I'm all for ways to open up hardware options. It's so tiresome to be a kind of hostage to Apple's limited selection. A more direct competitive situation might force Apple to wake up and build, for example, a mid-range computer without a screen.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Running Mac OS X on Generic PCs with Parallels/VMWare? [Update]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If Steve is going to make a move on the Windows market, now is the perfect time to do so: iPod's success, all the media hype focused on the Apple iPhone, Vista's lackluster reviews and high system requirements. With all the attention on Apple, perhaps this is Steve's last chance to get a significant percentage of the OS marketshare back.
Sure Apple would lose sales on hardware sales, but wouldn't they make up a large portion of that by increasing the the sale of OS X exponentially?
Either way it's a great time to be an Apple fan and Mac user. It will be very interesting to see the moves made by Apple in the next couple of years. After all life is a chess match!
Sure Apple would lose sales on hardware sales, but wouldn't they make up a large portion of that by increasing the the sale of OS X exponentially?
Either way it's a great time to be an Apple fan and Mac user. It will be very interesting to see the moves made by Apple in the next couple of years. After all life is a chess match!
VMware runs under Linux, Windows and the Mac. You can run any OS inside the VM. You don't need Windows. Other combinatins are possable. For example run Linux on the PC then put Mac OS X on that.
Apple could very easily tie Mac OS to some special hardware. I don't know why it is not already this way.
I'm of two minds....
I'd like to see more Windows users appreciate how great OS X is......
But at the same time i'd rather see OS X exclusive to Macs......
Still, it stinks a bit trying to prevent virtualisation of OS X on a Windows machine. Please don't make too many enemies Apple.
I'd like to see more Windows users appreciate how great OS X is......
But at the same time i'd rather see OS X exclusive to Macs......
Still, it stinks a bit trying to prevent virtualisation of OS X on a Windows machine. Please don't make too many enemies Apple.
Apple could still sell tons of hardware, while also growing the Mac platform and making tons more by selling OS X for PCs.
They could pick their timing and do it strategically.
They could pick their market: just to selected box assemblers, or just standalone (for DIYers), or whatever way they want to start.
They could offer sidegrade pricing--like $100 off if you buy a Mac after buying OS X for PCs.
This would allow Apple to grow faster and reach more customers than their Mac product line currently can.
All of this has no downside--just as long as Apple does not SUPPORT that other hadware (an endless chaotic sea of widely varied components). And just as long as Apple doesn't add complexity or bloat to OS X to allow this other hardware to work (like extra drivers that all must stay compatible with each OS revision). And just as long as this other hardware doesn't require Apple to spend additional time, staff, or money on development and testing of their OS and related products. (In short... as long as Apple doesn't mind facing many of the same problems that plague Windows as a result of having to support infinite hardware versions.) Also just as long as Apple cares about growing as fast as possible, more than they care about quality and innovation. And just as long as Apple doesn't have future OS X plans that tie in with hardware (like cameras, remote controls, or motion sensors). And just as long as Apple doesn't mind helping pirates out. And just as long as all this doesn't work against unreleased products (like bottom-end Macs or subnotebooks or a mid-range headless) that Apple may have in the labs.
In other words, as long as Apple leaves OS X as is, and sells it to PC owners with no promise that it will actually work, and no support when they have issues, then it's a great idea
(I suspect OS buyers and the law might take issue, however. Maybe it's best to keep OS X on Mac for now.)
They could pick their timing and do it strategically.
They could pick their market: just to selected box assemblers, or just standalone (for DIYers), or whatever way they want to start.
They could offer sidegrade pricing--like $100 off if you buy a Mac after buying OS X for PCs.
This would allow Apple to grow faster and reach more customers than their Mac product line currently can.
All of this has no downside--just as long as Apple does not SUPPORT that other hadware (an endless chaotic sea of widely varied components). And just as long as Apple doesn't add complexity or bloat to OS X to allow this other hardware to work (like extra drivers that all must stay compatible with each OS revision). And just as long as this other hardware doesn't require Apple to spend additional time, staff, or money on development and testing of their OS and related products. (In short... as long as Apple doesn't mind facing many of the same problems that plague Windows as a result of having to support infinite hardware versions.) Also just as long as Apple cares about growing as fast as possible, more than they care about quality and innovation. And just as long as Apple doesn't have future OS X plans that tie in with hardware (like cameras, remote controls, or motion sensors). And just as long as Apple doesn't mind helping pirates out. And just as long as all this doesn't work against unreleased products (like bottom-end Macs or subnotebooks or a mid-range headless) that Apple may have in the labs.
In other words, as long as Apple leaves OS X as is, and sells it to PC owners with no promise that it will actually work, and no support when they have issues, then it's a great idea
(I suspect OS buyers and the law might take issue, however. Maybe it's best to keep OS X on Mac for now.)What a joke
Windows on a mac makes sense but not the other way around
Mac OS X on PC hardware makes sense if Apple does not make the hardware you want. For example "mid size tower" something between a Mini and a MP. If Apple made that I'd buy it
I was just thinking, maybe this would force Apple to expand their line-up of mobile and desktop computers at more competitive prices. You really can't gain a huge market share and not even offer a computer with a desktop processor.
Not me!
Until Apple can make a laptop that meets my needs, I'm all for running MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
What meets my needs? A portable 4lbs or lighter that can replace my aging 12" G4 PowerBook. Until Apple makes a comparable Intel offering, the hell with their OSX limitations.
In fact the entire MacBook line is overweight compared to laptop offerings from Sony, Panasonic, and even ASUS.
Until Apple can make a laptop that meets my needs, I'm all for running MacOS on non-Apple hardware.
What meets my needs? A portable 4lbs or lighter that can replace my aging 12" G4 PowerBook. Until Apple makes a comparable Intel offering, the hell with their OSX limitations.
In fact the entire MacBook line is overweight compared to laptop offerings from Sony, Panasonic, and even ASUS.
If Apple really wanted to be evil, I bet the EULA of Mac OS X stipulates it can only be run on an actual Apple Computer and they could go out and sue individual users, or sue VMWare for making a product which purpose is to violate an EULA of another product.
Even if the EULA doesn't stipulate that, Apple will still sue someone.
YOU SHALL NOT PASS.
It already does say that, and has for many, many years. Here is a direct quote from the first page of the OS X license agreement:
I just checked, and a similar clause is in the OS 9.x license. And, if I remember right, it was even in the OS 8.x licenses as well.
So, I don't see any way that you could use it on a PC from someone other than Apple without violating the user license (which would open you up to legal prosecution).
Copies of the various license agreements can be found here:
http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/
The one I quoted was for OS 10.4.4. But, the others are similar.
Its not Apple "Computer" Inc. anymore. Let us have OSX on the PC. Im not a fan of proprietary at all. If i could use OSX for everything, and then switch to XP for gaming i would be in heaven.
Either allow OSX on the PC or allow people to upgrade there Macs EASILY, no more solidering or non upgradeable systems. If i could put a NICE video card into my iMac i wouldnt need to buy a PC.
Either allow OSX on the PC or allow people to upgrade there Macs EASILY, no more solidering or non upgradeable systems. If i could put a NICE video card into my iMac i wouldnt need to buy a PC.
They tried that once. It didn't work too well...
Jobs ended the programme as soon as he returned. So I doubt he's likely to allow Mac Clones again any time soon.
But there's nothing they can do to stop determined hobbyists from installing OS X on their beige boxes. It's been happening since the moment the Intel developer machines were released.
Win - Win situation for apple
To me this is a win - win situation for Apple. Apple is not going to lose any native mac users to running OS X in a virtual environment. We all know that OS X is much nicer to use than windows.
Soooo, Apple sales more copies of OSX to Pc users experimenting with OS X in a virtual environment. Then once these users find out how nice OS X is, bang, Apple makes a hardware sale because who wants to run OS X full time in a VM when they can buy nice Apple hardware and run it natively.
Remember OS X still is not going to run natively in on that PC. It will only run in a VM. Therefore a PC user will have to buy new Apple hardware if they want to run OS X full time natively.
To me this is a win - win situation for Apple. Apple is not going to lose any native mac users to running OS X in a virtual environment. We all know that OS X is much nicer to use than windows.
Soooo, Apple sales more copies of OSX to Pc users experimenting with OS X in a virtual environment. Then once these users find out how nice OS X is, bang, Apple makes a hardware sale because who wants to run OS X full time in a VM when they can buy nice Apple hardware and run it natively.
Remember OS X still is not going to run natively in on that PC. It will only run in a VM. Therefore a PC user will have to buy new Apple hardware if they want to run OS X full time natively.
Au contraire: a big reason that Mac OS X works so well is because the hardware environment is very carefully controlled and vetted by Apple. If Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on the countless possible combinations of off-the-shelf PC hardware, it would become the same nightmarish collection of drivers and driver conflicts that plagues Windows XP and its brethren.
Of course, Apple could just wash their hands of the situation and refuse to support any one who chooses to run OS X on non-Apple hardware, but that's not the Apple way. If it has their name on it, they want it to work. Anything less would reflect poorly on them.
I can't see Apple doing this - it would throw a monkey wrench in the seamless "OS X experience". Apple would be moving towards more of a Windows model, where people will start having to worry about finding drivers for their hardware, etc.
I suppose Apple could say "we won't stop you, but we also won't be offering any support..."
Edit: Man, that is eerie, hitting "submit reply" and then seeing what pascalpp wrote at virtually the same time!
I suppose Apple could say "we won't stop you, but we also won't be offering any support..."
Edit: Man, that is eerie, hitting "submit reply" and then seeing what pascalpp wrote at virtually the same time!
This is really bad news, IMHO. If anybody can easily run Mac OS X on generic hardware, Apple's increasing gains in the hardware market will be flattened (or perhaps reversed). I know that OSX86 project offers this, but it's cumbersome and hard to install.
If anybody can easily run Mac OS X on generic hardware, Apple's increasing gains in the hardware market will be flattened (or perhaps reversed). I know that OSX86 project offers this, but it's cumbersome and hard to install.This is really bad news, IMHO.
If Apple's EULA stays as-is, it will still be a breach of the license to install OS X on anything but genuine Apple hardware.
That won't stop people from running it on PCs, but they won't be able to do it legally anyway.
Lets not jump to conclusions here that OSX is going to be running on any x86 box ever made.
You would be running OSX on a virtual mac, with virtual drivers for virtual hardware. Its just like running XP under Parallels; its good for an odd-ball program or two, but if you want to use it full time, and/or with full hardware acceleration and resources, it wont do.
Everyone go back to complaining about iPhone..
You would be running OSX on a virtual mac, with virtual drivers for virtual hardware. Its just like running XP under Parallels; its good for an odd-ball program or two, but if you want to use it full time, and/or with full hardware acceleration and resources, it wont do.
Everyone go back to complaining about iPhone..
You are assuming facts many others (like me) do not agree with. This is a sign of weak analysis. Please only post your own opinion and do not presume to speak for others.
The facts.
1) There is absolutely nothing technically stopping running OS X in a VM on fairly standard hardware.
2) The license for OS X specifically prohibits this.
3) Steve most likely will not mind OS X running in a VM hosted on Apple hardware (although he may want them to have the family pack license to do so.)
4) Anyone who makes software that enables users to run OS X on non-Apple hardware will have the Steve to deal with. Even if they themselves don't promote it for that purpose.
How do you think Apple would react if Dell started manufacturing machines that just happened to be able to run OS X if you were so inclined to install it? Do you think that Dell doesn't have that capability? I'd venture to guess that Parallel's made a serious misstep to imply that they would support such a thing. Being isolated from the internal developers at Apple can't be a good thing for developing a stable product.
1) There is absolutely nothing technically stopping running OS X in a VM on fairly standard hardware.
2) The license for OS X specifically prohibits this.
3) Steve most likely will not mind OS X running in a VM hosted on Apple hardware (although he may want them to have the family pack license to do so.)
4) Anyone who makes software that enables users to run OS X on non-Apple hardware will have the Steve to deal with. Even if they themselves don't promote it for that purpose.
How do you think Apple would react if Dell started manufacturing machines that just happened to be able to run OS X if you were so inclined to install it? Do you think that Dell doesn't have that capability? I'd venture to guess that Parallel's made a serious misstep to imply that they would support such a thing. Being isolated from the internal developers at Apple can't be a good thing for developing a stable product.
This is a onjecture, not fact. It has never been proven. And no one said they had to run on everything. Unlike Windows who makes obligations to support everything from 15 yrs back, Apple at this point has none of the baggage and can always get out of it with loose service clauses. No support for non-Apple hardware (im sure it will deter a lot of consumers, but keep the prosumers, which the audience for non supported software is for). So I see it as win-win.
And the problem with the downfall of overly expensive, outdated, inflexible, and competition free hardware is?The day Apple makes OS X to run on PC's will be the first day of the end of the Mac.
Apple Hardware is only nice when it is new. Then a week later everyone sees that everyone can do the same and better for cheaper. Then a month or two later while everyone unviels this new feature and that, Apple is touting its New MacBook Pros (no updates in months). Yes, I'm so happy Apple has a monopoly on Mac OS X hardware.
I met a kid once at a friend's college. Big time programmer or something. He pulls me a side and out of his walmart issue sweatpants, he pulls a 2.5" sata laptop drive. "Check this out" he says "it's an illegal copy of mac OS X for my pc," speaking with a glinting grin.
haha who carries an internal laptop drive around in the pocket...then goes around bragging about it...
whether or not it worked...i don't know. I didn't stick around to find out.
I'm in the keep OS X with apple's camp.
haha who carries an internal laptop drive around in the pocket...then goes around bragging about it...
whether or not it worked...i don't know. I didn't stick around to find out.
I'm in the keep OS X with apple's camp.