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

[puuukeey]

I remember when using a computer was about ability and not some sort of social or business statement. when the more features something had, the better it was.

My opinion is that apple should be open to it but not support it. why would you spend time to take away a feature?

If I understand correctly, the reality is that apple is just branding PCs at this point. sooner or later, they are going to have to face up to that.

 

[jedsinger]

The end of things "just working"?

Nah, even if they sold OS X for any old box... The only new hardware that they'd have to support that they don't now is complex stuff that requires a custom driver (fancy sound cards, etc.) - and that kind of work is on the manufacturer of the complex stuff. But hey, that's the same situation as now! A company that wants to make hardware that can run on OS X, but for which support is not built-in (e.g. Wacom) has to write drivers. And, on the other hand, they can do so and write drivers. None of that changes if Apple opens up the Mac OS. Apple would keep right on supporting cameras, drives, whatever setup they have with printers (who writes those drivers?), etc... Nothing changes!

The only difference I can think of is motherboards. Even there, there aren't very many different reference boards in existence. Apple could say "conform to this spec, your motherboard is supported, otherwise, best of luck!" Not a big deal.

I'm not saying this is definitely the right move for Apple, I don't have a clue. All I'm saying is that all the people whining that hardware lock-in is a good thing for us, the people, are a bit off... The only way it's good for us is if it does turn out to be good for Apple, and the alternative is so much worse that Apple dies. That seems pretty far-fetched.

 

[puuukeey]

and how can anyone be against DRM and for apple keeping their software under lock and key?

 

[dukebound85]

and how can anyone be against DRM and for apple keeping their software under lock and key?

i know, i hate double standards.

 

[jordo]

Boo, PCs suck.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

I remember when using a computer was about ability and not some sort of social or business statement. when the more features something had, the better it was.

My opinion is that apple should be open to it but not support it. why would you spend time to take away a feature?

If I understand correctly, the reality is that apple is just branding PCs at this point. sooner or later, they are going to have to face up to that.

If OS X on non-Apple hardware were to cut into their Mac business too badly, Apple Inc. could decide to become iPod / iPhone Inc. some day and OS X would go bye-bye. That would suck.

 

[nagromme]

Nah, even if they sold OS X for any old box... The only new hardware that they'd have to support that they don't now is complex stuff that requires a custom driver (fancy sound cards, etc.) - and that kind of work is on the manufacturer of the complex stuff. But hey, that's the same situation as now! A company that wants to make hardware that can run on OS X, but for which support is not built-in (e.g. Wacom) has to write drivers. And, on the other hand, they can do so and write drivers. None of that changes if Apple opens up the Mac OS. Apple would keep right on supporting cameras, drives, whatever setup they have with printers (who writes those drivers?), etc... Nothing changes!

The only difference I can think of is motherboards. Even there, there aren't very many different reference boards in existence. Apple could say "conform to this spec, your motherboard is supported, otherwise, best of luck!" Not a big deal.

I'm not saying this is definitely the right move for Apple, I don't have a clue. All I'm saying is that all the people whining that hardware lock-in is a good thing for us, the people, are a bit off... The only way it's good for us is if it does turn out to be good for Apple, and the alternative is so much worse that Apple dies. That seems pretty far-fetched.

Good point -- Apple-dictated hardware limitations could be a useful middle option.

Also, comparisons to cloning in the 90s are not valid. This situation is VERY different in many ways.

 

[bretm]

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.

In the 90s they didn't license it to PC manufacturers. They licensed it to Mac Clone manufacturers. Quite a difference there buddy. Not to mention Apple was pretty much a hardware company at the time.

Their software could potentiall surpass hardware if they sold the OS. I mean, iLife, iWork, FCP Studio, Aperture, ... etc. All best of class and their market is pretty much non existant. 4th largest computer manufacturer. Their software runs on 1/20th of computers. They could easily be both a hardware and software company. They would probably be the #2 software company and possibly gain market share, becoming the 2nd or 3rd computer manufacturer.

 

[Marble]

Whether it is possible or not but one should always have a right to choose best hardware and software. Everybody knows PC hardware is much better (except the design part.) and Mac OS X is much better OS.

Maybe you should have said cheaper. Now that Apple is using Intel processors, speed is not an issue with Mac hardware, and the parts Apple uses are generally more durable than the industry standard. For the customers who want OS X on their PC, isn't an issue of "best user experience" anymore, which is what Apple cares about, but about dollar signs.

 

[bretm]

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

Well I can guarantee the profit on that piece of software is higher than the computer they purchase to run it on.

There's a roadblock here. Companies are running other OS's to the number or 95% of market share. They'd love to run FCP but it doesn't it into the workflow. Let it run on their box and they'll buy it. They're not going to purchase a new system to play with FCP. They will buy a second OS. They have plenty of other software options on XP. FCP may be great, but if it's going to cost $5000, forget it. They'll stick with their Avid's and Premiere's.

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.

He did no such thing. He simply didn't renew their contracts. The licensing fees were ridiculously cheap. They had to buy BACK the clones contracts at ridiculously high prices and take over their warranty repairs for a time.

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.

Still ???? Apple made $50 for every clone sold. They made $500 average for every Mac sold. One would have ot assume the clone makers actually made more than Apple on their clones, since they were made with cheaper parts and lesser designs.

Where are you getting this stuff? Making clones was an awesome business. That's why there were a good number of manufacturers.

 

[notjims]

Locking is easy.

I think at this point every machine capable of legally running OS-X has an onboard ethernet controller. These should all have MAC addresses in a dozen or so 24 bit prefixes assigned to Apple. There is the identification of the hardware.

If VMware has been asked by Apple to not allow their virtual machine to fraudulently assert a MAC address assigned to Apple because it bypasses the technical means used to protect Apple's copyrighted works, and refused to comply, then that is very close to the definition of "contributory copyright infringement".

The good news for VMware is that they (EMC) have billions in assets and at this point the total number of people running OS X on VMware is relatively small, so the damages won't bankrupt them.

 

[rt_brained]

...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.

You can send all the pictures you want, but I'm still voting for the one on the right.

 

[seashellz2]

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



I dont suppose selling a bajillion more copies of OS X would be so 'un-strategic'

 

[Philberttheduck]

Watch the virus count on Mac OS X go up exponentially.. more access to Mac OS X, the more prone it is to hacking. Good bye reliability..

Please, Apple, tell Parallels and VMWare to F off.

 

[Object-X]

Enterprise strategy

OS X will be released to OEM for other computer manafacturers. It's only a matter of time, the right time. Apple has never really marketed itself in the enterprise and has no plans on doing so. Their strategy is home / education / research markets.

When Apple releases OS X to OEM the operating system will gain wider acceptance. Large enterprises will have the ability to evaluate it and even deploy it. With greater acceptance will come increased market share. Many software companies who do not develop for OS X will be forced to do so to compete.

There is a huge backlash brewing against Microsoft. Everyone knows Microsoft is falling apart. They are completely lost as a company. They are all over the map just throwing crap against the wall to see what sticks. They can't deliver. They can't innovate. Their software is sub-standard and over priced. Vista is a joke. The problem is no real alternative has existed -- until now. OS X can do what Linux never will -- make Unix mainstream. As OS X is accepted on a much wider level so will people's interest in Apple and all their other products.

The OEM of OS X will not result in lower Apple hardware sales! Market dynamics are extremely different than the clone days; it will increase Apple hardware sales and exponentially increase OSX market share. Apple makes the best, most beautiful, and most functional computers bar none. That won't change even if the likes of Dell are selling OS X.

Many people buy Windows and PCs because they don't know better. Apple still seems fringe, different, or hard. When OS X starts showing up at their work and is accepted over Windows they will want it for their home computer. When they look at an iMac and compare it to some black and grey Dell, the iMac will be going home. Apple will provide superior computers and a superior computing and computing buying experiance for their target market. Apple's hardware sales will thrive.

Apple's overall market share will jump dramatically into the 30% - 40% range quicly and Microsoft will collapse, open source, break up, or actually innovate for a change.

It's coming. Apple is leading a revolution in computing and no one really believes it yet. OS X is so far superior to Windows in every way that matters -- and everyone knows it. Dell, HP, and others are desperate to sell it. Pressure will force Jobs to capitulate, if he's even the reason it hasn't happened yet. I personally think Steve Jobs has been waiting for the oppertune time to make the move; and I feel it's getting very close. Apple's share holders will start demanding it. The market will be demanding it to keep that astronomically high stock price shooting upward. Pressure is indeed growing.

Apple is changing, growing, diversifying, maturing, but that doesn't mean they will stop selling computers; far from it, they will sell more computers then they ever have and much more. Your precious Mac experiance will not go away; only the crappy Microsoft experiance will.

Apple will become the undisputed leader in technology!

It's going to happen.

 

[jaduffy108]

What a joke Who wants to run mac osx on a pc?

### Me! Like freebooter said, it gets old being a hostage to Apple's lack of choice.

Windows on a mac makes sense but not the other way around

### It makes a ton of sense to me. Running OS X on a Alienware spec'd laptop would be EXTREMELY sweet!

 

[rt_brained]

Their software runs on 1/20th of computers. They could easily be both a hardware and software company. They would probably be the #2 software company and possibly gain market share, becoming the 2nd or 3rd computer manufacturer.

How about Apple offers OS X to all of the other PC manufacturers and adds a per-computer royalty that feeds Apple's R&D for future software and hardware?

The PC masses who followed Microsoft into the chasm while thumbing their noses at Apple and their user base did so at their own peril. And now they're yelling at Apple to throw them a rope.

Pfft...suckas.

 

[aafuss1]

I can't see this happening as Apple legal would probably have a say in this-it's against the license agreement. Plus

 

[mahonmeister]

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

Maybe for you. Apple currently does not offer a Mac with a desktop processor. The 2.33GHz Merom in the iMac is about $650. The 2.4GHz Conroe is about $320. Just to get a Mac with 2.33GHz I need to spend well over $2000. I could have more power for $300 less with just a Conroe processor instead of Merom. This is why I want to run My favorite OS on my choice of hardware.

I personally think this would be a bad move for Apple financially. I just hope and pray that one day Apple will use a freaken' Desktop processor in a Mac. [/rant]

 

[A is jump]

If Mac OSX is able to run on any pc, apples hardware business would be crippled. I would hate to see a dell running OSX.

I like apple's business model. I prefer the closed system. I dont want another Microsoft. apple will be able to be successful enough without having to do this.

 

[syriana]

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.

This is exactly what drove me to the mac!
I'm having a hard time to make this understable by every one who ask me "by why a mac, they cost much!!"

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.

multi touch input on laptops? this would make for a great differenciation, and a valuable, "understandable" (does this word exist?) premium to pay..

 

[Marx55]

Mac could win over Windows if Apple allowed Mac OS X to run on any PC-Windows box out there. Apple does not get it. Not only they would sell 1,000 times more copies of Mac OS X, but eventually also more Macs, iPods and iPhones due to halo effects.

Of course this effect would be even larger if apple opened Mac OS X fully as Linux is.

And of course if Mac OS X was free as Linux.

But as least Apple should allow Mac OS X on PC-Windows boxes to gain market share. And that must be done TODAY. Tomorrow may be too late!!!

 

[Phil A.]

As a developer, one thing I would love to be able to do is run OSX in a virtual environment on my Mac under parallels. At the moment, I keep a machine dedicated to running the Leopard Dev previews on, which is an awful waste of a good machine: If I could virtualise the installation of leopard under parallels it would be awesome
Don't see why we can't have virtualisation support for OSX under the Mac versions of Parallels and / or VMWare: From what I can see that wouldn't cause any problems (except the license would have to be amended to allow you to install OSX on the virtual machine as well as the real host)

 

[Bonte]

There's totally technical reasons for not running OS X on any computer. Microsoft Windows driver hell. Microsoft has to keep up with hundreds of thousands of drivers and keep them all backward compatible. OS X is able to be stable as it is because it doesn't have to support a ton of drivers.

The integrated Intel GPU solves the biggest problems, Dell and others already make 99% compatible hardware. They can sticker it "99% osX compatible", some of them just need a ROM update to install the regular Mini osX.

Apple makes about $150 profit on a Mac Mini hard- and software combined so getting $100 on a retail osX isn't that bad and a whole new market opens up to them. My prediction is that 10.5 will just install on lots of new hardware, now is not the time because there is no Intel osX retail version available yet.

Most PC add-on hardware like PCI cards won't be compatible (that is also true for the MacPro) but at first it will be only PC's with the integrated Intel stuff like laptops, its the biggest market and much less driver issues.

 

[mark88]

As much as I'd like to put OS X on a custom built machine, I don't want to give up what I like about OS X and macs. That is, I like the small market share, tight community thing.

Windows is a monster because 90% of the world uses it. If OS X had half that market share you can bet we'd be dealing with all the stuff we hate about Windows on a daily basis aswell.