Mac OS as Guest/Because no 3-D XP video

I'm kind of bummed out that you can't do 3-D graphics with an XP guest. Frankly, I can do most everything I need to do on the Mac but you can't get any decent games on Mac. That's why I never bought a Mac until Boot Camp was announced.

Since I perceive that the standard Mac applications are not so graphics intensive, how about booting into XP and running MacOS as a guest. Then I get the best of both worlds.

I think I checked the product page and did not see MacOS as a guest for the Windows version of Parallel. Whaddayathink?

 

I have a feeling you're going to be sticking with Boot Camp As has been discussed here before few of us think it is likely that Mac OSX will ever be a (legal) guest OS for Parallels.

 

Point me to thread

Can you point me to the thread so I can get up to speed without asking anyone to repost? TIA.

BTW, seems to me that no one at Microsoft said making Windows a guest is legal so why do we care what Apple says so long as I have my original install disks (not that I've ever used them or know what they might have on them that would prevent an install)?

 

And they don't need to as long as you are using a legal copy of Windows as the guest. And by legal I mean that you didn't reuse a copy of Windows you already have on another machine. Just as you are not supposed to buy one copy of Windows (or any other non-open source OS) and install it on more than one physical computer, you should have a licensed copy of Windows just for the installation under Parallels.

No more so than Mac OS X being legal to install on any non-Mac hardware. As soon as Apple allows OS X to be used on any hardware (which they would be crazy to do), you would have no problem buying a separate copy of OS X to install under Parallels on your Windows or Linux box.

 

OS X as Guest - Steve Won't Be Happy

From everytrhing I've ever read, I can't imagine Apple allowing the Mac OS to be run on any virtualization. That premium price we pay for the hardware is how we get iLife and Xcode "for free" and what keeps Steve in digital animation.

I really believe, though, that if the Mac OS continues to increase in popularity, somebody will crack it. And I'll bet Apple's lawyers are already warmed up for that day. Which would make it an underground thang, like DVDs and DeCSS

 

Mac OS X is already cracked for Intel.

It is only a matter of time someone patches it to run in Parallels Workstation for Linux and Windows hosts.

 

I know the dev kit was cracked and run on VMware. Are you saying a released version has been cracked?

 

Running Mac OS X in that state is completely stupid, because it's running in a totally unsupported and un-updateable state.

While you personally may argue that all you're doing is legitimately running Mac OS X as a guest on Apple hardware under Boot Camp, 99% of the people running it will be doing it completely illegally, against Apple's license agreement, on non-Apple hardware, and with pirated copies of Mac OS X.

I discuss the general issues here, which are:

and

Supporting the community that hacks Mac OS X in this nature (e.g., to run on non-Apple hardware) is hurting Apple, whether you yourself think you are, or would like to believe it, or not.

And no, to anyone who thinks they are, *you* aren't in a position to decide what or what doesn't hurt Apple with regard to the appropriation and use of their products. Only Apple is. Some governments give Apple legal frameworks in which to back this up, such as civil or criminal penalities for violating license agreements, reverse engineering products, or circumventing digital rights management (which is central to Mac OS X (Intel)'s boot process). Apple is the entity that spent billions of dollars in R&D, years of work, and tens of thousands of manhours in the development of the product. Have a little basic respect for the work of others.

Now, if someone with an Intel-based Mac could successfully independently modify their copy of Mac OS X themselves, without any outside assistance, to run in a configuration of their choosing, I'd say more power to them. But if you rely on the hacking community to provide you with such solutions, you're creating demand for and supporting a community that is geared toward using pirated copies of Mac OS X illegally on non-Apple hardware. (Hint: no, this isn't a "good thing" for Apple by making people "fall in love" with Mac OS X. Remember, you don't get to decide what's good for Apple. Apple does.)

To get on-topic here, it's certainly within the realm of feasibility, especially given Apple's product line and its predictable and finite range of graphic card offerings, to support 3D accelerated graphics via virtualization. In fact, this is on the roadmap for Parallels Workstation in the future (though perhaps not in 2.1).

 

Yes. And as I said above, you'd be utterly retarded to run it, all legal and ethical issues aside. It's so badly hacked, including using a *different kernel*, and can't even be updated by Apple OS and security updates, each of which have to be cracked themselves.

Using Windows as a guest in any virtualization product on any hardware in any configuration is completely legal, and completely in compliance with any and all Microsoft licensing agreements that govern Windows, as long as you have a legal license for that copy of Windows.

That is NOT the case with Mac OS X.

Yes. And anyone doing that on Apple hardware is already on questionable ground, and anyone doing it on non-Apple hardware is 100% in violation of Apple's Mac OS X license agreement, which may also be illegal in certain jurisdictions.

 

Thanks for the s. Now that I've been shown the errors of my ways I shall certainly go and sin no more!

And I now know what that look is on my puppy's face when I lecture him.

 

That *is* an interesting twist though, no? If I'm running Mac OS X as a guest OS in the Windows version of Parallels on a Intel-based Mac, then I *am* running it on Apple hardware, which wouldn't seem to violate the license agreement at all. Can't see it happeening, and don't particularly want to, but it would be essentially running Mac OS X on a Mac, and seemingly to me not outside of the license conditions.

Given CoreImage and the amount of grunt in the GUI that is done directly on the video card these days, it would be a dog anyway I'd suggest with an 8MB SVGA card powering it.

 

Yes, I agree it's interesting...but if it requires hacking Mac OS X to remove the Trused Platform verification, it would still be against the license agreement, and possibly in violation of applicable law in the US and other jurisdictions.

Now, if a vendor like Paralells could figure out how to let Mac OS X run *unmodified* on an Intel-based Mac in virtualization, and passed the TPM calls to the hardware, then I agree that I don't see anything wrong with that with respect to the license agreement (except, of course, that there is no legal way to get an additional standalone license for Mac OS X (Intel) at present, and the only way it would be able to be legally used in that scenario is if that was the only licensed instance of Mac OS X in use).

 

In addition, assuming that 3D acceleration will work in a future version of Parallels, running OS X in Windows would be wasteful. Windows is fairly old technology by now and having it as a host for a modern operating system like OS X seems a bit wasteful. Of course, whatever makes you happy goes though.

I see one more area where there might be a problem with running Windows in OS X: DRM and copy protection schemes. We're already seeing people on the forum discussing the problem of getting some software to run because it expects a certain CD in the drive and wants to see predefined read errors etc.

 

is there a long wait expected until that happens? i was lead to understand that it will require support from the graphics card makers themselves to enable virtualisation within their processors? is that right?
if so, its going to boil down to needing to buy a new mac isn't it? or would be be be possible to flash the firmware within our ATI's?

all i want to do is run world of warcraft on two screens on the same mac at once (one in os x and one in xp). i dunno why (and to be honest, it's something i can easily enough do by hooking my external monitor upto my powerbook) but i'd still like to

anyway, as for the original posters comment - the way i look at it is that Parallels gives me the solution to be able to quickly drop into XP if i need to dial into work - but if there is a game that i wish to play, then that's where I'll use BootCamp