digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Microsoft and Apple agree: Blanket virtualization is a no-no

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.

Who dugg this? Made popular Feb 11, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

43 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • BuddyDoQ, on 10/12/2007, -6/+52I say tough cookies Apple and Microsoft. If I pay for the software, then I get to install it in any way I want, and on any type of machine I'm able. (Barring flat out piracy, of course.)
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31@ bmartin : "What Mac user in their right mind would want to load up a copy of Vista?"

    errr a lot of them actually.
  • edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29"What Mac user in their right mind would want to load up a copy of Vista?"
    One who wants to play games?
  • Prysorra, on 10/12/2007, -8/+26When corporations kiss, consumers tremble.
  • MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Let's not forget that Microsoft is probably Apple's biggest 3rd party developer. Lots of Mac users use Office, which is actually a pretty good piece of software for the Mac.
  • SgtBeavis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@xisupermanix if that were strictly the case, the boot camp, an Apple creation, wouldn't exist...


    IMO, the reason Apple doesn't allow virtualization of OSX is because it goes against their business model. Apple is a hardware company that also sells software. They want the software to be the reason you buy new hardware. Virtualization of OSX on non-Apple x86 hardware would not be helpful to them. The only reason they even sell their software separately from hardware is so existing Apple hardware owners can upgrade their OS.

    Personally I would love to at least see OSX virtualized on Apple hardware. It would be a huge help to the development community for software testing. Virtualizing OSX server on Xserve would also be useful since that would promote maximum hardware utilization.
  • geekThing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"If I pay for the software, then I get to install it in any way I want, and on any type of machine I'm able."

    you dont for the software itself, you pay for a *license* of the software.
    And the word 'license' pretty much means using something under a set of restrictions.
    Of course, no one if forcing you to buy the license, if you dont want to follow its terms.
  • jstevewhite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Apple 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.
  • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14Evidence: Fanboys everywhere are eating their words.
  • XISUPERMANIX, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10How does Jobs feel about dual booting vista on a mac. You fanboys can go ahead and digg me down but I think Jobs only wants Mac hardware running Macs' OS.
  • misterjangles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5They've agreed on things plenty of times http://news.com.com/MS+to+invest+150+million+in+Apple/2100-1001_3-202143.html
  • Akyan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Are you in some way mentally confused, Direct X 10 is part of the Microsoft Windows. It is about as likely Microsoft allowing Direct X on OSX, as it is that Steve Jobs will anounce that all songs on Itunes are now free.
  • Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2One 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.
  • MikeCerm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It doesn't make sense to buy a Mac if you're ONLY going to run Windows on it. However, if you want to take advantage of Windows' extensive library of 3rd party software, while relying on Mac as your primary operating system, it makes complete sense to buy a Mac.

    When the Intel Macs launched, and Apple announced Boot Camp, there were a lot of people who took notice. The ability to run Windows (both native and virtualized) has been the killer app that's gotten a lot of people to ditch their PPC Macs and get an Intel one.
  • Skeuomorph, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Thank 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.


  • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@Skeu

    I 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.
  • synorgy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I disagree, SgtBeavis.

    Jobs doesn't want you running MacOSX on another computer (not Apple made), but they couldn't care less if you run linux, XP, Vista et all. on THEIR hardware. Microsoft is doing something very similar, but because of the ease with which one can build an Intel/AMD-based PC - Microsoft has to resort to other ways to get monetary income.

    The business ethics of both companies are questionable, in my opinion. I should be able to purchase a computer, and build an operating system to tailor to that computer's hardware and what I'm going to use it for. (Yes - I use Linux. But I also use the afformentioned OS's too.)
  • crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Personaly I would like to setup a virtual machine of the OS X on my box. Reasons is that the hardware of a mac isn't that great compared to the hardware in my gaming box. MS and Apple didn't make any deal here like it is suggested in the title. They just have the same view point. Minus the fact that MS allows you to vitual machine in a few of their new vista packages. Mac/Apple doesn't allow this at all. Making them look like the worse of the two evils here. Apple wants the hardware sale. Shame on them.
  • ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Honestly, if you buy a copy of OS X or Vista and get it working in a Virtualized way (there is a way to get OS X running on Virtual PC and there's even Wiki how-to), do you think Apple or Microsoft will come after you? What do they have to lose if someone buys their software and uses it anyway they want? For one, how are they even going to know? We're talking about legit ownership of the software that you bought. (obviously, I'm not talking about downloaded pirated copies).

    So load away Buddy...you bought it, it's yours. Just because it's against their EULAs doesn't mean anything. If the EULA stated that by using the software you agree to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

    Oh, and if and when I get a Mac and I see a game that REQUIRES Vista, I guess I don't buy and play that game. They're loss, not mine.
  • noseeme, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2*****. (Yes, both Apple and Microsoft)
  • Gatorfan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let's all face it, this is just one more small step towards suicide for Microsoft. They seem to be doing it every time they introduce a new software package. Someone please explain to me how one of the most successful software companies on the planet gets this worried about their product when they have captured 93% of the market. Is Microsoft that strapped for cash that they have to build in every conceivable security feature which makes their product so user un-friendly? When it is time to upgrade my system, I'm switching to a Mac. I'm tired pumping my money into a company that obviously has no concern for it's customers other than to ensure they get an operating system that is in constant need of security patches and a pocket full of third-party software packages to keep it running somewhat clean. Apple has the sexiest machines on the market, and it appears the better OS as well.
  • Uberdork, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Virtualization will turn operating systems into an interchangeable commodity. No wonder they both hate it.
  • cquinnd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1DirectX 10 is a feature that Windows Vista introduces, based in part on the ability of the OS to use hardware acceleration as a basic function of the GUI.

    Other OSes that also have 3D acceleration support for the GUI should be able to take advantage of some of the features in cards that will provide DirectX 10 enhancements, but it may take some time to adopt the technology into the other OSes, and some effort to get driver support from the major GPU players. Keep in mind that DirectX is more than just video, so even "patching" an OS to provide the rendering capability is not going to accomplish all that needs to be done to support games in the same manner as is promoted for Windows XP and Vista.

  • DoTheFandango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think the thing is, Apple doesn't really mind if you run a different OS on one of their computers, as they'll make money on the hardware no matter what. Microsoft cares that you run a different OS, because they don't have the hardware to rely on, so if you make a shell x86 and install OSX on it, then they lose out on $300 and have no real way of making it up.

    I don't know why you would do that, but whatever.
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1nice angle
  • jstevewhite, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@manifestdata -

    Someone forced by their industry/emplyer to use Visio, Internet Explorer, or any number of other 'windows only' proggies. I'm happy to have VPC so that I don't have to run one of the steenking coporate issue Dells instead of my powerbook.
  • ZeagleK, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Apple sells hardware. Microsoft doesn't.

    Naturally they're looking out for their interests.
  • xmlsteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Skeuomorph 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:
    http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmware_how_to
  • EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Thanks, I want to play games so I'm not installing Vista. XP for that buddy.
  • noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4He has a point, though. Most people who will run virtualization do it for convenient Windows compatibility. Since XP is cheaper, smaller, and less of a memory hog, Vista is kind of pointless to run as one's virtual machine.
  • caesar0801, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I don't see how you would do that...
    you mean you would first boot in boot camp and then run parallels to virtualize Mac OS X???
    The purpose would evidently be to run Mac OS X on "normal" pc's...
  • dkm201, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"the patch"

    it is to rofl
  • bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@manifestdata: Fanboyism? Of what? Are you implying that I'm an Apple fanboy? Read some of my other posts.

    I don't use any Apple products; I've never bought one. I'm a PC user, and Linux at that. I'm wondering why anyone who wants a computer to play games would buy a Mac, then run Vista on it. If I bought a Mac, it'd be because Mac had the best support for the sort of things I want to do. That's why I use Linux: It does what I want better than OS X or Vista. If either of them did the job better, I'd use that OS.

    It simply doesn't make sense to buy Apple's hardware and then turn around and load a MS OS on it. See noreturn's comment.
  • nufoto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Difference 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!
  • guttertrash, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4one thing i find perplexing is why apple wont allow osx to run virualised, provided that the host os is running on apple hardware.
  • jstevewhite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1mmm. crispytown -

    I'll buy "Reasons is that the hardware of *MY* mac isn't that great compared to the hardware in my gaming box." But unless your gaming box is a quad Xeon, your gaming box hardware isn't that great compared to "A" mac.
  • DaffyDuck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1"One who wants to play games?"

    There are enough games that work with XP to last a lifetime. That will be good enough for most people. I have a console for games so I don't really care that much about computer games anyway.
  • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6Obviously a very large number of people if it has produced a "considerable outcry". True fanboyism at its finest.
  • crispytown, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I just want to buy the OS X install to use the disc as coasters. The agreement didn't say i couldn't LOL
  • inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+7Evidence: Apple is the new Microsoft.
  • fastmule, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2When the patch comes for Direct X 10 on OSX it will be game on for Mac users anyway....
  • bmartin, on 10/12/2007, -25/+8Open source advocates agree: If we can produce the virtualization software, we'll run our OS of choice on whatever architecture we please.

    Seriously though, Apple would have everything to lose here and MS nothing. What Mac user in their right mind would want to load up a copy of Vista?
  • tcwood00, on 10/12/2007, -29/+8OMG!!!!!!!
    Microsoft and Apple agreed on something????

    /sarcasm

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.