Ugh...The thing will run dog slow since it will have to emulate the PPC. Remember kiddies. Tiger is the first version of OS X to run on Intel. If you want to run 10.2-10.3 you are going to have to emulate a PPC.
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
Ugh...The thing will run dog slow since it will have to emulate the PPC. Remember kiddies. Tiger is the first version of OS X to run on Intel. If you want to run 10.2-10.3 you are going to have to emulate a PPC.
K, fair enough. I don't know what to say (the MacBook I had didn't make any annoying sounds; only reason I returned it was because I decided I wanted the dedicated graphics of the MBP instead). It sucks that you haven't been able to get a working MacBook, especially this far into its lifespan. It does seem odd though, it's not like Apple doesn't make MacBooks that work just fine or something.
Anyway, enjoy the PC laptop. I'd probably say go with an Asus or something; they have there own share of problems, but I think they are better built than a lot of the other stuff out there. Or possibly Sony, although I found Sony's support to be terrible; their hardware is nice (although not in that price range.... the Vaio C series has a terrible screen, IMO). I tried doing this too, but OS X is a big draw for me, and I got tired of dealing with Windows laptop crap.
Um, no. They're not going to be making a PowerPC emulator. (Where did you even get that? That's not what this discussion is about...)
Any possible future VM products from Parallels or VMWare that allow virtualization of Mac OS X will enable running Intel versions of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server, not PowerPC.
If you were hoping for a virtualization product to test/qualify things under previous (PowerPC) versions of Mac OS X, it won't be coming from Parallels or VMWare.
(Now, if someone says "But why would I want to run another copy of the same version of Mac OS X in a virtual machine on Apple hardware? There is not reason for that, so obviously the only use is to use Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware," you're obviously not in the target market for such a product. Examples would be having multiple OS images for testing and development, including Mac OS X Server and future versions of Mac OS X/Mac OS X Server, that can quickly be deployed and refreshed without fouling up your primary OS installation. Another example, for a potential server virtualization product, would be running multiple instances of Mac OS X Server on a single Xserve, rather than today's 1:1 scenario. Virtualization has a lot more purposes than simply running "other" OSes, and virtualization, both on the desktop and in the datacenter, has been around a LOT longer than Intel-based Macs.)
I don't know what you mean by joke, but I'm positive that Apple's quality record is better than Dell's for equivalent products. If you are trying to say that Apple's QC on MacBooks is below average, you're flat out wrong. Apple consistently beats Dell on customer satisfaction and percieved quality in polls by industry analysts like Consumer Reports. So if Apple is a joke, Dell is not even worth considering.
Example 1
Example 2
etc.
That's what I figured when I ordered one.
I was thinking more of a Thinkpad. The Z61m isn't that expensive, but it's quite heavy unfortunately (~3 kg, or ~6.6 lbs). But it would be great if I could find a cheap used T60 or something similar. I don't trust any other manufacturer.
Who the hell talked about Dell? Why is it that PC equals Dell around these parts?
But still, I wonder if you're correct. Have any sources?
Yes and yes.
Those are a couple of older examples, but that's how it's been for years, and that's how it is today. (I know some people will say something like, "Well, maybe before the MacBooks," or some similar statement. No. It's like that now, "after the MacBooks," too. Apple has consistently been number one in quality control and lack of need for repairs among ALL vendors.
The reason why people compare against Dell is because Dell is generally the gold standard for quality in the commodity PC space. No one really cares if some extreme fringe vendor, or something you can build yourself, is more reliable. When it comes to reliability, people compare against Dell. And, like it or not, Apple is consistently better than Dell, peoples' own individual anecdotes aside.
Some sources - check my previous post above. And you'll find plenty more if you Google.
I'm not trying to be an Apple fanboy - but the fact is that their quality is up there with other industry-leading companies. So the statement that their qualty control is a joke is totally fallacious, and either a careless statement or a malicious one.
For every post like this, you can find hundreds claiming that Apple's iBook quality control was a "joke". But here's a person who had a trouble free iBook, and apparently has a MacBook with problems. Then he goes online, finds all the discussion forums or stories where people are having "problems" with their MacBooks, and concludes that MacBook quality control must therefore be a "joke".
Ignoring, of course, that in pretty much every reliability survey, Apple blows every other commercial vendor out of the water pretty consistently. Sure, it's statistics, and sure, some products have had more problems and problem areas than other. But statistically, the iBook (depending on which specific model you're talking about) has been far WORSE than the MacBook. Just because YOU had problems and see a bunch of stories on the internet doesn't mean that the MacBook quality control is "junk".
Well thank you.
Can't say I like Dell. Their keyboards are worthless, I could not see myself purchasing a computer with a crappy keyboard. That's one of the reasons I liked Apple. It's either Lenovo/IBM or Apple, and apparently Apple can't deliver, at least when it comes to me.
Did you read my follow up post? And still, I find it puzzling how I fail to get a good MacBook when so many others have, apparently. Once, okay. Twice, what? I'm getting my third this week (tomorrow?), and we'll see about that. I had the logic board replaced in one though, didn't make a difference. So it's kind of like I've had three MacBooks.
Like I said before, I mentioned the iBook for another reason.I say that because I'm extremely unhappy about how my experience with the MacBook has been. Ordered November 8th, still haven't got a working one. Thank you Apple.
Apple hardware design can compete on its own merits with the best in the marketplace whether it's a computer or consumer electronic device.
Would anyone argue against that right now?
Apple Inc is in the premium but never-the-less mass market product business these days and licensing OS X would seem to fit nicely with everything else they've done in the past year.
The number of people using OS X would probably triple in it's first year and grow after that - the revenue and profit it would generate for Apple would be stunning. Rather than shrink, Apple will build and innovate more computers and consumer products than ever simply by doing what they do best.
Would anyone argue against that right now?
Apple Inc is in the premium but never-the-less mass market product business these days and licensing OS X would seem to fit nicely with everything else they've done in the past year.
The number of people using OS X would probably triple in it's first year and grow after that - the revenue and profit it would generate for Apple would be stunning. Rather than shrink, Apple will build and innovate more computers and consumer products than ever simply by doing what they do best.
Yeah, the ThinkPads are really nice; the extra weight is worth it considering how solidly built they are. They really are tanks. I don't really care for the screen quality on them, but then again, people aren't buying ThinkPads for beautiful screens. I don't think you could go wrong that way.
Not really. Apple make most of their money on hardware sales, if they were to release OS X for generic PCs, they would lose a lot of money. Also, they would have to support a lot more hardware, adding developing costs I assume. Or am I wrong?
It's certainly possible, but Apple would need much more growth than that. Conceivably it might work if they still continued to sell the same amount of hardware at least, but it's hard to say if that would happen.
I'd be worried about other factors (i.e. MS completely dropping Mac software support; i.e. dropping Office for the Mac).
It would be interesting though, but I'm not sure if Apple could deal with all the issues that would come into play (that isn't even mentioning supporting all of that PC hardware, etc.).
I sympathize with you and others that got bad hardware, but the reality is that disgruntled customers are a fantastically vocal minority on boards like this. For every "I got a broken Mac - now I hate Apple" thread in the internet there are literally tens of thousands of satisfied customers.
Just because you got a bad MacBook does not mean Apple's QC is a joke - unless you are willing to extend that verdict just about every PC OEM. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to have the same experience with Toshiba, HP or Compaq and others.
I sincerely hope you get your laptop sorted out though, I hate getting a lemon.
Just because you got a bad MacBook does not mean Apple's QC is a joke - unless you are willing to extend that verdict just about every PC OEM. Statistically speaking, you are more likely to have the same experience with Toshiba, HP or Compaq and others.
I sincerely hope you get your laptop sorted out though, I hate getting a lemon.
Well, it's not that I've gotten one broken MacBook. It's that I've gotten several (well, two, but three logic boards).
As a dev guy (and a mac fan), I could see the benefit for one to test a software on a (legitimate) version of OS X installed on a PC... After all, I can do the reverse scheme on my MBP...
And we all know that Apple (not-computer-anymore) will now makes tons of money with hardware (read: iPhone)... Kidding !Its already very easy to run OSX in vmware, I tested it out last night just to see if it worked and it took like 5 minutes to set up. It runs fast enough to be usable but slow enough to be annoying (I only have an SSE2 processor though), the resolution is also locked at 1024x768. Its useful for testing websites in safari and not much else.
The first one was broken as in it made an incredible annoying noise that makes it difficult to work, and the second one has the same issue plus a flickering screen. That's my main issue.
Also, both get so hot that they underclock themselves, which I doubt is good for the CPU. And since Apple only have a lousy one year warranty (unless you purchase more for a lot of money), it's difficult not to be worried. I can always hope European laws makes it better. I think that gives me a little more protection.
Unfortunately this is a completely hacked version of Mac OS X with several key pieces of the OS (including the kernel) hacked and replaced, totally unsupported by Apple, and un-updateable by Apple's software update mechanism (and also against the license agreement).
Jesus you guys are so interminably negative. Just for legitimate reasons, think of how great virtualization would be even running OSX on Apple hardware virtually -- keeping a clean copy of OSX for unit testing, as well as older versions of OSX. I do this all the time with Windows. Rather than pollute a real machine, I just use a VM. Rather than have 5 machines, I have VMs.
Now, being able to run OSX on non-Apple hardware, I'd love it (and I already do it with the OSX86 hacks). Now, I own three Macs. But I'd still like to have a VM of OSX on my PCs for those times when I don't have my MacBook with me. Virtualization is a good thing. Don't be such luddites in the name of Apple Vanity.
Now, being able to run OSX on non-Apple hardware, I'd love it (and I already do it with the OSX86 hacks). Now, I own three Macs. But I'd still like to have a VM of OSX on my PCs for those times when I don't have my MacBook with me. Virtualization is a good thing. Don't be such luddites in the name of Apple Vanity.
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but no more. I believe Apple software products and hardware products stand on their own merits these days: the convergence is there along with an unprecedented "cool" factor among the general population.
OS X (Tiger) is well ahead of Vista and Leopard will seal the deal no doubt. The iPod gave Apple a new credibility with the public, and the switch to Intel created a clean slate for Apple to try new and unexpected things.
Actually, that's also what happens with virtual machines -- rather than use your real hardware, they virtualize it to mimmick a fixed set of hardware in emulation. So if they emulate something Intel Macs run on, they're fine.
Also, fwiw, Macs aren't "one set of hardware configuration". Just off the top of your head, there are two entirely different processor families (Intel and PPC), Intel GMA 950, ATI, and nVidia graphics cards, etc. Apple has changed parts under the hood and OSX has to support them.
OS X is my favorite operating system, but if it would run on any PC (non-hacked, or hacked in a good way), I would never buy a Mac. I believe there are a lot of people like me.