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.
VirtualBox 3.2 allows OSX Guest Installations
- Thread starter Detektiv-Pinky
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yep. In previous betas of this version it was possible already, and somehow Apple let it happen.
IIRC only Mac OS X server was allowed by Apple to be virtualised by Parallels and Fusion, but Mac OS X "client" was NOT allowed.
So why Apple let VirtualBox to do so is beyond me.
Not that I care, I think it's fun
IIRC only Mac OS X server was allowed by Apple to be virtualised by Parallels and Fusion, but Mac OS X "client" was NOT allowed.
So why Apple let VirtualBox to do so is beyond me.
Not that I care, I think it's fun
Yes, VirtualBox is like Parallels and VMware's Fusion.
It's an app that virtualises a "PC" on which you can install an OS.
But, Apple didn't allow that on a Parallels of Fusion virtual machine you could install Mac OS X "client", but Mac OS X Server was alright, provided you used a Mac as host machine.
But, with this app (which basically does the same as Parallels and Fusion) Apple does let you run Mac OS X "client" in VirtualBox, running on a Mac (either Mac OS X, or Mac OS X Server).
I just saw this and I was excited. Definitely surprised that the client VM feature snuck under the radar. Also glad that I don't have to run Windows or Linux as a sandbox environment.
Soon someone will crack this software to virtualize OS X on Windows host.
It would be sweet if there was something like this to make virtual hackintoshes on Windows hosts.
Do they mean, running virtual OS X on regular OS X or,
running OSX on OSX Servers?
I think the release note doesnt specifies the flavour of the host OSX.
If we can install a virtual OSX in our regular OSX ( not server ) it would be very nice to try some things without harming our real system.
running OSX on OSX Servers?
I think the release note doesnt specifies the flavour of the host OSX.
If we can install a virtual OSX in our regular OSX ( not server ) it would be very nice to try some things without harming our real system.
um.. thats what I am using at the mo (needed it to partition >128GB as my powermac doesnt like 48bit LBA) - works perfect, currently have 10.6.2 running like a dream and zero maintenance (tho I am using VMWare Player in Win7-64, not Virtualbox).
(Its not official like, but its my only running version of 10.6 that I legally own so I feel ok) -
note: please don't start flaming peeps - this is about VM-ing OSX
..edit: oh and don't ask for instructions cos I aint sayin.....
I am installing the Snow Leopard retail DVD on my Leopard system using Virtual Box 3.2 as we speak. I tried it several months ago with 3.1.x with it's EFI emulation but it never booted.
I am excited
![]()
Thumbnail, click for fullsize
I am excited
Thumbnail, click for fullsize
I am installing the Snow Leopard retail DVD on my Leopard system using Virtual Box 3.2 as we speak. I tried it several months ago with 3.1.x with it's EFI emulation but it never booted.
I am excited
Thumbnail, click for fullsize
How does it work in terms of speed?
A lot of time ago, I tried a VMWare installation of Tiger, and it was extremely slow.
It hasn't finished installing yet, if that tells you anything. The installer said 29 minutes left when I started the install about 50 minutes ago and it now says 14 minutes to go.
I am installing from a DVD and not an image on my hard drive.
edit: I am installing on an 8,1 - iMac C2D 2.66 GHz with 6GB Ram, giving the virtual machine 2 GB. I am installing on a 32 bit vm instead of a 64 bit vm.
I am installing from a DVD and not an image on my hard drive.
edit: I am installing on an 8,1 - iMac C2D 2.66 GHz with 6GB Ram, giving the virtual machine 2 GB. I am installing on a 32 bit vm instead of a 64 bit vm.
Sorry for the double post. Here are my initial thoughts of running Snow Leopard on my Leopard host:
1) It is surprisingly quick. In Safari complex websites render quickly. Finder works like a dream, even while SpotLight is indexing.
2) Now to the downside. There are no guest additions that I can find, but I only did a quick look. This means no sound and the display is 1024x768. That also means no cut & paste between the host and guest as well as no drag and drop file transfer between desktops. I may be able to fix the sound with a kext, not sure about the video.
All in all it is worth it to me to test 10.6.3 as I disliked SL so much that I down graded all of our macs to Leopard. So I will get a chance to get reacquainted with the white cat.
If Oracle releases guest additions then VirtualBox will be unbelievably useful! I like VB 3.2 that I may try my other operating systems there. I am install Ubuntu 10.4 LTS next.
1) It is surprisingly quick. In Safari complex websites render quickly. Finder works like a dream, even while SpotLight is indexing.
2) Now to the downside. There are no guest additions that I can find, but I only did a quick look. This means no sound and the display is 1024x768. That also means no cut & paste between the host and guest as well as no drag and drop file transfer between desktops. I may be able to fix the sound with a kext, not sure about the video.
All in all it is worth it to me to test 10.6.3 as I disliked SL so much that I down graded all of our macs to Leopard. So I will get a chance to get reacquainted with the white cat.
If Oracle releases guest additions then VirtualBox will be unbelievably useful! I like VB 3.2 that I may try my other operating systems there. I am install Ubuntu 10.4 LTS next.
Thanks for your impressions
I use quite often VB 3.1. Host and Guest Windows OS, and the interaction between those two are not very good. I have a lot of problems using the shared folders.
In fact, The interaction support between host and guest in VB is very poor.
But, AFAIK, VirtualBox is the only virtualization software that allows you to install an OSX in other non-server OSX, isnt it?
And It's all free. Thanks Sun
OK...I won't ask for instructions but can you tell us the specs on the Windows host machine (CPU, RAM, graphics) and what resources you gave the OS X virtual machine?
Started to install Snow Leopard in VirtualBox 3.2.0, host was to be a macbook aluminum, with a 2 GHz Core 2 Duo, and 2 GB of memory.
The installer was slow and clunky, and virtualbox consumed 108% of the CPU. I didn't like the thought of this macbook cooking for an hour while snow leopard installed, so I abandoned the project. Reverted back to 3.1.4 to correct sound problems with other VM's.
The installer was slow and clunky, and virtualbox consumed 108% of the CPU. I didn't like the thought of this macbook cooking for an hour while snow leopard installed, so I abandoned the project. Reverted back to 3.1.4 to correct sound problems with other VM's.
It says in the manual that it will use 100% of the cpu, even when idle and that it will be fixed in later updates. I believe I'll be waiting.
I'd heard of that same restriction multiple times when VMware first allowed OS X Server VMs, but I was unable to find anything in my 10.5 Client licence that forbade running in a VM. I haven't checked the 10.6 Client licence but it wouldn't surprise me if there's no restriction there either.
The 10.5 Server licence explicitly allows running in a VM, but the Client licence does not forbid it.
I am no lawyer and have therefore no idea....
But, VMware's Fusion and Parallels still won't let you run the client version of Mac OS X as Guest OS.
There are some hacked versions of a pre-installed Mac OS X client running in Fusion around dah web, but well.. that's different.
I have installed Mac OS X 10.6.3 (10D575) running on my Mac Pro '08, Mac OS X 10.6.3 (10D573), in VirtualBox 3.2 (see pic), giving the Guest OS 2 GB RAM.
Must admit, it doesn't run badly.... but it's not gr8 either.
If Apple allows this, I'm sure both Parallels and VMware would like to make their own supported version of having Mac OS X client as a Guest OS. If that were so, I'm sure both will offer gr8 performance and features!
But, kudos to VirtualBox for this!
Attachments
Good news.
Mac OS X 10.6.4 client seems to work as well.
I got the latest dev build (10F54) of 10.6.4 running in VirtualBox (host OS still is 10.6.3 (10573). So it seems Apple won't stop using the client OS inside VirtualBox via building something into the OS.
Now, I wonder if Parallels and/or VMware will make it possible too.
Mac OS X 10.6.4 client seems to work as well.
I got the latest dev build (10F54) of 10.6.4 running in VirtualBox (host OS still is 10.6.3 (10573). So it seems Apple won't stop using the client OS inside VirtualBox via building something into the OS.
Now, I wonder if Parallels and/or VMware will make it possible too.
Attachments
The new VMware Fusion 3.1 still does not support Mac OS X "client". See the release notes
This surprises me more that VirtualBox can do it....
This surprises me more that VirtualBox can do it....
Neither VMWare nor Parallels want to get on the bad side of Apple, that's why they only support virtualization for Mac OS X Server (where the EULA explicitly allows it).
Since VMWare Fusion can virtualize OS X Server, there obviously are no technical reasons holding them. It's just politics and maybe their legal department vetoing.
+1, They (parallels/VMware) need apple and want to continue a business relationship. Apple, as per its OSX EULA a prohibition of running OSX in a virtualized environment so these companies are not about to endanger their business relationship, just to fulfill a geek wet dream
I know Apple doesn't "let" VMware/Parallels allow Mac OS X client as the Guest OS.
That's why I can't understand why VirtualBox is allowed. I can't imagine it has escaped the attention of Apple, and that's why I tried the (then) latest beta of 10.6.4 to see if Apple had done something on the Mac OS side, which they obviously didn't (and shouldn't too).
I am sure Parallels/VMware will complain to Apple about this.