Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

What a shame. I was thinking of adding this just so I could have access to an app that needs rosetta. Oh well.
 
No more Fusion? Use VirtualBox then, free

If they update and "fix" the good mistake :mad:
you can use
VirtualBox, free and let you install all OSX you like :p
 
SimonTheSoundMa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Psystar was ordered to pay $2,500 for DMCA violation per computer that they shipped that allowed installation of MacOS X against Apple's license. They didn't pay of course because they are bankrupt, but VMWare might end up having to pay an amount like that. So they would be very, very, very careful.

(Psystar did of course everything in their power to annoy Apple, and VMWare doesn't, and that makes a huge difference).
 
Wow, just downloaded it yesterday. Loaded up Leopard just this morning. No updates for me. Until I don't need Leopard any more.
 
If I have a legitimate copy of Mac OS, why should Apple have any say in how I install it.
 
kainjow said:
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 :(
Click to expand...

Ditto.

My Mac shipped with Snow Leopard, but I'm not allowed to run it in a VM. Meanwhile I'm allowed to run the now ancient Windows XP. There's something seriously wrong with that picture.
 
Backward Compatibility

I have some really great software dating back to the late eighties. I believe it to be a mistake to not just allow, but not promote backward compatibility at least within an emulator. That stuff was written so clean (because it had to be to run on the weak hardware) I hardly see any technical reason to not celebrate those achievements. I didn't see an expiration date on my software licensing agreement for either the applications or the OS that ran them. The biggest challenge would be to retrieve the date from magnetic hard drives 25 years old.
 
katbel said:
If they update and "fix" the good mistake :mad:
you can use
VirtualBox, free and let you install all OSX you like :p
Click to expand...

I use VirtualBox, and I believe this rule applies to all the Virtual OS programs out there; doesn't it? (The current server and client OS or older server versions are only allowed.)

I know that 10.5 and 10.6 aren't on the list of supported systems, but then again, I've never tried. Could someone confirm that this works? I would absolutely put Snow Leopard in VirtualBox and happily run my older programs if it's allowed.

I ran XP and 7 in VirtualBox and it was great. Until the time I tried to update Windows XP, and there were so many failed installations that it soon told me Windows wasn't genuine, amongst many other problems. :p Windows 7 was always good.
 
This sucks given that Lion does not have Rosetta.

Now it's not possible to even consider downgrading to Lion or getting a new machine.

----------
Bubba Satori said:
What are Mac users going to do, buy PCs?
Click to expand...

This is what I just did, but based on hardware that is not like I want (MBP 13", Air).
 
Any time you want Apple to change something (whether it's a bug fix, feature change, etc.), send them feedback - here's the link for OS X:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

If enough people complain, maybe they'll pay attention. And, maybe not. But, I'll bet that, when there are a lot of requests/complaints on a specific topic, they are tallying them, and paying attention. They do occasionally make changes.
 
This sounds solvable to me!

I want Rosetta forever... on the latest greatest Macs... even if I use it only rarely.
 
ZipZap said:
If I have a legitimate copy of Mac OS, why should Apple have any say in how I install it.
Click to expand...

It's called a licensing agreement and you are legally bound to abide by it as a condition of using the product. You don't own your copy of OS X and you cannot legally do whatever you want with it.
 
ruftytufty said:
Any time you want Apple to change something (whether it's a bug fix, feature change, etc.), send them feedback - here's the link for OS X:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html

If enough people complain, maybe they'll pay attention. And, maybe not. But, I'll bet that, when there are a lot of requests/complaints on a specific topic, they are tallying them, and paying attention. They do occasionally make changes.
Click to expand...

I really doubt that they will accommodate and change the license agreement to an operating system that they no longer sell nor update much. Sorry, I don’t see this happening.

lkrupp said:
Somebody got a call from Apple's lawyers it would appear.:D
Click to expand...

I don’t know. We cannot assume anything without hard evidence. It’s very possible that this is a case of one hand not knowing what the other was doing. It’s possible that the guy responsible for this new tech forgot to put the proper code in. Maybe this guy had no idea that Leopard and SL client verbalization was not allowed. Who really knows?


ZipZap said:
If I have a legitimate copy of Mac OS, why should Apple have any say in how I install it.
Click to expand...
Psystar made that exact argument in court. It didn’t work all too well for them.
 
What I want to see is the ability to DUAL BOOTCAMP.

That is, I want to be able to run my OSX inside of my Windows OS on my Mac, from the first partition the exact way I can run Windows from OSX from the second partition.

This way, if I am in OSX and need windows, I can run the VM. And then conversely if I am native in Windows, I can run OSX in VM.

A truly platform independent Computer.
 
SkippyThorson said:
I use VirtualBox, and I believe this rule applies to all the Virtual OS programs out there; doesn't it? (The current server and client OS or older server versions are only allowed.)

I know that 10.5 and 10.6 aren't on the list of supported systems, but then again, I've never tried. Could someone confirm that this works? I would absolutely put Snow Leopard in VirtualBox and happily run my older programs if it's allowed.

I ran XP and 7 in VirtualBox and it was great. Until the time I tried to update Windows XP, and there were so many failed installations that it soon told me Windows wasn't genuine, amongst many other problems. :p Windows 7 was always good.
Click to expand...

I have few friends that installed it already and I'm going to try myself.
I'm sure you can find an easier guide but
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/government/how-to-install-snow-leopard-on-a-brand-new-lion-based-mac/10652
Too bad I bought VMWare :mad:
 
SimonTheSoundMa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily kissing feet. The EULA says the user license (in this case VMWare's) can be terminated for enabling people to defeat the limitations of the EULA. A commercial license likely has the same clause. Developers can get their Mac OS X licenses yanked if Apple thinks you are trying to bust their EULA. Hard to make money as a Mac OS X developer if don't have Mac OS X to develop on.


If Apple calls and says they think the EULA doesn't permit it then it is more a question of whether it is worthwhile to take on Apple Legal or not.

I suspect that Oracle (VirtualBox ) is either having a "Mine is bigger than yours" battle with Apple behind the scenes over the last couple of months or they are engaging some sort of open source ("It wasn't us" ) finger pointing as misdirection.
 
hmm..interesting mistake that might drive sales up for the time being for anyone who wants the unpatched version and the ability to run Rosetta. :rolleyes:
 
KPOM said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't think Apple is going to let this happen doing so would mean they would sell less machines. There is really no large benefit for Apple to license the OS to VMs plus, how much would VMWare be willing to fork over just to please a minority of us. Too bad for us. But there is still VirtualBox.
 
mrbib said:
Don't think Apple is going to let this happen doing so would mean they would sell less machines. There is really no large benefit for Apple to license the OS to VMs plus, how much would VMWare be willing to fork over just to please a minority of us. Too bad for us. But there is still VirtualBox.
Click to expand...

Microsoft allows it. And they own almost all the corporate world and 90 percent of the commercial word. So that "sell less machines" argument doesn't hold. Apple is being short-sighted.
 
So they intended to make you self-certify you were licensed, and accidentally omitted the server version check? If it was supposed to validate that it is the server version, why have the popup?

I call BS. They were testing Apple, and Apple must have complained.
 
Slapped HARD by Apple they go whimpering away,

Having been reminded that Apple will remain in control at all times.

Apple does what Apple wants, when Apple wants, and that's that.

They're grinning ear to ear as they dictate how it's going to be.

Apple... they never cease to be entertaining. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back