What is Digg?76 Comments
- dragonmantank, on 10/12/2007, -8/+56OSX86 runs under VMWare. In fact, one of the original ways to install it was to use a VMWare image
- funka7ron, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39I can't blame them. Apple's support has dramatically raised their profile, and doing something that would piss them off is a bad move strategically.
- seriouslywtf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+32I wonder if VMWare will approach the matter in the same way, or if they'll give into temptation.
- Myko, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33"Personally I have no interest in either. I have a 48" HD-TV and standard content looks as good as HD content on there."
If your standard content looks as good as your HD content perhaps you should get your eyes checked. Seriously. - DannySpace, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28In other words: "don't bite the hand that feeds you."
- brlittle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+32That's called "cutting off your nose to spite your face," clint. As a business strategy, it's generally a poor idea.
- chrisgeleven, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18You don't see a relationship between the two companies? I'd say that preferred placement on the Apple Store shelves and the fact that some of Apple's ads promote Parallels is a pretty good indicator.
- meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18"If VMWare decided to do that it would be breaking the EULA for OS X which doesn't allow it to be run in a virtual environment"
Wouldn't this be the user's responsibility? Presumably the Parallels team could allow OS X to run but then the blame would be on the user if he installs it as he is the one that broke the EULA, not Parallels. There's a parallel in that downloading movies is illegal but bittorrent clients are not.
"while VMWare hasn't released anything specifically to enable an OS X guest, it's based on UNIX, so it will run under VMWare just fine."
No. Just because it's unix (bsd actually) doesn't mean it will automatically run under virtualisation. There's still heavy validation checks performed to make sure OS X is running on genuine Apple hardware; the reason the hacked copies were created in the first place. - cricketsymphony, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20dragonmantank is absolutely right, why is he getting dug down?
just search for the Mac OS X x86 VMWare Image torrent.
while VMWare hasn't released anything specifically to enable an OS X guest, it's based on UNIX, so it will run under VMWare just fine. - unknownsoldierX, on 10/12/2007, -12/+25@GMorgan
You're obviously an idiot, or irrational Apple/Linux fanboy if you think DRM is Vista's "main feature". It only comes into affect if you insert a BR/HD-DVD disc.
Apple has two choices.
1. Employ the same DRM, as required be the BR/HD-DVD standards
2. Not support BR/HD-DVD playback - Solstice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I think they're more interested in being able to virtualize OS X on OS X, so that multiple copies can be running on the same machine. As an OS X developer, I would love to have this ability.
- thefreshbeats, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Parallels will never run OSX on a Windows machine. Apple will surely buy the company before then, which is probably their motive for bringing this hypothetical to life. Of course, buy = 51% shareholder.
- SgtBeavis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I would like to see Parallels simply run OSX on OSX. That would be one more devtest tool that I could really use.
- Mootabolife, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15AKA "here, put this leash on"
- monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13Plus the fact that they are probably huge Mac fans.
- johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Your impressive grammar skills explain a lot.
- pathy, on 10/12/2007, -14/+21GMorgan,
Really? Because I thought that the ability to play HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray was something that would be beneficial to customers that buy them...
I must be CRAZY. - MeltedUFO, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I f they released OS X for PCs I doubt the market share would change significantly. Maybe a percent if they are lucky, but no where near majority or even a quarter of the share. Most people don't even know what an OS is, why would they change?
- mukiex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You know, it's really not that easy.
1. We don't know if Apple can afford to make the sudden jump to supporting a *****-TON more hardware than they used to, even with help from the BSD core.
2. We don't know if Apple can afford to survive the transition, as, at first, it's probably going to re-direct more mac buyers than windows pc buyers. More than ever, macs (at least the ones at the apple store) will be seen as luxury boxes.
Those are probably the main things holding apple back. Arguably #1 could be lessened by an "Apple Approved" hardware certificate, so people would know which stuff's compatible, but #2 is a tricky one. Just how many people at Wal-mart or Best Buy are going to make the switch?
Something to think about. - CCB0x45, on 10/12/2007, -10/+16If VMWare decided to do that it would be breaking the EULA for OS X which doesn't allow it to be run in a virtual environment(just as Vista has the same agreement, for every box except Ultimate), and they would have to reverse engineer Apples DRM to stop this from happening, which could put them in legal trouble if Apple decided to do anything about it.
- jeff303, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@unknownsoldierx
Unfortunately you are wrong. Here is a detailed analysis showing just how intrusive Vista's DRM really is
http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Does anyone seriously think that an angry Apple will pull support for Parallels? It is the only serious way to run Windows from a Mac box. Yes, there is boot camp, but does anyone really want to reboot for the privillege of running a single application? If performance is essential you may do it, but being able to virtualise the session is what makes it attractive to 'switchers'. Remove this feature, and you are left with trying to sell a boot loader as the way to work with two systems.
Does Apple own any of Parallels (serious question)? If not, it may be serious time for them to start considering buying some stock. - deanypop, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Show me the macbook equivalent for $300, or the macbook pro equivalent for $1200, and your statement might start making sense. Current gen apple Hardware is just* top of the line (pricing and feature wise), not way over its PC brethren. And yes, if you want a PC laptop that won't fall apart in 6 months, you have to pay extra, no matter WHO you buy from (except, in this case, Apple, since they have no truly bargain-basement/low-end machines).
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"""You're obviously an idiot, or irrational Apple/Linux fanboy if you think DRM is Vista's "main feature". It only comes into affect if you insert a BR/HD-DVD disc."""
GMorgan is clearly not wrong in this instance, or "irrational". Vista's content protection "features" could be running on your computer at any time on a completely arbitrary basis.
You have misinterpreted what's been said as meaning "only when a disc is inserted", instead of "whenever a programmer or a piece of content is making it happen". That could be people who write spyware, adware, malware, drivers, media players, web trailers, or any of a number of common programs people run now, or switched on by almost any kind of data some enterprising newbie online has decided to mark as "protected content", not just music and movies. There's no reason to suppose this won't be running unless you're watching a movie disc.
Don't worry though, I'm pretty sure that's the conclusion you were meant to jump to.
"""I wish people would give examples of what Ms is doing with Vista that makes it so evil and terrible"""
Countless examples of this have been given already. Digg search, dogpile and google are your friends. - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Uh.....MS don't allow virtualisation on Vista either except for the most expensive version (surprise!)
The reason Apple do it is that they can't afford to sell OS X as a standalone product without hardware accompanying it and that would include people virtualising it on non-Apple hardware.
What's Microsoft's reason? If you can think of an answer that doesn't include the phrase "fleecing customers" you win one internet - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"paying the extra grand over normal systems (Laptops) i just a waste."
sweet, where can I get a laptop for $99? - Yashu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Uh.....MS don't allow virtualisation on Vista either except for the most expensive version (surprise!) "
Vista Business edition is not the most expensive version. It is basically priced like XP Pro was... and it makes sense... if you are going to be doing alot of VM work it makes sense to own at least the business "pro" version of vista.
Not many enthusiasts and pros are rocking the XP Home... hehe... nor are we going to be on vista home basic. - johnstar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've been runing osx86 on my pc for weeks now, you can't steel what doesn't exist?
- msgyrd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It's not entirely master/slave, more of a symbiotic relationship. Sure, Apple has more power, but they receive benefits of having Parallels help switch users to the Mac.
- johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's possible that they have a cozy relationship with Apple developer people. yes, they seem to have gotten where they are on their own, and Apple likes them and works well with them. now they are probably kept well in the loop of software upgrades etc to make sure their product works. they get mentions from Apple, placement in Apple's stores etc. if they did something crazy, there is no reason Apple could not drop them and work with somebody else, or develop their own solution. i think that's pretty much what that statement says. it also says they *could* release it, and probably have done it in the lab...... but they don't want to bite the hand that feeds. good for them. agree or not, it's Apple's OS and Apple's hardware. if you don't like it, you don't have to use it. MS seems a-ok with Apple hardware running MS Windows since it counts as another install, and technically/legally has to be a purchased copy. why wouldn't MS support it.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Too bad for them. VMWare has done virtual OSX86 for a long time now. VMWare > Parallels by a country mile.
- Stirk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Please read mukiex's comment.
Oh, and Apple's premium systems (The $2500 MBP, etc) are very competitvely priced. - eyreka, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4 -- or perhaps it's you that doesn't get it!
- paradexes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ Grumpy you forgot VMware. Their product is still in beta but it does a pretty decent job. And at the moment it is free. So there are 2 serious contenders at the moment. With 3D gaming being partially supported in their next beta (this is assumed based on the video on the net) and the fact that they still have time to add more features they are the "other" serious way to run. Since Fusion is probably just a port of Workstation on Linux with some serious modifications I imagine it that VMware will have the upper hand in stability.
Based on Parallels forums I see alot of issues with no Virtual SMP (which can be very useful in performance situations) and general hardware bugs. Call me a VMware fanboi if you will but coherence is not enough motivation for me to move to Parallels. I can live with Windowed mode games if it means that I can play them without using bootcamp. The stability and general performance in VMware's product plus their experience and mature code is what will win this out.Not JUST flashy features. I am hoping VMware does pull some cool features besides 3D out. But I would still use it because of the things mentioned above. - Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm trying to think of what non-Apple hardware I'd rather run OS X on.
I can't think of anything. - benjpw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Parallels has the power. Screw Apple. Apple will loose many of the customers it gained (i.e. gamers) if they can't run Windows on an Apple machine.
- undersky, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Why didn't Apple get acquired/merged like Compaq did, or gone like Gateway, or exceeded market cap over Dell? Because Apple makes itself different, "elitiest" u can say.
U can't ask them to consider what people in bestbuy or walmart think, because competing at WM and BB is purely a price war, and in a price war u trim as much quality as u can, bundle as much crapwares as u can, at the end Apple is just another HP or IBM. The thing is, why Apple is profitable is, that they differentiate their product yet still make profit. Market share does not mean market capitalization at all, if Mercedes Benz sells cheap cars like GM, people will not regard it as luxury/cool/premium brand, thus it loses its greatest adventage.
If Apple keeps its market share low yet makes tons more money than Dell (who has less market capitalization), Apple is doing the absolutely right thing-benefiting its stockholders. A corporation's top and only priority is to increase owner's equity, nothing else. Judging by its stock, it's doing a superb job
Sorry for the typo, I am using a blackberry on a plane. - Yashu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is something that the OSX crowd really needs. I am on windows and it has been so easy to have as many windows VMs as I want with VMware... You can run as many linux VMs as you want... the freedom is nice and it allows you to all sorts of unseful things.
If I was on OSX, what are my VM options... linux and windows.
Apple is afraid that once you can run OSX outside of the physical apple hardware, that it would take away from the desire for apple hardware. Apple bills itself as a hardware company. What are they afraid of? Using OSX as a hook... it feeds the Snobbish segregated attitude that apple users have.
This is one area where I think OSX falls behind the pack. - paradexes, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Neither company will until apple gives the ok to do so. I imagine at some point they will. My money is on VMware since they will likley have the cash to back it up. Parallels and their parent SWsoft does not have the cash to make something like this happen if it required licensing. This is a total assumption tho.
- forku, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6pussies... grow some balls and release it , i'm getting sick of this osx86 hackjob *****. I want osx on my pc , not apple's.
- mabhatter, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If apple wanted that, i'd make Parallels a serious buyout target!!
that said, virtual OSX on OSX would be trivial if Apple wanted it. Things like Xen are already open souce... and the whole OS + bios is already Apples. It would be the killer feature of Mac Pros and Xservers... bundled into the current low priced product that would be a Windows server killer... The Apple Server license is expensive for 1 but doesn't have the "strings" attached to how you choose to use it like Microsoft does. VMs are something Microsoft can't quite figure out how to make money on yet and so it's still slightly "illegal" because won't commit except in the ultra expensive Enterprise/unlimited version. - meatmcguffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Vista Business edition is not the most expensive version."
Apologies, i heard that Ultimate was the only edition to offer this. Still, not allowing virtualisation on *all* editions simply due to an EULA is just ridiculous - scelestus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Did you even read what you wrote before clicking the submit button or are you simply using the force?
- pete4512, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1*steal :)
- Vermifax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My brother uses it for his business.
Next question...? - desistere, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let's not forget there was a time when you could run the Apple OS on non-Apple hardware. Of course back then it was called System 7, not OS X, but it wasn't that long ago. I had a Motorola Starmax 603e 200 mhz computer and it was more affordable than the Apple hardware. It wasn't long after that Apple quit letting other companies build "macs" and they never again released a tower for the masses to afford. Instead, we got ***** like the Imac that became obsolete because there was no way to upgrade them. Give me Imac performance in an upgradeable tower, and I'd be more than happy to buy my next Macintosh. But I'm not going to shell out for a Mac Pro. It might be a good deal, but it's a deal I can't afford and Apple isn't hurting without my buck.
Apple can let other companies build Macs any time they want. You can say they want tight control on hardware to make the OS better, but the truth is that a great deal of the hardware has been proven to work just fine through the Hackintosh community. As mukiex was saying, an Apple certification would clear up any questions of compatibility. It comes down to hardware money. People believe there's a war between the OSes. The war is not between the OSes. The OSes will run on fine on either system. Check out your local Hackintosh and see that OS X can run perfectly on lots of hardware it was not designed for. The big difference between a Mac and a PC is not the operating system, it's the TPM and your dollar. - SmegFirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"They have also made it clear that they are a consumer electronics company. That tells me that they just aren't that interested in the enterprise. IMO thats unfortunate for people like me that would love to use Macs in the enterprise..."
It's an Apple, Jim - tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not like Parallels doesn't have a strong hand of its own, though. Being able to run multiple OSes within OS X is a pretty big selling point for some people, especially the sometimes-uncertain switchers.
- SgtBeavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@mabhatter
Of course it would be trivial. VMware has had it working for a while now. I personally saw VMWare running on Workstation 6 beta while at VMWorld. However VMware won't do anything with it because of legal reasons. I think one of the reason Apple doesn't want to do is because they are focused on selling hardware, not operating systems. They have also made it clear that they are a consumer electronics company. That tells me that they just aren't that interested in the enterprise. IMO thats unfortunate for people like me that would love to use Macs in the enterprise... - Yashu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I agree. When VMware came out it was very impressive at the time, and now I can't imagine not having it. It beats parallels and virtualPC by miles.
-
Show 51 - 76 of 76 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is