blogs.zdnet.com — There was considerable outcry earlier this week over a blog entry that highlighted Microsoft's restrictions on virtualization of Windows Vista by Parallels users running Mac OS X. So far, however, there's been little publicity of the fact that Apple isn't any too keen on seeing Mac OS X virtualized indiscriminately, either.
Feb 10, 2007 View in Crawl 4
jstevewhiteFeb 11, 2007
Apple has always maintained a policy associating their hardware with their OS and vice versa. They have steadfastly assured everyone that OSX is licensed and intended ONLY for Apple hardware. One can certainly argue the reasonableness of that stance, or even the economic sense of it, but the policy is well-established and clearly articulated. Virtualization of OSX is a direct violation of that policy - again, whether you think it's a reasonable policy or not is debatable. They want their OS to run only on their hardware because that's what they sell.Microsoft, on the other hand, has set out to put their OS on EVERY BOX MADE. They got in trouble for business practices pursuing this very goal. Microsoft's objection to virtualization has nothing at all to do with hardware, and everything to do with limiting the proliferation of linux and OSX desktop machines carrying windows for that one required application (whatever it is for you). Many people run MacOSX or Linux, but have Windows apps they have to run - (I love Fruity Loops, or My Boss insists on Visio, or my Intranet requires IE). The other scenario is not likely to exist: "I run Windows but my boss makes me run ". So, while they agree with the prohibition on virtualization, the reasons are diametrically opposite. Apple is acting to protect their hardware market from being diluted by manufacturers of cheap hardware, Microsoft is trying to protect their software market from Apple and Linux.
skeuomorphFeb 11, 2007
Thank you, jstevewhite. Excellent comment from a business point of view, and the same problem holds true for the technology angle. The blog author wrote, "Show of hands: Who wants to run Vista Ultimate in a virtual machine on a Mac? Who wants to run Mac OS X in a virtual environment on Vista?" This sentence construction shows the author imagines this sentence works both ways, but a quick rewrite shows it's not reflexive at all, and in fact reads like a recipe for instability and disaster: Rewritten: "Show of hands: Who wants to run a Microsoft OS that theoretically runs on any beige box, in a VM virtualizing a known set of Apple components, on an Apple OS designed hand-in-hand with Apple hardware?" So far, so good.Now the reflexive: "Who wants to run an Apple OS designed hand-in-hand with Apple hardware, in a VM virtualizing who knows what hardware, on a Microsoft OS that theoretically runs on any beige box, running on who knows what random components?"Ok, sure, we'll still all raise our hands, but you can't always get what you want.From a technical standpoint, these are two very different propositions. Microsoft has a massive ecosystem of third party component and driver builders spending all their time trying to make infinite combinations of hardware and drivers avoid the blue screen of death. Apple makes its OS work on its precise range of components, then focuses on improvements. Asking Apple to make OSX run on anything from anyone would be a horrific waste of the company's talents for usability and innovation.
betterthFeb 11, 2007
@SkeuI always found it funny that the Apple's OS "just works" because they drastically limit hardware, not because they have outstanding support. I suppose you gotta do whatever it takes to back up a claim like that though, eh?OSX works fine on just about any modern "beige box". I'd becareful about running it on laptops, as the hardware generally doesn't have Mac drivers available. But I've found that most computers are fine, since ATI and nVidia use generic Mac drivers that will work. Most mainstream wireless cards that I've tried work, and I didn't have an issue getting my on board sound and network running either. But that's just my experience.
ahnteisFeb 11, 2007
One reason to virtualize machines is to compartmentalize for testing, security, or other purposes.For example, if you're doing some research on a virus and need to view how it affects a system, you just start up a virtual machine and watch it. No mess, no fuss, and no cleanup afterwords.
nufotoFeb 11, 2007
Difference between Microsoft and Apple is simple OS X has no Serial number/CD key or WGA were as MS has both and require registration... so yes Apple wants you to buy the Hardware but they[Apple] won't check up on you.... Unlike every ones favorite Software company!
xmlsteveFeb 11, 2007
Skeuomorph misses the point of what "Virtual Machine" means: virtual machines create software-based interfaces that spoof a particular hardware setup. The "parent" machine can be any ol' grey box, as long as the Virtualization software runs properly, the virtualized OS will not be aware of the non-virtual hardware; that is for the parent OS to deal with.For the brave, here are the instructions for getting OSX to run in a VMWare environment:<a class="user" href="http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmware_how_to">http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmware_how_to</a>
Closed AccountFeb 11, 2007
nice angle