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

[rjwill246]

I see this as something good for the consumer, if Apple doesn't want people running OS X on non-Apple hardware then they should provide the consumer with incentives to not "switch back"

Er-- what???? Apple has no obligation to offer such incentives. The idea of violating Apple's agreement NOT to run MacOS on non-Apple approved devices is questionable in the least!!! I know you do not want to have to buy an "expensive" Mac to run Mac OS but that does not mean you should be able to get around the EULA so that YOU can!!!! What YOU want, and what Apple agrees you should do with their software are two different things.

Further, on Apple's demise as a result of massive loss of harware sales-- what say you to that, matey? Too frickin' bad????

 

[eric_n_dfw]

OS X on generic x86 pro's & con's have been beat to death on other discussions here for years so I won't go into my arguements other than: a.) as a shareholder and fan of Apple Inc. I hate it as it will eat into their profits, b.) as a geek I would love it as I could run OS X on cheap hardware.

Back on topic:
For those of you poo-pooing the fact that it would be running under a VM, consider that you can run guest OS's under VMWare at speeds pretty well indistinguishable from native since it's not having to do any CPU emulation. The hardware virtualization support built into modern Intel and AMD processors makes the speed incredibly fast.

Now think about running VMWare under an extremely light-weight Linux distribution that is there simply to boot the machine and host the VM. We do this at my work using the free VMWare Server product to host multiple virtual RedHat servers to various developer groups on single physical hardware servers. i.e. Boot PC, Linux kernel loads with only enough to run VMWare Player which it automatically starts, VMWare Player fires up OS X in full screen mode.

 

[Chef Medeski]

Further, on Apple's demise as a result of massive loss of harware sales-- what say you to that, matey? Too frickin' bad????

If Apple loses hardware sales it will be due to a lack of attractive products, a lack of incentive to use those products, or too steep of a price tag. Either way. If hardware sales drop its either due to bad design or stingy pocket books. If its bad design, low hardware sales would force Apple to innovate or die; creating fresh ideas that they wont worry about cannibalizing sales as much since they will be lower. If of course its pocket book and Apple refuses to lower their prices to match what the buyer wants, which is really the key to any buisness (balancing a price with what your buyers want). Well if Apple cant deliver at that price then others will and Apple will evolve into a Software company. Nothing unnatural about the evolutanary ways of a company. Companies re-invent themselves and shift their core values and buisnesses all the time. Isnt a bad thing. Its natural and its what saves the company. They have to adapt to the wants of the customer not the other way around.

I dont see any negative to Apple Hardware's demise. The last time I saw anything in a Mac that really made me want to get one over a regular thing it probably was the hot swapping batteries and cool power adapter. Innovative ideas that few competitors have that were genuinly useful. Those have been around for years. Success causes lagress.

 

[rt_brained]

...Choose the best/most appropriate hardware and choose the best OS!

Okay, but that brings you right back to an Apple computer running OS X.

 

[sparkleytone]

Things will not change. There has been an underground for OSx86 for as long as the developer machines have been around. There will always be people trying to run OS X on their Dell POS. Apple will always make it just hard enough so that Joe User just buys a Mac instead of buying a PC and strapping a hacked OS X on it that is always effectively a one-off build. This game of cat and mouse is fairly inexpensive to Apple, especially when you consider the cost-benefit. Nothing will change. It has not "begun". It's been over since day one.

 

[briantology]

Leopard shall be fool-proof. 'You pop that OS disc in anything but a machine branded with , then BOOM! Either you blow up or Apple legal breaks through your windows (no pun intended), your choice...

 

[bretm]

How is it a very strategic move? They make money on the hardware....

I certianly spend more money on Mac software than hardware. Don't you? Seriously. FCP Studio is $1300 bucks. It can only be sold to 5% of the PC market. Open up that market to everyone and bang, you've increased your software market 2000%. Yes, 2000%. No company can compete with that kind of growth potential. Apple would still sell computers and they'd probably sell more. With their OS becoming more commonplace, people would surely buy more of them. They're already the #4 PC manufacturer on the planet, and that's with only 5% of the OS market.

There is no possible way that releasing the OS to the world of PCs could damage the growth of Apple, Inc.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

The day Apple makes OS X to run on PC's will be the first day of the end of the Mac.

I remember when they used to be called Apple Computer....

Seriously, though, PC's are coming along, albeit more slowly than macs. But next year's PC is going to be as good as last year's Mac, if you buy a quality brand.

I'm predicting the "Apple Certified Personal Computer" within three to five years.

This is a onjecture, not fact. It has never been proven.

Au, contraire - Microsoft is disabling Windows users' hardware if it's running a driver that's particularly crappy and sending lots of crash reports to Redmond.

Unlike Windows who makes obligations to support everything from 15 yrs back

And this is over with Vista.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

I certianly spend more money on Mac software than hardware. Don't you? Seriously. FCP Studio is $1300 bucks. It can only be sold to 5% of the PC market. Open up that market to everyone and bang, you've increased your software market 2000%. Yes, 2000%. No company can compete with that kind of growth potential. Apple would still sell computers and they'd probably sell more. With their OS becoming more commonplace, people would surely buy more of them. They're already the #4 PC manufacturer on the planet, and that's with only 5% of the OS market.

There is no possible way that releasing the OS to the world of PCs could damage the growth of Apple, Inc.

Yes, but because Final Cut is so good, people are willing to spend $1300 + $2500 on the software + hardware to run it.

 

[davidgrimm]

Who wants a PC?

I would not be interested in running OS X on anything but a Mac. Mac's have great design features that few, if any, PCs come close to matching. I feel that part of the enhanced stability of the Mac platform comes from the quality of the hardware. Don't know if its true, but that's how I feel. Also, who would support it. With Dell you void your warranty if you change OSs. Learned that the hard way.

The great thing about Apples is its a end-to-end solution, so you only have one place to go for technical help. That why I have ordered the new Airport extreme router. If I have any problems with it, I can call Apple and get some great support. Sure I could have saved a few bucks buying another router, but the chance I have to deal with any problems makes those savings meaningless. My ex is stuck on the windoze side. She saved a few bucks on someone else's wireless router, but she spends a few hours a month trying to get it to work. Every time something changes on her little network, its more time to try and figure it out. Divide how much you saved by the number of hours it takes to maintain it and you find out fast that you're working cheap. I don't enjoy working cheap. I'm more of a plug it in and it works person. I get no joy in trouble shooting computers.

I can understand someone wanting to get a Mac and run windows on it more than I could understand the opposite.

 

[Marlor]

I'm predicting the "Apple Certified Personal Computer" within three to five years.

I really don't see how this plan would work any better than it did back in the mid-1990s.

Steve killed off the Mac Clones by demanding ridiculous licensing fees from the manufacturers. If he decided to allow Mac Clones again, then it would undoubtedly be under the same rigid (and uncompetitive) conditions.

 

[brofski]

The day Apple allows OS X to install on a PC...

is the day they will have to stop short of "it just works". the whole corner stone of Apple's ability to keep it simple and "it just works" it because they have the say in both the hardware and software arcitecture.

though windows software has it's own set of problems... they are plauged with additional problems due to the crappy hardware out on the market.

let's also not forget that Apple is a hardware company just as much as a software company. i don't blame them 1 bit for wanting to keep it the way it is.

 

[Spritey]

Uhm have you heard of competition?

If apple sold OS X for generic PCs, The price of OS X would go up tremendously! Apple already made a great deal of money off of you for the mac you will be installing it on, People will start buying old crap PCs, apple will loose money, OS X goes up in price, or apple faces the same thing they were in with (what was it) OS 7(?) where they licensed their OS, and apple almost died!

Do you really want to see that?

Apparently you haven't taken Econ 101, if not you would have known that increased competition is (in most cases) only going to benefit the consumer in the long run. Increased competition means lower prices and/or better products for the consumer due to the competition. The only way your reasoning would work is if Apple produced hardware that wasn't able to compete with the PC hardware, which I assume everyone would agree is incorrect.

If you can run OS X on any computer, Apple will have to continue to create hardware that people are willing to purchase at a premium.

As for Mac OS, both Windows and Mac OS users will benefit in the long run because Windows and Mac OS will now be direct competitors. Before you could run Mac OS on any computer, a lot of people were not able to afford to pay the premium that you have to pay for an Apple computer (just in terms of looking at the hardware alone) and thus they had to settle for a PC running Windows, where the competition among computer hardware manufacturer is high, thus generally lower prices.

I assumed Mac enthusiasts would be thrilled to see mac os getting into the hands of more people and saving them from the horrors of Windows. But judging by some posts it's the end of the world...

Lastly, I wouldn't worry about Apple not being able to compete with other PC manufacturers. They have the best looking computers, creative solutions and so forth. "Worst" case they'd have to offer more 'customizable' computers.

 

[rt_brained]

If its bad design, low hardware sales would force Apple to innovate or die

Apple has been nothing but innovative. It's everyone else who's been dying on the vine.

...Apple refuses to lower their prices to match what the buyer wants, which is really the key to any buisness (balancing a price with what your buyers want).

You get what you pay for. I have no problem paying more for worry-free computing. In fact, I find Macs to be a bargain now, compared to the early 90's.

The last time I saw anything in a Mac that really made me want to get one over a regular thing it probably was the hot swapping batteries and cool power adapter.

Yeah, I was gonna buy a Dull, until I saw the Powerbook's speaker grilles.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

I really don't see how this plan would work any better than it did back in the mid-1990s.

Steve killed off the Mac Clones by demanding ridiculous licensing fees from the manufacturers. If he decided to allow Mac Clones again, then it would undoubtedly be under the same rigid (and uncompetitive) conditions.

Unless they got out of the hardware business and turned it all over to them. (not that I think Steve would ever do so)

 

[VanNess]

I wonder what Steve Jobs is going to do, because there is so much pressure to run Mac OS on non-Macs.

Leaving aside for a moment the assumption that "there is so much pressure to run Mac OS on non-Macs," I wonder if this guy watched Job's iPhone Macworld keynote. I think Jobs couldn't have been more clear on the issue of why Apple wants control of the hardware and software equation when he displayed the slide quoting Alan Kay:

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

 

[davidgrimm]

Market share - 5% is an Average.

Someone earlier mentioned that FC could only be sold to 5% of the computers out there. I want to suggest that in certain industries and applications, the Mac enjoys an substantially higher market-share than the 5% that gets mentioned frequently. I wouldn't be surprised to find that it approaches 50% in some aspects of the entertainment industries. Clearly in some industries its use is much less than 5%...

I read the 5% all the time, and in my experience that number seems low for the groups I'm in touch with.

 

[iancapable]

I smell a lawsuit.

I can also see Apple doing some pretty fancy dancy stuff to prevent Mac OS from running on non-Apple hardware. I think Mac OS should stay on Macs.

I'm also sure that OS X won't run as well on Dells and HPs because of the difference in hardware (video cards, sound boards, etc)

Actually you would find it runs quite well... I had to have a play to start moving my stuff over before buying a new mac (I'm justifying it because I a ctually bought mac and had the intention of doing so, I just needed to see some stuff)...

Although the dell I ran it on is a P4 and it has few glitches... From what I know anything with SSE3 runs it very well.

 

[rt_brained]

Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.).

I'm gonna go buy some crack...how much will I have to buy to get as high as your are right now?

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.

They already did that.

It was called the Performa line.

Now it's the Mini.

 

[3282872]

Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.) and Mac OS X is much better OS.

Sorry, but I disagree. As someone who used to custom build PC systems and who has used Windows since 3.1 (and who became a Mac guy after needing to switch to Mac systems while a masters student at Columbia), PC hardware is not better than Apple. Case in point, I'm currently using a Mac Pro 2.66 system that is composed of:

1. 2 Dual-core Intel Xeon Processors
2. 8 gig DDR2 FB-DIMM boards (Null manufacturer)
3. Realtek built-in digital and analog audio card
4. nVidia GeForce 7300 GT 256MB graphics card
5. 3 Western Digital 500 GB S-ATA HD's
6. Sony DVD DL+RW Superdrive 16x

Along with outsourced manufacturing of bluetooth and airport cards, serial controllers and an Intel based motherboard, much of the "Apple" hardware can be bought and used in custom built PC's and is used in Dell's and Gateway systems. Technically, aside from Apple's strict handling and evaluating of the hardware utilized in their Mac line-up, not much is that different from a PC unit with comparable hardware. Apple is very strict about how the machines are manufactured/built, making certain that the hardware used and approved for future additional use works seemlessly with Mac OS. Of course, the design and ergonomics of Apple hardware is unsurpassed, yet when getting down to barebones, Apple hardware isn't exactly "Apple". When I installed Windows Vista, I searched around for the necessary drivers as the driver installation disc made in bootcamp wouldn't work in Windows Vista 64-bit. I loaded the drivers and it works just as well as Mac OS.

 

[synth3tik]

About six months ago I got a Toshiba laptop and thought it would be fun to run OS X on it, I had a guy that had successfully ran OS X on his laptop. I soon realized that it was really a waste of my time and effort. My Powerbook just performed better, and even though I think Toshiba is the best PC laptop out there. it just comes nowhere near a Mac.

 

[rt_brained]

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.

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 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.)

Some of the same old arguments from the early 90's. It nearly sucked the life out of Apple and I don't care to go through any of it again.

 

[dukebound85]

I'm gonna go buy some crack...how much will I have to buy to get as high as your are right now?

wow open your eyes please and tell me getting the same or better performance from a pc at a cheaper price is bad. apart from design, i would gladly go with making my own box for like a third of the cost for the same performance. to disagree with this, you would have to be a fanboy of apple.

what is wrong with simply wanting what you would like or can afford? please do tell me as not all of us can afford a macpro to get that kind of performance for JUST the sake of running osx

 

[synth3tik]

Some of the same old arguments from the early 90's. It nearly sucked the life out of Apple and I don't care to go through any of it again.

amen

 

[eric_n_dfw]

I'd bet when 10.5 rolls out, since it never had to run the Pentium based dev' machines, that the Intel version will be locked down pretty hard - maybe even using the TPM chip which, from what I understand, would not be emulatable in a non-detectable fashion. People will still probably find ways to crack it, but it won't be anywhere near as east.

In fact, here's what we'll see (insert Job's face): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0ugvAhxi9w