No you cannot, technically it is not the same hardware, and the OS X Licence forbids it, as it must be run on a MAC.
"technically it is not the same hardware": I am running Linux in a MacBook Pro. It is the same hardware, and it is Apple hardware. It would really save me time if I could run both Windows and OSX from Linux, as the latter has the least overhead for most tasks. Anyway, that would be my choice. Running Linux and Windows as guests from OS X would not be my choice, if I could choose.
Trouble is, an operating system running under a VM doesn't "see" the same hardware as it would running normally on the physical machine. Instead it sees parallels' "emulation" of a fairly generic PC. That's why a bootcamp installation of Windows needs re-activation when you start it up in Parallels for the first time - as far as Windows' prodtuct activation is concerned, its running on a different machine. The anti-copy software in OSX which ensures it is only running on a Mac would not be happy. Now, maybe you are a 1337 hAx0r who can hack around that protection code, but OSX will still be dealing with the emulated, generic PC, not the real Mac hardware so you're probably not going to get a good OSX experience and Parallels (who, presumably, want to remain in Apple's good books) are hardly going to respond to your support requests {trollbait!}. Apple will not be happy, because even if your use is legitimate, what works on Parallels running on a Mac will also work for Parallels running on a PC - and their main concern is to make sure that people who want OSX buy a Mac to go with it. Virtualization is darn useful - especially to developers - so hopefully, eventually, Apple will sit down with Parallels and VMWare and thrash out a way of "proxying" the hardware check so that people can virtualise OSX on their Macs - but that will need commitment on both sides (Apple to make the licensing concessions, Parallels and VMW to make sure their products are fully OSX compatible) and the actual demand for Virtual OSX is tiny compared to the Windows compatibility market. However, even if that does happen, I'd guess it would still require Parallels for Mac.
Apple's policy prohibits running OS X as a guest OS. This is not an option. Parallels does not allow discussing OS X an a guest OS on this BBS. That is also not optional. Nobody has written publicly available support code to allow OS X to run as a guest nor should they. That is also not an option. With all this against the idea it is a good bet it's a bad idea and should be dropped. Until Apple has a change in policy (it happens every 20 years or so), it's not going to happen.
SHh, don't talk about it, we'll get in trouble for typing the words in a forum. No, I encourage everyone interested in this feature to not ever shut up about it. Call Apple, Call Parallels, call fake Steve Jobs - whatever. But don't ever let someone shut you up because they are scared of what Apple might think. Tell Apple you want it. It's an industry standard to VM-slice different systems, especially in the server market. (Hey Apple - read: make your server product better!) =)
Right idea, wrong forum. I'm from Berkeley - I know a little bit about civil disobedience. There is no point barking at the moon. You need to start with and focus on the problem and that is Apple. Our hosts here would probably like to have more opportunity to make some money with OS X vm's and many people here have expressed a great interest in OS X vm's. You want to make a difference? Start with Apple; otherwise you're just a silly distraction shouting the obvious to nobody in particular in this forum.
I agree with dkp. Sounding off here is just causing a disturbance. Go talk in the Apple forums or your personal ones about this... This is a support forum for Parallels products.
Looks like some progress! Some movement: /now-you-can-virtualize-os-x-sort-of.html OK, so that's only the more expensive "Server" version of Leopard, and you need a full license for each instance - but then MS only let you use the more expensive versions of Vista under virtualization (and, last time I looked, you still needed separate licenses unless you had signed up to a particular bulk licensing scheme). PS. Some of the articles linked from the above show the relevant paragraph from the old EULA. Its completely unclear to me that those words were ever intended to prohibit virtualization of additional licensed copies - they look to me like the standard "don't install this copy on more than one machine at time or a network" clause. Now, IANAL and I'm not going to contest that they do prohibit it, but they look ambiguous to me and are certainly a million miles away from Microsoft's explicit prohibitions. I suspect that the real stumbling block has been the hardware detection (bypassing that is presumably a DMCA violation) & the understandable desire by VM developers to be friends with Apple. Presumably, this means that either Server has an alternative method of verifying that its running in an anodized aluminum box or Apple have stopped worrying about it.
I somehow doubt that Apple can legally stop a user from running a (legally obtained) copy of Mac OS X in a virtual machine. Copyright law prohibits users from distributing copies of the work protected, it does NOT entitle copyright holders to keep users from pursuing certain (perfectly legal) activites with the copyrighted work. (If I buy a book I may read it in the bath tub, regardless of what the first page says about it.) If Apple were to attempt to stop me from running Mac OS X in a VM, they would be open to a rather interesting lawsuit about invasion of privacy (a rather serious offence in the EU) and abuse of the legal system. They can stop me from distributing copies to other people. They can possibly even stop me from using two copies at once myself (although copyright law does not specifically prohibit that either). But they cannot stop me from using Mac OS X on my laptop in a bath tub or running it in any way or where I want. And before people tell me about the "licence" that comes with the software, let me tell you that I did not agree with it. I did neither tell Apple that I agree nor did I write to them that I agree. I merely clicked on a button displayed by MY computer because I am entitled to use the software I paid for. If Apple wants to pretend that that means I agreed to certain terms they will have to argue that in court. Software companies have so far failed to be successful with such claims in Europe. If they were ever successful I will add a disclaimer to my emails and Web site that similarly imposes terms of people who read them, possibly only Apple representatives. It will be a long text and the offensive terms will be at the bottom of the document. I have no moral or legal problem with running my copy of Mac OS X virtualised or on real hardware, Apple or otherwise. If American law gives companies the right to control the lives of their customers, then there is something wrong in the land of the free. As for Apple's decision not to "allow" a virtualised Mac environment, that is deeply stupid. One reason I personally develop for Windows rather than Mac OS is two-fold, and both are Apple's fault: 1. Cocoa is not portable. .NET is. (I think Apple should work with Novell to support .NET on Mac OS X with native non-X11 graphics.) 2. It is not easy to set up test environments with Mac OS X. I do not want to reboot into Tiger to test an application. And I do not want to nor will I buy several Mac Minis to run several configurations of Mac OS X.
