I was curious if anyone has virtualized Mac OS X inside parallels or if this even possible with parrallels?
There are versions of OS X that use a Darwin loader and have the security disabled so it should work... However, I'm not advocating using that
I expect Microsoft to take Apple's position soon and create a version of windows that will not run in a VM. They've always been very protective of any effort to commodotize their products, and Parallels does just that. I imagine Sir Bill is unhappy that we're all treating his jewel as an ugly step-child. dp
I don't think MS will be making troubles since Virtualisation will mean they ill sell even more software!
Apple Computer, Inc. Software License Agreement For Mac OS X ... This License allows you to install, run and use one copy of the Apple Software ... You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple-labelled computer or !!!! TO ENABLE OTHERS TO DO SO! ... You can see from apple's license agreement that Mac on PC emulation is out of question due to apple's copyright restrictions. No user of Mac OS X is allow to install Mac OS X on non apple hardware. Any Vendor of software making this possible is putting user up to a copyright breach and thus must fear a law suit itself. Mac on Mac emulation might be possible if the user is using a second Mac OS X System (new license). However emulation is not quite the way as this would mean to emulate a Boot ROM and parts of firmware. In order to do this one needs to make a copy either of a generic boot rom image or from the boot rom of the host computer. Unfortunately the apple license agreement does not allow one to make a copy of booth the boot rom or the firmware. So a virtualization which does make use of the existing boot rom and firmware without copying them is the only thinkable way for MAc on Mac emulation. I don't know - from a develper point of view - if this is possible at all. On a second thought I doubt there would be enough users interested in a Mac on Mac virtualization to make such a product cost-effective though this might turn out wrong for developers or anxious people who want to try fresh software in a clean environment first.
The fact that Apple puts something in their license does not necessarily make it legal in the sens that it will uphold in court! Besides there are already hacks making it possible to run OSX on a Dell! I think if Apple goes to court on matters like this, they make themselves a laughing stock. Developers are the ones that might find this usefull since it facilitates testing software with different versions.
Why would Microsoft bother? They make their money from selling the OS itself - why would they care on what platform it's running? Besides, Windows has been running under VMWare for years. In any case, it's probably impossible to prevent Windows from running under VM, by definition. D
Via http://blogs.msdn.com/mikekol/archive/2006/07/12/662511.aspx : "Third, we've announced a change in licensing for Windows Vista Enterprise (and Windows Vista Ultimate if it's under Software Assurance): Customers who deploy Windows Vista Enterprise have the ability to install up to four (4) copies of the operating system in a virtual machine for a single user on a single device. Even better, nothing in the license requires that Microsoft Virtualization technologies be used - if you want to use a competing product as your Virtualization solution, you still get the four extra installs for use with VMs. "
I was thinking this topic was about something a little different.... But at any rate: Wouldn't it technically be within apple's license if you booted windows with boot camp, then virtualized Mac OS X under windows that way??? You would still be doing it on an intel Mac...
Obviously, hacked OS X has been known to run under VM. In fact, sometimes VMware was used as a 'middleman' to run OS X inside under a physical partition so that the installation would work. Some systems couldn't install the hacked OS X purely natively due to some driver problem (running it after installation wasn't a problem, however), you see. The problem I see is, legal and technical issues aside, the lack of accelerated video alone makes it impractical to run OS X inside VM.
If your main OS is Tiger, then the agreement allows you to install Panther, Leopard and all the other OS X's you already have purchased, and why not put them into a Parallels desktop? I see it as a pointless exercise, but we certainly have the right to do so.
would love to see this on Apple-labeled hardware Personally, I think Apple is trying to have it's cake and eat it too by promoting the use of ||s Desktop, but restricting the installation of OSX in a virtualized environment. I hope they get some pressure to change their license. That point aside, I'd love to be able to run OSX-within-Win, or even OSX-within-OSX on my Mac Mini.
And if they don't they are completely unware how the real world works since no one is going to be bothered by their license restriction in these situations. As an example. I have 3 Windows apps that I use Parallels for. For each I have made a different VM that are all copies of the 1st VM and run the same license. It would be ridiculous (not to say stupid) to buy 3 licenses for such a situation!
. Licencing is only one half the problem. Apple have hacked BSD to run only on Intel hardware and called it OSX. One would have to re-hack OSX to run on other hardware like you have in a virtualized situation. .
Just as well that the VT-capable core duo provides hardware assistance for the virtualization, what the OS sees IS Intel hardware. What the VM can't see is any TCPA kit, so yes, it works, but only if you disable the checks.
At least with Parallels desktop for Mac, that's not going to be possible... only Panther is x86 ready. Parallels desktop for Mac only provides hooks into the virtualisation capabilities of Vanderpool on the Core CPU, it's not emulating a processor or core logic architecture and certainly can't do anything to mimic a Power CPU.
