VMware's New Virtualization of Snow Leopard and Leopard Allowed in Error

[MacRumors]

Over the weekend, we noted that the new VMware Fusion 4.1 release added the ability for users to virtualize Mac OS X Snow Leopard and Leopard client versions. Previous virtualization options had been limited to the client version of OS X Lion and server versions of Lion, Snow Leopard, and Leopard.

VMware now reports in a blog post, however, that the change was an error in a new license verification implementation and that the company is developing an update to properly disallow virtualization of Snow Leopard and Leopard client versions.

VMware Fusion 4.1 was released late last week and includes many great improvements. One change was the introduction of a new license verification step for users to verify they are in compliance with the OS licensing terms.

When the license verification step was added in VMware Fusion 4.1 the server edition check was omitted. We are preparing an update.

VMware has offered no timeframe for the release of the patched version of Fusion 4.1, and it is unclear whether Apple itself has been involved in pushing VMware to fix its error. Apple's official statement on the initial discovery, provided to Macworld, reiterated that client versions of Snow Leopard and Leopard are not included on the list of operating system versions for which virtualization is allowed, but did not directly address VMware's error in license verification in Fusion 4.1.

Article Link: VMware's New Virtualization of Snow Leopard and Leopard Allowed in Error

 

[jayducharme]

Unless they force me to update, I'll stick with their "mistake."

 

[pdjudd]

Apple's official statement on the initial discovery, provided to Macworld, reiterated that server versions of Snow Leopard and Leopard are not included on the list of operating system versions for which virtualization is allowed, but did not directly address VMware's error in license verification in Fusion 4.1.

I believe that should be “client” instead of “server”... Kinda changes the meaning of things in the OP.

 

[slrandall]

So ... buy it now?

 

[acurafan]

Unless they force me to update, I'll stick with their "mistake."

Lol, note to self: do not apply update.

 

[Kebabselector]

Lol, note to self: do not apply update.

Turn off auto update (assuming it has one - currently at work so can't check)

 

[Heilage]

Too good to be true. Had to be.


*sigh*

 

[old-wiz]

Too good to be true. Had to be.
*sigh*

And I was hoping to be able to do it to run a few apps that need Rosetta.

 

[jpmohr]

I wonder if I was to create the virtual machine now and then the upgrade is applied later, if it will make the VM unusable? Nice "mistake" though...

 

[wgnoyes]

I wonder if I was to create the virtual machine now and then the upgrade is applied later, if it will make the VM unusable? Nice "mistake" though...

Try it and see. If the guest machines continue to run, they'll be a rare commodity. Me, I only just went Apple last May so I never had any old powerpc applications.

 

[jav6454]

So no, you can't do a virtual machine within a virtual machine. (Leopard that is)

 

[pdjudd]

I wonder if I was to create the virtual machine now and then the upgrade is applied later, if it will make the VM unusable?

I don’t think so, the checks sound like it will not permit certain VM’s to boot.

 

[thertrain]

Wow, all the more reason to save that .dmg file of 4.1 and never lose it. It's a once in a lifetime opportunity to virtualize client versions with no hacking. Thank god for back up drives

 

[AdrianK]

So no, you can't do a virtual machine within a virtual machine. (Leopard that is)

You could if you used actual server versions or the plist hack (to get non server 10.5/10.6 running in a VM).

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

I know VMware, why not give us the option to what we want to run in a VM, and not for you to be kissing Apple's feet and blocking it.

 

[morespce54]

Oh great!!!
I can't wait for the update... not!

 

[CrosbyFC]

Great mistake for all those 10.7 business users who need Rosetta!!! C'mon Apple, let it stay!!!

 

[Consultant]

They should work out a licensing deal with Tim Cook.

 

[57004]

Good to know - I'm quickly updating all my machines now to 4.1.0, because they won't be getting any updates in a good while

 

[KPOM]

My guess is that both VMWare and Parallels design their products to be able to virtualize older versions of OS X for testing purposes, but normally disable it in the final builds to stay within the licensing requirements of Apple. Perhaps VMWare was attempting to test Apple's limits, or perhaps they genuinely forgot to disable it in the final build.

In any case, now that there are a new CEO and Chairman around, perhaps VMWare would be able to strike a deal. Tim Cook supposedly is more amenable to enterprises than Steve Jobs was, so maybe he would allow licensing of 10.6 for virtual machines running on Macs.

 

[Billy Boo Bob]

I know VMware, why not give us the option to what we want to run in a VM, and not for you to be kissing Apple's feet and blocking it.

I doubt that will happen... VMWare Fusion is such a small part of their lineup it wouldn't be worth the hassle and cost of fighting off Apple's lawyers... They'd end up spending more on lawyers than they make on Fusion in the first place. Plus they'd lose any cooperation from Apple on helping fine tune the project for fastest/best performance.

 

[JHankwitz]

I believe that most Mac users that haven't upgraded to Lion realy want to do so, but can't because it won't run their legacy software. If Apple would allow this, people could purchase Lion and have the best of both worlds.

On the flip-side, Apple would have to spend big bucks on continued support of their ancent our-of-date software.

Tough call.

 

[ProVideo]

What is the reasoning behind Apple not allowing this? How does running Leopard or Snow Leopard in virtualization hurt their bottom line in any way? If anything, it only hurts their reputation by inconveniencing their Mac users.

 

[Bonch]

God forbid they should put out something USEFUL.

 

[kainjow]

Damn, well it looks like I'll be sticking with 10.6.8 a bit longer, unless I can get my hands on the server version