MacOS Guest on MacOS Host (stop laughing)
- Thread starter jorn
- Start date
Hugh Watkins
Forum Maven
or for the lagacy mac softwars System 6 and so on 
Hugh W
Hugh W
Eru Ithildur
Forum Maven
Chris,
constant said:
chrisj303 said:
Uh... Your post will likely disappear soon. You are promoting software piracy there.
As for Parallels supporting older versions of the MacOS, Parallels only virtualizes an x86 processor, so the only Mac OS it could POSSIBLY work with is 10.4, since it is the only one publicly released that supports x86 processors.
So for older versions, you would need a different emulator. For older versions of Mac OS X, there is Pear PC, which emulates a PowerPC computer. For OSes 7.5 through 9 emulating a PowerPC processor, there is SheepShaver. For OSes earlier than 8.1 emulating a 680x0 processor, there is Basilisk.
The ones emulating a 'classic' OS require the ROM image from a real Mac, though, since they those OSes are made so that they integrate tightly with the ROM on the computer.
Apple has taken technological measures to prevent OS X from running on standard (non-Apple) x86 machines, and running OS X is a violation of the license to run it on anything other than an "Apple-labeled" machine (to quote the EULA.) So while groups of enthusiasts may feel okay hacking the Mac OS, a commercial organization would run into issues. (The other major problem is that right now, the only Mac OS X install discs that work on Intel machines are the restore discs that come with the machines. This means there is no legal store-bought copy of the Mac OS that can run on Intel machines, the way you can buy Windows, or Mac OS X for PowerPC. You can buy OS X Server, though.)
Good reasons to virtualize OS X
I test on several variants of Tiger. Our team uses Parallels VMs for development and testing on Windows and Linux variants. Parallels VMs of OS X (Intel) variants would be very convenient.
Also, after I hose a VM, I appreciate being able to revert to saved versions. I hose my OS X machines too, and I wish I could revert them as easily as I can the VMs.
So? I pose it to Parallels, who I hope will pose it to Apple on my behalf. Apple will listen more to Parallels than to me.
I test on several variants of Tiger. Our team uses Parallels VMs for development and testing on Windows and Linux variants. Parallels VMs of OS X (Intel) variants would be very convenient.
Also, after I hose a VM, I appreciate being able to revert to saved versions. I hose my OS X machines too, and I wish I could revert them as easily as I can the VMs.
constant said:
So? I pose it to Parallels, who I hope will pose it to Apple on my behalf. Apple will listen more to Parallels than to me.
Eru Ithildur
Forum Maven
Really? I am not so sure about that... Not to mention, that is not Parallels job.apoca said:
The desire to run OS X on OS X isn't unconventional at all; it's just not permitted by Apple. It's too bad, really, because Win/Lin folks do this kind of thing all the time to evaluate prerelease SW, create custom dev & QA environments, etc. I'm sure the same thing would be useful to Mac devs, but for now it's not an option.jorn said:I'd love to be able to emulate another installation of OSX on my Mac. I was actually a bit surprised to not see that as an option.
I'm serious
Eru Ithildur said:
You wouldn't happen to work for Parallels ? In that case, please treat it as a request, not a demand (or an assumption that it's your job),
that Parallels work with Apple to permit Mac OS X virtualization, at least in the Mac OS X version of Parallels.
Please ?
I've always believed that Apple locks things down so tightly because it's the only way they can preserve the user experience that makes them who they are. Running OS X in a limited hardware environment (i.e. a virtualized one) might leave a potential customer with a less-than-optimal opinion of things.
I do feel that this philosophy hinders folks (i.e. devs) who'd benefit from virtualization, but I can also see how Apple might view opening things up as dangerous.
Having said that, I don't feel that a virtualized environment should specifically prohibit _any_ x86 code from running. THAT's a flawed VM, IMHO... ;-) Besides, there are plenty of people running OS X on non-Mac physical hardware these days. There's a whole subculture doing this, despite the legwork required every time a patch is released.
I do feel that this philosophy hinders folks (i.e. devs) who'd benefit from virtualization, but I can also see how Apple might view opening things up as dangerous.
Having said that, I don't feel that a virtualized environment should specifically prohibit _any_ x86 code from running. THAT's a flawed VM, IMHO... ;-) Besides, there are plenty of people running OS X on non-Mac physical hardware these days. There's a whole subculture doing this, despite the legwork required every time a patch is released.
Last edited:
Eru Ithildur
Forum Maven
As a matter of fact I don't... Maybe if you clicked on my profile you would have seen that I don't work for them...apoca said:
Eru Ithildur said:
First, Eru, thank you for helping me to keep this thread alive.
Second, I apologise if my assumption that you work for Parallels has offended you.
Third, to those of you who work for Parallels :
- For me and lab for which I work, Parallels has been very useful for testing and development across multiple platforms.
- I think we would benefit from the addition of OS X to virtualized platforms, because it would help us to further test our software.
- Therefore I think there is a market for virtualization of OS X, and I think that Parallels could take advantage of it, if Parallels wish.
-- Apoca
I don't think I ever read the Apple licence fully, but from what I've heard it forbids running Mac OS X on non-Apple machines. But Parallels Desktop runs on an Apple machine and thus Mac OS X would as well, if virtualised.
At least in the EU software licence "agreements" are not enforceable anyway, because, oddly enough, some text you never signed and only get to read after paying for the product, is not an agreement. I have no idea why the US would allow such surprise agreements, and I don't know whether the principle was ever tested in court.
My assumption is that you can agree with the licence or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is copyright law which forbids you to give copies to other people. If the licence grants you privileges beyond what copyright law grants you, use the licence terms, otherwise, disagree with it and use the software only according to what copyright law permits (i.e. do not give copies to other people).
Either way, the problem here seems to be not a legal one as such but the danger that Apple would fight Parallels. I wonder if Parallels ever asked Apple about this? I don't see why Apple would mind OS X virtualisation. It would certainly help developers and engineers work with Mac OS and it wouldn't hurt Apple's sales either.
What happens if somebody installs two OS X partitions and points Parallels to one of them as if it was Windows XP?
At least in the EU software licence "agreements" are not enforceable anyway, because, oddly enough, some text you never signed and only get to read after paying for the product, is not an agreement. I have no idea why the US would allow such surprise agreements, and I don't know whether the principle was ever tested in court.
My assumption is that you can agree with the licence or not, it doesn't matter. What matters is copyright law which forbids you to give copies to other people. If the licence grants you privileges beyond what copyright law grants you, use the licence terms, otherwise, disagree with it and use the software only according to what copyright law permits (i.e. do not give copies to other people).
Either way, the problem here seems to be not a legal one as such but the danger that Apple would fight Parallels. I wonder if Parallels ever asked Apple about this? I don't see why Apple would mind OS X virtualisation. It would certainly help developers and engineers work with Mac OS and it wouldn't hurt Apple's sales either.
What happens if somebody installs two OS X partitions and points Parallels to one of them as if it was Windows XP?
John the Geek
Member
Apple claims that their EFI implemtation is standard Intel specs, so maybe it's about Parallels complementing their legacy BIOS with a modern EFI emulation that can call the Apple hardware directly to meet Apple's install requirements? Fake what you need to, and access what you can't fake directly.
maybe?
maybe?
Mac OS
Back to an earlier question on running a MAC OS as a guest OS. I have been unable to reload my OS 10.2 Jaguar on my G4 silver since I updated to OS 10.4.10. I need to run Mac Classic for some older programs. I had hoped to run classic from Parallels. I need Classic; any suggestions?
randy
Back to an earlier question on running a MAC OS as a guest OS. I have been unable to reload my OS 10.2 Jaguar on my G4 silver since I updated to OS 10.4.10. I need to run Mac Classic for some older programs. I had hoped to run classic from Parallels. I need Classic; any suggestions?
randy
ccparallels
Member
I guess this is going OT re Parallels directly itself, but I'm somewhat unclear on what this means. For instance, if my hard drive goes bad, I thought I could use the "OS X disks" to "reinstall" everything. I hope that is so?ehurtley said:
OTOH, it sounds like you might be saying if your "OS X disk" go bad, there is no way to purchase a replacement? I hope that isn't so.
Or, am I in left field and you meant something completely different?
Last edited: