Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

VirtualBox Beta Supports OS X As Guest OS On Macs

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the macs-on-macs-oh-my dept.

Desktops (Apple) 154

milesw writes "In addition to a slew of new features, VirtualBox 3.2.0 Beta 1 offers experimental support for Mac OS X guests running on Apple hardware. Got to wonder whether Larry Ellison discussed this with Steve Jobs beforehand, given Apple's refusal to allow virtualizing their (non-server) OS."

cancel ×

154 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

With what host? (1, Interesting)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043950)

Does anyone know if this works with all hosts? Can you run a virtualized Mac OS X guest on a Mac from a Windows or Linux host? Or can you just run OS X guests with an OS X host?

Re:With what host? (-1, Troll)

blai (1380673) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043990)

VirtualBox Beta Supports OS X As Guest OS On Macs

RTFT?

Re:With what host? (3, Insightful)

Dracker (1323355) | more than 4 years ago | (#32043998)

Mac != Mac OSX

Macs can run all kinds of OSs these days through boot camp.

Re:With what host? (2)

tiedemann (214491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044130)

Well, "Mac OS X guest on a Mac from a Windows or Linux host" implies running another OS on Mac/Apple hardware, does it not?

I'd love to run OS X as guest OS on my dev machine (not Apple) to test web pages on OS X Safari instead of powering up the old MacBook.
Yes, it's webkit and I can use Chrome but still some form elements render differently.

Re:With what host? (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044222)

Or you could just use Safari for Windows. :)

Re:With what host? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044242)

...except it isn't quite the same beast.

Seeing MacOS boot without the GUI is rather interesting (and somewhat Linux like).

Re:With what host? (1)

Airborne-ng (1391105) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044550)

Possibly because the Mac OS is "somewhat Linux like" [wikipedia.org]

Re:With what host? (1)

jeremyp (130771) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046232)

Or actually, Linux is somewhat Unix-like and Mac OSX (as of Snow Leopard) actually is Unix.

Re:With what host? (1)

thedbp (443047) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046332)

Empire EFI [prasys.co.cc]

YMMV, check hardware compatibility first, blah blah blah.

Re:With what host? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044068)

Woo-f*ckin-hoo.

Can this use recovery disks or does this only support retail box sets?

Re:With what host? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044712)

Maybe not. I've tried twice using the beta with my recovery disks on my rev1 nv9400 mini and got hangs both times.

Re:With what host? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045062)

Snow Leopard is only $30. You don't need the "Box Set" at $129 to make it work. But both are different from recovery discs. Recovery discs won't work.

Re:With what host? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045172)

I was expecting it to tell me "this is isn't the right Mac" rather than just crashing the whole box.

Re:With what host? (1, Insightful)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044002)

Wow I've heard of not RTFA or RTFS but you couldn't even finish reading the title to find the information you wanted? It's only 10 words long.

Re:With what host? (4, Interesting)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044028)

The fact you can run OS X as a guest on a Mac does not imply you are actually using Mac OS X as host OS. You can use Boot Camp to run Linux or Windows as host OS on a Mac as well. My question is: can you run OS X as a guest in such a situation, or does it only work from an OS X host OS?

Re:With what host? (2, Informative)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044060)

Mac is the hardware, OS X is the operating system.

The title states OS X as the guest, Mac as the platform, but does not name the host OS. It doesn't state the host OS in the stub, either.

Improve your reading comprehension before you start slating others for theirs.

Re:With what host? (0, Flamebait)

MouseR (3264) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044368)

It's actually called Mac OS X [apple.com] . Improve your documentation skills before you start slating others for theirs.

Re:With what host? (2, Informative)

soupd (1099379) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044574)

The actual change log for 3.2.0 beta (http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30287) merely states:

> Experimental support for Mac OS X guests

There's nowt about running the OSX guest on Apple hardware but maybe this is stated somewhere else.

Re:With what host? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045186)

I don't think the host hardware matters as long as it's intel-compatible. That's the whole point of an x86 emulator. It might require certain features of the host processor, but that's probably all.

Re:With what host? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046996)

Mac is the hardware

No, Mac is the label they put on industry standard hardware after placing it in a shiny case.

Re:With what host? (2)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044064)

Why are you slamming the OP? Do you not know about Bootcamp with Windows or Linux running as the host OS on Mac hardware? The title, and summary only indicate you have to have the hardware, not what host OS you need to be running. This interests me considerable as I would much rather have Windows 7 running native on my Mac pro as it would allow it to use 8 cores instead of the 2 that VMware Fusion can expose to it. The only reason I don't run Windows as the native OS is that I would have to reboot to use the Mac software I use to test.

As my sig says, I support Mac OS in the enterprise, I don't prefer to use it for my normal day to day work as Entourage is pathetic compared to Outlook, and has serious connectivity issues.

Re:With what host? (4, Funny)

camperdave (969942) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044170)

... with Windows ... running as the host OS on Mac hardware?

[Shudder]

Re:With what host? (1, Offtopic)

Coren22 (1625475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044448)

You can dislike Windows all you like, but Windows 7 is actually pretty good. You should give it a try some time, maybe run it in your virtualbox.

Re:With what host? (1, Informative)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044534)

windows 7 is better/an improvement/what vista should have been. Doesn't mean any of us care or intend to use it other than it being practically required for enterprise employees at the moment.

Re:With what host? (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045354)

> windows 7 is better/an improvement/what vista should have been. Doesn't mean any of us care or
> intend to use it other than it being practically required for enterprise employees at the moment.

I am not sure I would consider being forced to use MacOS an improvement.

Re:With what host? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046208)

Who is forcing anyone to use MacOS? Unlike Windows, OS X (and Linux for that matter) is used by people who actually like using it. People who don't like it, use something else. What a crazy world, eh.

Re:With what host? (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044478)

Yeah. I had a boss who insisted that I run vmware on a WinXP_64 laptop so I could run Linux guest instances. I didn't last long under his administration.

Re:With what host? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045946)

I had the same issue. I was at a small company as the Linux/Unix admin/engineer and I had a laptop that I administered/patched/etc. They refused to allow me to run Linux natively. I had to create an Linux instance in a VM and full screen it to use it as my primary desktop. I left there... that's just stupid.

Re:With what host? (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046828)

What made it even more "special" was, the Dell laptop they gave me had a bug in the CMOS whereby the CPU frequency throttling would set the CPU to 100 megahertz when the machine was mostly idle. That laptop caused me no end of headaches. And WinXP 64 sucks balls, too. Vista prolly would have been better and I say this as a Microsoft hater.

Re:With what host? (1)

McHenry Boatride (1661199) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044372)

Actually, having RTFM (as opposed to RTFA), I can't see this limitation mentioned. It will be an interesting experiment to see if OS X can be installed on a Windows (PC-based) host.

Re:With what host? (2, Interesting)

MBCook (132727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044004)

Apple's policy has always been (as far as I know), you can virtualize OS X all you want, but you have to have Apple hardware. I thought you had to have OS X Server as the host OS, but I guess that wasn't the case.

Re:With what host? (5, Informative)

gb3 (998440) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044078)

That's not true. You can virtualize OS X Server starting with Leopard as long as it's on Apple hardware (host does not need to be OS X, in fact Parallels has a bare metal version for XServes). They've never let you virtualize OS X, just the last 2 versions of Server.

Re:With what host? (2, Interesting)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044082)

The other question, of course, is whether the "On Macs" requirement is technical in some serious sense(any one of the modern virtualization tricks where you pass as much as possible through to the hardware, rather than trapping it and crunching it in software emulation depending somehow on EFI, or the particular chipsets of Macs, or something of that nature), or whether it is a purely artificial constraint, that exists to keep Oracle out of range of Steve Jobs' eye lasers...

If the former, turning it into a general purpose "Virtualbox virtualizes OSX" will require some nontrivial work. If the latter, I'm assuming that there will be a third party build of VirtualBox(large swaths of which are, after all, FOSS) supporting OSX on arbitrary hosts floating around within a matter of days, or even hours.

Re:With what host? (2, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045278)

The other question, of course, is whether the "On Macs" requirement is technical in some serious sense(any one of the modern virtualization tricks where you pass as much as possible through to the hardware, rather than trapping it and crunching it in software emulation depending somehow on EFI, or the particular chipsets of Macs, or something of that nature), or whether it is a purely artificial constraint, that exists to keep Oracle out of range of Steve Jobs' eye lasers...

There is the license, the hardware, and the DMCA.

The license says you can run _one_ copy of MacOS X on one _Apple branded_ computer. I think it is quite clear that "Apple branded computer" means the actual physical hardware. The Macintosh hardware contains one chip containing a key, and MacOS X checks for the existence of the key. Now with virtualisation, the virtualisation level _must_ pass access to this chip down to the real hardware, otherwise MacOS X won't install. Passing the access through to the real chip is legal, because it only allows the end user what the license allowed him or her to do anyway.

It is obviously not difficult at all for the virtualisation software to emulate the presence of this chip. If they did that, then you could run MacOS X on _any_ computer. Putting that capability into the virtualisation software would be circumventing Apple's copy protection and fall straight under the DMCA and gets charged, as Psystar found out, at $2500 per case. I don't think any company with money that makes virtual machines will try that.

Re:With what host? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045398)

Oh, there isn't a chance in hell that Oracle would risk any significant legal exposure just so that their second-tier virtualization product can do something that most of their customers don't care about.

However, VirtualBox(with the exception of a few bits and pieces found only in the commercial/proprietary version) is FOSS. If the "OSX on Macs only" restriction is largely artificial, it seems extremely likely that some annonymous dude in Lithuania or somewhere will cook up a patch that removes the restriction and uncrippled binaries will float around in the usual dark corners.

It's like libDVDCSS. Totally DMCA violating; but not exactly hard to get ahold of.

Re:With what host? (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046048)

Saying DMCA violating reminds me so much of people in non-english colonized/owned/whatever countries talking badly about the queen.
You don't speak that way about our royal highness! It's blasphemy!
Umm... In your country...

(I'm American, just displaying the entire picture ;) )

Re:With what host? (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045768)

Except in some countries there is no such thing as the DMCA, and EULAs are not always binding, especially when you can buy a copy of OSX over the encounter without having to agree to it first. In which case running OSX in this way is "unsupported" rather than "illegal"...
If the software requires to check a chip in order to function, then any complete emulation would need to emulate that chip, emulators for all kinds of other systems already do exactly this.

Re:With what host? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044180)

The host doesn't matter, what matters is the underlying hardware. Mac OS X unmodified will only be able to start if it runs on Mac hardware.

http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?p=134642&sid=e4351fbfef3e3c91d57db22fc2af2cb9#p134642

Re:With what host? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044188)

That's pretty awesome then!

Re:With what host? (1)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044642)

mod coward up, makes all parent posts irrellivent.

wow, it's in the manual:

3.1.1 Mac OS X guests

Starting with version 3.2, VirtualBox has experimental support for Mac OS X guests. This allows you to install and execute unmodified versions of OS X on supported host hardware. Whereas competing solutions perform modifications to the OS X install DVDs (e.g. different boot loader and replaced files), VirtualBox is the first product to provide the modern PC architecture expected by OS X without requiring any “hacks”. You should be aware of a number of important issues before attempting to install a Mac OS X guest:

1. OS X is commercial, licensed software and contains both license and technical restrictions that limit its use to certain hardware and usage scenarios. It is im-portant that you understand and obey these restrictions. As a result, before attempting to install Mac OS X in a virtual machine, make sure you understand the license restrictions of the Mac OS X version you want to use. For most versions of Mac OS X, Apple prohibits installing them on non-Apple hardware. These license restrictions are also enforced on a technical level: Mac OS X ver-ifies whether it is running on Apple hardware, and most DVDs that that come with Apple hardware even check for an exact model. These restrictions are not circumvented by VirtualBox and continue to apply.

2. Only CPUs known and tested by Apple are supported. As a result, AMD CPUs will never work at all, and if the Intel CPU is newer than the build of OS X, it will most likely panic during bootup with an “Unsupported

Configuring virtual machines

3. The Mac OS X installer expects the harddisk to be partitioned so when it does not offer a selection, you have to launch the Disk Utility from the “Tools” menu and partition the hard disk. Then close the Disk Utility and proceed with the installation.

4. In addition, as Mac OS X support in VirtualBox is currently still experimental, please refer also to chapter 14, Known limitations, page 278.

salient details from p.278

4 Known limitations

Mac OS X guests.

– Mac OS X guests can only run on a certain host hardware. For details about license and host hardware limitations, please see chapter 3.1.1, Mac OS X guests, page 47. – VirtualBox does not provide Guest Additions for OS X at this time. – The graphics resolution currently defaults to 1024x768 as OS X falls back to the built-in EFI display support. See chapter 3.12.1, Video modes in EFI, page 61 for more information on how to change EFI video modes. – Even when idle, OS X guests currently burn 100% CPU. This is a power management issue that will be addressed in a future release. – OS X guests only work with one CPU assigned to the VM. Support for SMP will be provided in a future release. – Depending on your system and version of OS X, you might experience guest hangs after some time. This can be fixed by turning off energy saving (set timeout to “Never”) in the system preferences. – By default, the VirtualBox EFI enables debug output of the OS X kernel to help you diagnose boot problems. Note that there is a lot of output and not all errors are fatal (they would also show on your physical Mac). You can turn off these messages by issuing this command:

VBoxManage setextradata vmname "VBoxInternal2/EfiBootArgs" " "

To revert to the previous behavior, use:

VBoxManage setextradata vmname "VBoxInternal2/EfiBootArgs" ""

Re:With what host? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045252)

As a hackintosh user, I'd have to assume that this means that you'd have to do typical hackintosh-y things to get Mac OS X to run on a Mac or Windows host.

Re:With what host? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 4 years ago | (#32047164)

Depends on your definition of "unmodified." Providing an EFI bootloader isn't modifying the OS IMO, and certainly no more than running it in a VM.

Re:With what host? (1)

JohnnyLocust (855742) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046076)

Here's a screen recording of it attempting to boot on a 13" MacBook with a Windows 7 bootcamp host os. I lost interest after 30 minutes of the spinning thingy, but I'm sure with enough patience it would install. http://pixetell.com/p00142eFgBZbpglB7p3OUdNOxxe276mjDUXoGl9aSCB5wzQx51z [pixetell.com]

No Virtualization?? LOL @ MAC-FAGS! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32043972)

Steve Jobs just can't stop telling you what to do with your with your own computer / phone / anus.

I'm running a virtual machine right now, becaus unlike you Apple sheep I run Microsoft Windows.

Think different (than a sheep. bahhh.)

Re: No Virtualization?? LOL @ MAC-FAGS! (0, Flamebait)

ekgringo (693136) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044036)

Oh yeah, nothing sheep-like at all with running Windows...

Re: No Virtualization?? LOL @ MAC-FAGS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044182)

http://www.dailyhaha.com/_pics/linux_mac_pc_weapon.htm [dailyhaha.com]

Or is that too over the top?

OSX on Vmware (4, Insightful)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044042)

OS X has been working for quite some time on VMWare with a Windows/Linux host. It's been even hacked to work with AMD processors on the host, so from a technical standpoint, nothing new.

Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike. A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why? When Microsoft did that with WMA vs MP3, people complained. Loudly.

Re:OSX on Vmware (5, Informative)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044096)

A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why?

That's not true at all. I have QuickTime Pro right here. When I choose "export" from the file menu, you can choose to export to an MP4 file. When you click "options", you can set the codec to H264. Here's a screenshot [kicks-ass.org] .

Re:OSX on Vmware (2, Informative)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044260)

Doesn't work for me in Windows... sorry, I really didn't mean to sound trollish.

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044352)

Seriously, QuickTime Pro in Windows? I'm amazed there are people who use that combination :-P

Re:OSX on Vmware (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044538)

I'm still amazed people use Mac OS X.

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045188)

Please tell this to the people that produce movies in quicktime format that require quicktime. Until then, I still have to use QT. *

* Although some media players can play that codec it seems, besides QT, but not always reliably for some reason...

A billion encoders (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045242)

Please tell this to the people that produce movies in quicktime format that require quicktime

Not to encode...

There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?

Re:A billion encoders (1)

CondeZer0 (158969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045624)

> There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?

Because if you are a business, you are opening yourself to getting sued all the way into bankruptcy.

Anyone can implement any patented algorithm and release the code as open source (hell, we all know it is impossible to write even "Hello World" without infringing on patents), but just because somebody wrote the code and it is out there, and maybe nobody has not been sued yet, that doesn't mean anyone using or distributing the code are not open themselves to being sued whenever the patent holders feel like it.

This shows how the only way the world manages to deal with the insanity that is so called "intellectual property [cat-v.org] " is by ignoring the law, but that is not a very good long term solution to the problem.

Re:A billion encoders (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046044)

Only in countries which recognize software patents, such as the US. In Europe, there's no risk at all.

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045464)

The trend is to produce videos in an MP4 container using the H.264 codec. You can create and play this sort of video files with or without QuickTime, so everybody wins.

Re:OSX on Vmware (2, Informative)

CondeZer0 (158969) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044544)

QuickTime in Windows is an exercise in masochism.

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044158)

It's nothing new, but when I was researching it a couple of weeks ago, the page that had the hack to implement it in KVM made it seem like you needed a couple of pieces of information (a pair of weak keys IIRC) that I couldn't find when I tried searching for them.

http://d4wiki.goddamm.it/index.php?title=Howto:_Mac_OSX_on_KVM [goddamm.it]

Re:OSX on Vmware (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044568)

Why use crappy stuff like KVM(*) when VMware Player is free?

* KVM is probably the worst virtualization system out there. It hogs the whole system with its kernel module, which if loaded prevents you from using anything with VT-x (ig. VMware, VirtualBox, etc) even if you're not using it.

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045958)

Because vmware player has all kinds of arbitrary artificial restrictions...Mainly because they want to force you to buy the expensive version. It's also extremely annoying having to recompile its kernel drivers each time you update the kernel (all the drivers kvm requires are built in to the kernel).

Anything that uses VT-x seems to prevent you using it for anything else, it seems to be how VT works..

I have a few servers running several KVM images each, it seems to work a lot better than vmware especially for non-typical linux images.

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046264)

Anything that uses VT-x seems to prevent you using it for anything else, it seems to be how VT works..

No, just kvm. I frequently have vmware's player and virtualbox on the same computer and they co-exist just fine. kvm is the only virtualization application that I've had that problem with. (and before someone mentions xen -you can't run xen without booting into a xen virtual machine, so that doesn't count.)

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

Smurf (7981) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044200)

A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container.

That's very odd. I can definitely export to H.264 + AAC in an MP4 container. Maybe it's because I'm still using Leopard (or QuickTime 7.6.6) ?

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

gaspyy (514539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044268)

I tried the Windows version... (so yeah, it's my fault) :)

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

FlyingBishop (1293238) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044366)

You horrible person, using Apple software in conjunction with non-Apple software.

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044698)

Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike. A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why? When Microsoft did that with WMA vs MP3, people complained. Loudly.

Just rename the .MOV to .MP4. The formats are practically identical - the MPEG-4 group chose Apple's MOV format for that basis of the MP4 format, and thus MP4 is a subset of MOV (but a rather complete subset). Just like 3GP is a subset of MP4 as well (restricting codec usage mainly). A MOV parser can easily handle either, and most MP4 parsers ignore whatever extra junk there may be in a MOV file.

Re:OSX on Vmware (4, Insightful)

catmistake (814204) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044854)

Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike

I read your other posts, and it's not that you sound trollish or anything, just that you have your own experience, which as it turns out isn't what it's supposed to be and not Apple's fault. But I quoted you because it is becoming extremely trendy to bash Apple for jealously protecting their IP. It is difficult for one to separate personal preference or bias from the truth of the matter when trying to make a global evaluation of a company using a few gripes repeated ad infinitum by the uninformed. It's not an artificial limitation that Apple is employing. Or rather, it's no more artificial than Windows requiring a key. But Apple's money comes from hardware, and by restricting their software to only run on their hardware, by any means, they are creating a consumer insentive to buy their hardware. To quote the insane and immoral tyrant himself, "it's as simple as that."

Re:OSX on Vmware (1)

Kenja (541830) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045092)

Also works with OS X running in VMware Fusion with an OS X host. Not sure how any of this is news.

MP4 and MOV are the same (1)

pikine (771084) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045664)

MP4 [wikipedia.org] and QuickTime MOV are the same container format, actually. You could have renamed the .MOV extension to .MP4 and the world will not notice a tree falling in the middle of a forest.

Shit just got real (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044044)

How will they stop it from running on non-Apple hardware if all the code is in place to 'virtualize' it on a hypervisor?

Re:Shit just got real (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044122)

By suing hyperviser vendors who release software that does not explicitly check for Apple hardware? Such a thing would not exactly be out of character for Apple...

Re:Shit just got real (1)

capnchicken (664317) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044184)

But if that code is in VirtualBox Open Source Edition (OSE) then the genie is already out of the bottle isn't it?

Re:Shit just got real (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044272)

No more out of the bottle than the hackintosh community. Apple will just sue vendors who allow people to bypass the license, and all that will be left are a tiny group of committed hackers who will be small enough for Apple to ignore, hopefully. Really, most people in the free software and open source software communities are staying away from Apple because of their hostility, and businesses will not want to risk a lawsuit from Apple.

Re:Shit just got real (1)

osvenskan (1446645) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044898)

Really, most people in the free software and open source software communities are staying away from Apple because of their hostility

On what grounds do you make that assertion? About half of the developers I counted at the 2009 Scipy (scientific Python) conference were toting Apple laptops.

Granted, mine was an unscientific observation, but if you've got better data that counters mine, I'd sincerely like to hear it.

Re:Shit just got real (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044332)

Does one need to use Apple code to write a hypervisor that supports OS X? If not, Apple wouldn't have any grounds to sue. There's not much difference between a hypervisor and an emulator, and it's clear that emulators are legal. Whether the end user has the right to run the software on a machine, virtual or otherwise, is a problem for the end user not the vendor.

Re:Shit just got real (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044376)

Apple could try to claim a DMCA violation; I do not know whether this would stand up in court, but the threat might be sufficient to scare vendors away.

Re:Shit just got real (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045496)

Apple could try to claim a DMCA violation; I do not know whether this would stand up in court, but the threat might be sufficient to scare vendors away.

It worked very well against Psystar, who is supposed to pay $2500 _per computer_ that they sold because of DMCA violation (not that Apple will ever see any of that money), while their illegal copying of MacOS X was only $30,000 for all copies. But there is also the point that those vendors rely on IP protection themselves to do business, so they won't do that kind of thing not because they are scared, but because they believe that not respecting copyrights is a bad thing.

Re:Shit just got real (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044606)

Does one need to use Apple code to write a hypervisor that supports OS X? If not, Apple wouldn't have any grounds to sue.

It doesn't matter if Apple has grounds to sue; what matters is whether they can force the victim to expend resources to defend themselves. If yes, then the actual letter of the law is meaningless, since simply being sued is punishment enough.

Re:Shit just got real (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045992)

By suing hyperviser vendors who release software that does not explicitly check for Apple hardware? Such a thing would not exactly be out of character for Apple...

No, but the DMCA specifically does not require such checks -- 17 USC 1201(c)(3). So a well-funded vendor would have a chance to win, perhaps even in summary judgement, should they find the profit potential great enough.

Re:Shit just got real (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046578)

I'm pretty sure that a hypervisor vendor could justify not letting the guest OS see the hardware at all. All hardware calls from the guest OS are intercepted and answered by the hypervisor according to settings that the user pre-determines. If it so happens that this allows the user to tell OS X that is running on Apple hardware when it is actually running on something else, that's not the hypervisor vendor's problem.

no VMs unless OSX server? (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044062)

Than what about the Apple approved boot camp? VMware Fusion, and a bunch of other products?

Granted those have a host OS of OSX and a VM of something else. Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM? I know quite a few people who would do that. They have a need for OSX. However, that need does not justify buying an all out Apple computer. A VM for the use would fit the bill better.

I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support. Or is that against the law?

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (1)

dingen (958134) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044144)

Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?

Because Apple is not in the business of selling operating systems, they are in the business of selling computers. If people could run Mac OS X on non-Macs, that would hurt Mac sales, virtualized or not.

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044582)

The biggest threat that comes from virtualized MacOS is the possibility that people might be
able to try MacOS without any real investment in the process. They could easily and cheaply
determine for themselves if it is "all that".

You will no longer need to be a "geek" to give MacOS a serious test drive.

That will likely cause all of Apple's mystique to evaporate.

but it *is* all that !! (1)

curri (107175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046188)

Actually, if it worked with no problems whatsoever, the mystique wouldn't go away, as MacOSX *is* all that, or at least much better than other OSs I've tried (Win XP,Vista,7, Linux) for basic usage. Although a big advantage is that you always run it on good HW :)

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (1)

mister_playboy (1474163) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044174)

Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?

Because Apple can't make any money off their hardware if people weren't forced to buy it along with OS X.

The big barrier keeping OS X from running on any ol' box came down when they switched to Intel, so now they protect their income stream with a EULA and a bunch of lawyers instead.

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044240)

I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support. Or is that against the law?

Breaking a EULA isn't illegal. There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware, the ruling was that you can't tie software to hardware.

If you can go out and buy OSX in a store, you can install it on your microwave oven if you really want to.

Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. (It's obviously a template for a microwave oven OSX installation guide that I'm working on)

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045594)

Breaking a EULA isn't illegal. There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware, the ruling was that you can't tie software to hardware.

1. Breach of a EULA isn't illegal, but it means that you lose _all_ rights to the software involved, including making _any_ copies that run _anywhere_. It's not the breach of the EULA that is your problem, it is the consequent copyright infringement. If Apple's EULA said "you have to pay us $10,000 for any copy that you install on a Dell computer", and you installed MacOS X on a Dell, you would most likely be able to argue that you don't have to pay $10,000 because you didn't agree to the EULA, but you would have to face the full consequences of your copyright infringement.

2. Data General vs. Digidyne is quoted again and again and again but it doesn't apply as long as you don't have hardware that can run MacOS X _and nothing else_. It might have applied when MacOS X ran on PowerPC if you built a PowerPC computer that can't run Windows, can't run Linux (but they can), and can only run MacOS X. But today, any computer capable of running MacOS X could run or could be easily changed to run Windows, so there is no reason why Apple should have to allow you to run MacOS X.

DCMA law (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046560)

There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware

The problem here is that, in addition to EULA, there's encryption involved too (Mac OS X relies on a key inside the TPM chip of the target mac).
And although USA did apparently consider EULAs invalid, according to the case you cite, the USA's DMCA law doesn't not allow enough provisions to circumvent that DRM (although in Switzerland, it would have been probably possible).

So you could install Mac OS X legally on any hardware you would like, but there's a lock that prevent you from doing it and this lock can be legally broken in the USA.

Seek another jurisdiction where the local DMCA-clone and EULA validity are both adapted to your situation. Probably at least in eastern europe that should be the case.

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (1)

Trashman (3003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044274)

...Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support. Or is that against the law?

It doesn't even have to be like that. All apple needs to do is to post an HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) Which consists of HW that is known (or certified by apple) to work. Anything not on that list will result in a dial tone if you call apple about it to report a problem. Other Vendors such as Vmware (for ESX) and Oracle (formerly Sun) et al do this.

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044282)

VMware Fusion, and a bunch of other products?

VMware Fusion and "those other products" are only available for OSX Server, numbnuts.

Re:no VMs unless OSX server? (1)

newdsfornerds (899401) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044422)

Then what about, not "than" what about.

OSX PPC host? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044080)

I know this will never happen, but I would love to have mythical "attesor" some day.

Re:OSX PPC host? (1)

timepilot (116247) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044128)

You and me both.

Running it right now (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044140)

I currently have Snow Leopard 10.6.1 running on Ubuntu Lucid x64. USB support is a little dodgy, but it works from time to time with the iPhone SDK. Updating to the latest version currently causes kernel panics but oh well. Its running ok on my old ASUS m50. (Even works on Win7 x64 on a Phenom 9600)

VMWare and OS X (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044328)

I have been running OS X virtualized in VMWare for the last 6 months now. Unfortunately Apple won't release their SDK for Windows, so I had to look into it. Oh and its running on an AMD host as well. Heres the (30 minute) guide:

http://adbge.org/installing-snow-leopard-as-a-virtual-machine/

I'm with Jon Stewart on this one (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044338)

Screw jackbooted brownshirt Apple, Inc.

Apple refuses EVERYTHING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32044732)

It is a CLOSED SYSTEM.

But we won't complain too much because they brought us the iPad.
PUKE!

Windows and Linux hosts now please. (1)

nikomo (1338131) | more than 4 years ago | (#32044780)

I'm not buying a mac until I can see myself it's any good.

Re:Windows and Linux hosts now please. (1)

arkane1234 (457605) | more than 4 years ago | (#32046210)

Go to Fry's electronics or whatever store is near you to try it out... geez
I mean I'm a Linux zealot to the extreme, and even I see that a Mac is great as a desktop for people who want a blackbox solution.
That being said, it's super-expensive compared to non-Apple. I would say x86, but ... they run x86 ;)

Old macs keep their resale value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32046398)

Buy an older generation Dual-core MacBook. Use it for a month or so, turn around and sell it.

If you liked it, reinvest the proceeds in the next Macbook, or wait until it's released and buy the current generation three months afterward.

There's always demand, and the prices always trend toward the absurd.

I couldn't help but laugh (1)

Masterofpsi (1643965) | more than 4 years ago | (#32045702)

Whoo yay, now we can virtualize OS X -- inside OS X! Wake me up when I can do it from Linux.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>