VMWare Announces Version for OS X In Development 147
pdscomp writes "VMware has just announced at today's Apple WWDC 2006 Conference that they are developing a port of VMware to Mac OS X. People interested in beta testing the product later this year can visit this link to sign up for the public test. It will be interesting to see how things play out between VMware and Parallels. Will Microsoft bother porting Virtual PC now that there will be two other Intel OS X virtualization solutions available? Now all we need is to get Mac OS X running under Xen."
One Way (Score:5, Interesting)
Then again, the market would mostly be curious PC users who end up switching, and I don't know how much money there is to be made there.
Re:One Way (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One Way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One Way (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:One Way (Score:3, Insightful)
So yes troll, lots of us would like to run OSX in a VMWare session on windows machines. And we don't need to be smoking anything to have a legitimate need.
Re:One Way (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One Way (Score:5, Informative)
The OSX License [apple.com] says the following:
2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
Unless Apple relent, a virtualisation solution by a third party is not an 'Apple-labeled computer'. Anyone care to test this in a court of law? Thought not.
Re:One Way (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One Way (Score:5, Funny)
Re:One Way (Score:3, Funny)
Re:One Way (Score:4, Funny)
Re:One Way (Score:2, Funny)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
You even get a choice between single-color [ebay.com] and old-school six-color [ebay.com] stickers like the ones that came with my IIe back in the day. :-)
Re:One Way (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:One Way (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:3, Interesting)
Both GNUstep and Cocoa implement the OpenStep specification, and GNUstep implements a number of Cocoa-specific extensions as well. It does not, however, implement any of Carbon (an updated version of the old MacOS toolkit) and it does not implement things like Core{Audio,Image,Video}. Most importantly, it is only an API, not ABI, re-implementation. A lot of Cocoa apps can be easily ported to GNUstep, but it can not be used to just run
So let's build it ! (Score:2)
And let's call it PineApple (Pine Is Not an Emolator for APPLE)
(runs fast and ducks)
Re:So let's build it ! (Score:2)
Re:So let's build it ! (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
But this is all suposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
I got some Apple stickers with my PowerBook. If I slap that on my Windows PC, is it now an 'Apple-labeled computer'?
Why would you license OS X? (Score:2)
So don't license it. Just buy a copy instead.
There are copies of OS X for sale at my nearest CompUSA (i.e. I can give them money and they will give me a copy, the exact same type of transaction as when I buy a book or music CD). Or if you have a Mac around (though if you do, you probably are less interested in virtualizing) it probably came with a bundled copy of OS X.
I realize that large companies can sometimes save money by buying OS licenses rather than copies, but for most of us "little people" that
Re:Why would you license OS X? (Score:2)
Re:Why would you license OS X? (Score:2)
I know. They include the word "Agreement" to try to suggest that it was something that both parties agreed to. It's a bluff. Study the transaction and you'll see that ownership changes prior to the license being offered.
Maybe some people go ahead and agree to the license being offered (permission to use the software copy that they already own) but most people don't. Why would they? After you buy a copy of some software, you obviously already are allowed to use it, whether you have permission or not.
Re:Why would you license OS X? (Score:2)
Re:Shrink Warp (Score:4, Informative)
I am not disputing that. If you purchase a license, then yes, you purchased a license and there are probably draconian restrictions. In the mid-1990s, I saw situations where my employer bought and resold little packages that contained MS Windows license -- it didn't even include the software. Presumably, the papers in the packages authorized the end-user to make non-fair-use copies of some existing MS Windows media, I guess.
But that's unusual outside of large businesses. Most users get their software by purchasing copies, not licenses.
No, this is incorrect and easy to see with careful observation. Go to a retail computer-stuff store and buy MacOS. Then buy a piece of hardware, such as a USB hub. You will observe that both transactions are handled identically. It's not like they sell you the hardware, but present you with a contract to sign when you try to buy software. In both cases, the store sells you goods.
Yes, I have heard of EULAs, and I have seen very few cases where users found a reason to bind themselves to the terms. I worked for a software company that did actually use sales contracts -- the customer would sign a license (in addition to forking over a lot of money) before they were given a copy of the software. The signed contract went into our file cabinet, to be used against the customer if we were to ever find out that they had done something with the software that they had agreed to never do (such as reverse-engineering). But in retail stores, that simply does not happen. EULAs take way too much transactional overhead for most vendors to bother to use.
If you have a few dozen sales per year, EULAs are viable for business. If you sell many thousands, as is the case with OS X, then selling EULAs is probably not profitable (unless you make the price high enough to cover the overhead and make the product desirable enough to overcome the loss of goodwill since many people are turned off by contracts). And that's why most software companies don't do it. They print a EULA and put it in the box, and maybe they even display a EULA when the user tries to install the software. But it's just a sample, or at most, a bluff. If you study the transaction, it is very clear that a copy of the software changes ownership long before the EULA is offered.
You don't to take my word for it; you can see this for yourself any time. Just go to a CompUSA cash register and watch what happens. Watch a software sale and a hardware sale, and see if you can detect any difference. See if you can spot something where the hardware changes ownership but the software copy doesn't. You won't find it.
If you want to see an example of a situation where a vendor and a user actually do establish a contract, sign up for cellphone service. Compare this transaction with a retail software purchase, and then you will see the drastic difference between contracts and sale of goods.
Re:Shrink Warp (Score:2)
Re:Shrink Warp (Score:2)
bnetd was a victim of the DMCA... not an EULA.
Re:One Way (Score:2)
QED.
The agreement allows virtualization. (Score:2, Interesting)
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.
OK let us do some legal parsing of the requirement "on a single Apple-labeled computer"
Let us assume you have an Apple purchased PC, running Windows. Can you run OSX in a VM under a Windows host.
1) Well, the license requires "on", not "under", not "within" and most damning not "as the operating system of" so as long as the underlying PC is runn
Re:One Way (Score:2)
I guess labels are uncool.
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Anyone care to be an asinine troll? Oh wait, you already are.
Re:One Way (Score:5, Interesting)
It might be interesting if Apple licensed someone's virtualization tech and used it to create a sort of downloadable "demo" version of OS X that Windows users could play around with, though. Can virtualized operating systems take advantage of GPU acceleration? Seems like that would be necessary for such an application, as OS X is somewhat less impressive for demo purposes without its GPU-accellerated eye candy.
Re:One Way (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless something has changed, I don't believe there is any copy-protection for OSX. The last few times i've installed/upgraded OSX, there was never any key required, nor did the DVD ever resist duplication.
To be honest, I would be suprised if Apple did NOT turn a blind eye to pirating of OSX. It happens to be a great way to get Windows users to *try* OSX. Assuming Windows-to-Mac converts will buy at least one Mac computer after trying OSX, the payoff would be substantial. (not to mention that it could be made into a bait-and-switch scenario, in which Apple hooks people with the OS and then forces them to get a Mac or license).
Re:One Way (Score:3, Informative)
Not the Apple way... (Score:2)
No way will Apple allow that to happen.
I'm one of those people who wanted to see OSX running in VMWare (under Linux, in my case). Have you heard of Maxxuss? He had actually done quite a lot to get Tiger running under VMWare. Even got networking to run fine. And it was easy enough for me to get running in VMWare. About the only thing left for him to accomplish, to my knowledge, was to get sound working. Apple s
Support Piracy or Not (Score:2)
Re:Support Piracy or Not (Score:2)
Exactly. Microsoft just has too much money now. Maybe they should forget about tightening XP against pirates and concentrate on Vista... Seriously, its the nature of the industry. Any security they can think of can and will be cracked (and fast).
Anyway many other posters see
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
A friend of mine got OS X running inside VMWare on a PC. He said it was not very usable. Accessing
Re:One Way (Score:2)
As per misleb, yes, it would be possible to allow a virtualized operating system to take advantage of GPU acceleration. It would require a graphics driver for the guest operating system that could pass OpenGL calls up to the host operating system. In a host OS w/ buffered graphics, the vi
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
I hope I am too pessimist but these news and mac users jumping up and down since they can run windows apps/games makes you wonder...
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Mac users would benefit if PC users were able to run a virtualised OS X.
VMware says "software developers" [vmware.com] are one of the primary targets of their Workstation product, and web developers are a part of that. Web sites are naturally quite portable, so you can test in IE and Firefox and Opera under Windows and just hope that it is good enough in Safari. There's not enough reason to go out and buy a Mac to test your web site, because it's expensive and your site probably works 'okay' anyway. But that means Mac
Re:One Way (Score:4, Interesting)
Someone please help.
Why? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Re:One Way (Score:2)
Awesome! (Score:4, Funny)
Now all of our textbooks will get to look like this:
Re:Awesome! (Score:2)
Other way round please (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Other way round please (Score:2)
Already done (Score:4, Informative)
You can run it natively, or inside VMWare either under Windows, or Linux. This should get you started: http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Vmwar
In my opinion, moving to intel hardware is the smartest move Apple has made since... well... the Apple IIe. Yes even smarter than the iPod IMO.
I think a lot of what keeps people stuck using Windows, is not an inherent love for Windows itself, but rather a reliance on the software base, and ease of use / maintenance. I also believe that a lot of Windows success is directly related to software piracy. I can see piracy really helping Apple.
I would never pay the extra money for an Apple... but if I am given a choice between using OS X and Windows without having to pay extra money for one over the other, I'll choose OS X any day.
out of interest (Score:2)
Re:out of interest (Score:2)
Re:Other way round please (Score:2)
1) Quit bitching.
2) Buy a new Apple Intel computer.
3) Rewrite/recompile Universal Binaries of your applications.
What about.. (Score:1)
Re:What about.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What about.. (Score:2)
(e.g. rely on OS X for general stuff, use windows for windows-only stuff and be able to rebuild a corrupted windows instance on the fly without being affected in the host OS)
This has been known for a while (Score:2)
This is good... (Score:3, Interesting)
Competition like this is good for the market - now I can try out VMWare, and if it works better than Parallels, I can use it. Choice is good.
Re:This is good... (Score:2)
Re:This is good... (Score:3, Informative)
Strange new world... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, VMWare's gonna host on OS X, and Microsoft likes Xen? And the Xen guys are getting dinged for their proprietary attitude [infoworld.com]?
Ok. We've arrived. All ashore that's going ashore!
Did anyone not expect this? (Score:3, Interesting)
A week or so after the Intel switch announcement I went to VMWare's forums. The most requested feature was an OS X version of the workstation product. It is pretty foolish to ignore that kind of demand in that particular market. Parallels beat them to market, but with a lot of missing functionality that may or may not be important to the customer base. So we have VMWare and Parallels with VMs using the Intel processor's emulation hardware. We have two WINE Windows API re-implementations, and we have Xen and MS with potential solutions as well. The only real unknown quantity is Apple themselves. If they release VMs built into OS X the market segment will adopt that standard. If they do it using a cross-platform standard, it will boost that standard considerably. If they don't release a built-in VM, the market segment will fragment with some companies using the re-implementation technologies to make quick ports and some users using each of the VM solutions and dual booting to cater to their own needs for running other OS's
Re:Did anyone not expect this? (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone not expect this? (Score:2)
Re:Did anyone not expect this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well they have also been asked to support Solaris x86 as a host platform since it's also a supported guest but it seems like thats not going to happen. So having a OS X client just because OS X is now on Intel was not a foregone conclusion.
The OS X market is much bigger than the Solaris market. Also, there were plenty of comments from the developers that they were working on an OS X version, even months ago. Finally, While Solaris is a pretty cool workstation OS, a whole lot of the more influential peopl
What about Virtual Center? (Score:2)
A number of things. (Score:2)
Second, I welcome VMWare for it's advanced features (snapshots, etc) over Parallels. That being said, I bought Parallels and it works well. It doesn't do everything, but it does work well and I got it long before the price increase.
Competition is good. I can't wait to play with VMWare on Mac OS X.
Any news about VMWare Console? (Score:3, Interesting)
The last time I tried anything like this, having no Console program, I logged directly into a GSX server and tried to run the console there, sending it back to the Mac over X-Windows, but could never get it to work (and it was a couple years ago so I forget the problem, but I seem to recall that I thought it was something endian-related.)
Re:Any news about VMWare Console? (Score:2)
Re:Any news about VMWare Console? (Score:2, Informative)
It should be possible to do what you described, i.e. to remote your X session over to your Mac and run the console. You might see screwed up colors on your display. If you don't care about actually running the full VMware Remote Console and you just want remote access to the guest's display, however, it's much easier to just activate the VNC server for the VM by adding:
RemoteDisplay.vnc.enabled = TRUE
RemoteDisplay.vnc.port = xxxx
Re:Any news about VMWare Console? (Score:2)
Need for Virtual PC? (Score:3, Insightful)
If I remember correctly, the standard Microsoft Office for Mac OS X is about $399 and the "professional" version is $499. Only difference? It includes Virtual PC with a copy of Windows XP Home. Now, how much is Virtual PC by itself, and how much do they charge for off-the-shelf copies?
Re:Need for Virtual PC? (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:2)
Crossover (Score:2)
Actually, the real competitor to Transgaming is this [codeweavers.com] (and Codeweavers actually releases its changes back to WINE!).
Re:I wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
A) VMWare doesn't care about Mac gamers, they mostly care about business and technical users.
B) They've been working on this for a while, and running job ads for Mac developers for a couple of months. If they were responding to the Cider announcement they would be just starting development, not announcing a public beta.
I question: (Score:2)
Not meaning to sound a troll, but if someone can explain to me the value of the program, then I may buy it. I am currently considering in investing in a copy of Crossover Mac. Would this be a better program?
Uh (Score:2)
Gamers still need to dual-boot (Score:2, Insightful)
-Jeff
Re:Does it run OS X? (Score:2)
If so, that'd mean they are virtualizing the treacherous computing hardware (TPM) and foiling Apple's copy protection.
Technically, you've been able to run OS X in a VMWare VM on top of Linux or Windows for a while, but VMWare does not support the hacks needed. This announcement is about running Windows or Linux or whatever in a VM on top of OS X, which is what most of us are more interested in anyways. I don't see how Apple would justify legal action or any reason why they would bother. This just makes O
Passthrough (Score:2)
They could just pass through TPM calls to the system TPM chip - TPM as apple uses it is not really copy protection, since you can copy OS X onto any other Mac. And of course only the Intel version of OS X even checks for that.
Re:Does it run OS X? (Score:2)
And you'd think that Apple would *want* OS X VMs, since it might encourage developers and others to use t
TPM virtualization (Score:2)
Well, the proponents of TPM, in order to try to comfort people into accepting it, have a long history of repeatedly stating that TPM is useful for far more applications than just DRM. Security, for example, and they even talk about malware-prevention to try to sell this stuff to the masses.
So if we "accept" what they say, then the purpose of virtualizing TPM would not primarily be to bypa
Re:I just don't get it (Score:2)
I don't understand why VMware would have a released Workstation for Linux sooner than for OSX (given the Linux-to-Apple Marketshare conundrum).
Only recently has OS X started running on top of x86 and only recently has VM hardware functions been built into x86 chips. These two things both make an OS X implementation a whole lot less work. Running VMWare on PPC would be a lot harder to manage. As soon as Apple moved to x86, this became easy and VMWare started work on getting it to market.
Re:I just don't get it (Score:3, Informative)
VMWare was out in the late 90's I use
Re:Emulation vs Virtualization (Score:2)
I think, that as soon as both products will get both reliable (Parallels?) and fast (VMware?) enough, then it will be just a question of price what to chose.
I expect this product to be free from VMWare. They have been building a model of free workstation level software to promote their high-end server and management tools. Parallels is doing okay right now, but if they want to continue to sell against several free solutions (VMWare, WINE, Xen) for the long haul they need to either get into the high-end m
Re:Emulation vs Virtualization (Score:2)
But time will tell.
Re:Emulation vs Virtualization (Score:2)
How is VMWare Workstation different from VMWare Server?
Re:Emulation vs Virtualization (Score:2)
Re:Emulation vs Virtualization (Score:2)
player: free version for desktop users, reasonablly optimised graphics but very little support for anything else
workstation: high end version for desktop users, has features targeted at developers (low level debugging) and product demo teams (bringing up a whole network of vms as one unit)
server: free version intended for server use, graphics subsystem designed for remote control and not exactly fast, uses a host OS (often undesirable in a server environment for preformance and stability) and (iirc)