expensive mobile processors for (1) no speed gain (2) no gain in battery life (desktops don't have batteries anyway) and ship iMacs and Minis with high price tags and arse backwards GPUs when they could have done as the rest of the PC industry has did and used desktop processors for desktops and spend that extra money on a REAL graphics chip.

Oh no, it is just so typically Apple to do break away from the norm in places that don't matter and make stuff that aren't practical. No wonder Macs still only have 4% marketshare.

I'd wish to see OS X get greater market penetration some day, at least then we will no longer have stupid stuff like websites that are ActiveX based and Windows-only and streaming videos that are using WMV.

Some Mac users prefer OS X to remain a niche OS so they can boast their ePeen. I don't share this sentiment. Share the love people!

 

[RBR2]

That is not true. The new Core 2 Xeons obviously can do > 32 bit memory addressing, otherwise we wouldn't see much sense in the Mac Pro.

The only reason why the bulk of Apple's line is stuck in 32 bit land is not so much Intel's fault. Intel currently has the best desktop processor in the world which sports the new i965 chipset that carries 64 bit memory addressing. But Apple in their infinite wisdom decided to "think different" and spend extra cash on more expensive mobile processors for (1) no speed gain (2) no gain in battery life (desktops don't have batteries anyway) and ship iMacs and Minis with high price tags and arse backwards GPUs when they could have done as the rest of the PC industry has did and used desktop processors for desktops and spend that extra money on a REAL graphics chip.

Oh no, it is just so typically Apple to do break away from the norm in places that don't matter and make stuff that aren't practical. No wonder Macs still only have 4% marketshare.

I'd wish to see OS X get greater market penetration some day, at least then we will no longer have stupid stuff like websites that are ActiveX based and Windows-only and streaming videos that are using WMV.

Some Mac users prefer OS X to remain a niche OS so they can boast their ePeen. I don't share this sentiment. Share the love people!

If it were just "an Apple thing" why is it that PCs from Dell & etc have the same limitation?

 

[FredG]

Sooner or later, Apple is going to do just that!

My two cents...

Microsoft has been fairly successful as a purely software company

Apple isn't going to be able to control (stop) this now...so they should change course and make this a positive thing versus fighting a losing battle. They can if they choose to. Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.

Yes, Apple makes a lot of money off of hardware, but selling MILLIONS of copies of OS X would be a pretty huge chunk of change. Many times over the profits of hardware. Look at the profits of selling a kazillion iPods! I don't think Apple would lose a high percentage of Mac hardware users...BUT gain millions of OS X users.

Apple is moving out of being a niche company...seems to *me* like this could be THE move into the mainstream.

peace

I agree!

Given all of the ongoing negative news and opinion regarding MS Vista--including today’s news that support of the Home and Ultimate editions will be limited to 5 years--I believe that a PC version of OS X, including technology enabling it run most, if not all, existing PC applications, marketed in a single edition, consistent with Apple's way of doing things, could take the market by storm.

Steve Jobs knows that, too. That expectation had to be a factor in going Intel.

Apple has been remaking itself for years. It's no longer just a computer hardware company. OS X is so solid and so great that it can compete head on with Vista. I have a feeling that it could be on 10% of existing PC's in 2 years, 25% in 5 years. Perhaps, that’s overly optimistic, but at $200-250 a box, I could see Apple stock hit the moon.

Consider that OS X is already well engineered and in continuing development. The costs of adding a PC edition to Apple's software solutions would be relatively minor. Sooner or later, Apple is going to do just that! How could it not!

 

[Zadillo]

My two cents...

Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.

Do you honestly believe this? Or more specifically, do you honestly believe that this would have ever worked out well for Apple? Take a look at the history of MS's other OS partnerships and see how well you think this would work.

People who bring this up act like there would have been some glorious future where Apple kept doing the Mac OS, and Microsoft somehow would have not bothered doing Windows, and just developed software for the Mac.

But this isn't and has never been in Microsoft's character. Windows would have happened regardless, and Microsoft would have used the same advantage they always had.

And if Apple had taken Gates' advice, and Apple licensed the Mac OS way back when, they would have ultimately ended up as just one of many OS competitors that MS finally drove out of business (look at Digital Research and how MS handled the DR-DOS/MS-DOS competition for an idea of this).

 

[ortuno2k]

I don't agree on PC's having the privilege of running Mac OS X, even if it's done via emulation software.
Apple should squash whoever is making this possible and further restrict the OS to make it run on Apple hardware only!
I would really hate for Mac OS X to be abused, hacked, cracked, pirated, virused, peed and pooped on and so on and forth by disgruntled & frustrated PC users.
Hasta la Vista, Vista.

 

[PCMacUser]

I don't agree on PC's having the privilege of running Mac OS X, even if it's done via emulation software.
Apple should squash whoever is making this possible and further restrict the OS to make it run on Apple hardware only!
I would really hate for Mac OS X to be abused, hacked, cracked, pirated, virused, peed and pooped on and so on and forth by disgruntled & frustrated PC users.
Hasta la Vista, Vista.

Ahh get over it. The hardware it runs on doesn't make any difference to whether it gets pirated and hacked and virused etc. If Apple launched OS X for all Intel platforms right now it would take the market by storm. I never felt that way while XP was the thing in the world of Windows, but now with Vista's icy launch, the time is right.

 

[Zadillo]

Ahh get over it. The hardware it runs on doesn't make any difference to whether it gets pirated and hacked and virused etc. If Apple launched OS X for all Intel platforms right now it would take the market by storm. I never felt that way while XP was the thing in the world of Windows, but now with Vista's icy launch, the time is right.

My concern would be that the day Apple does that, Microsoft stops development of Office for the Mac.

-Zadillo

 

[FredG]

My concern would be that the day Apple does that, Microsoft stops development of Office for the Mac.

-Zadillo

Interesting point, that is, the possibility that MS would halt development of Office for the Mac were Apple to produce an edition of Mac OS X Leopard to run natively on the PC.

I doubt that MS would do that, but if it did, we would manage just fine. I'd continue using my existing version of MS Office for the Mac, which, I might add, hasn't been supported very well by MS, most noticeable in the case of the Mac version of Powerpoint, which has long been handicapped.

With the Mac's increasing share of the market, we'll hopefully see other players offer productivity suites for the Mac, able to read and write in existing MS formats as well as various open doc formats that will certainly be gaining a foothold.

Apple, too, could fill the vacuum that Zadillo worries about. It could, as I write, be developing a cross platform capable and comparable office suite of it's own. I believe a day is coming when Apple Universal will mount on PC's and PC software will mount on the Mac. So, MS Office is still likely to be there for Mac users, too.

There is much to be said for the growth of convergence and interoperability of the Mac, PC and other platforms. Apple seeded that possibility when it moved to Intel. If it brings to bear its continuing vision and excellence in design, production, marketing and service, we will long continue to see the Apple mark on increasing numbers of products and screens well into the future and future worlds beyond.

FredG