Welcome to Bizarro World: Parallels and VMware running Mac OS X on XP?

Apple are going to have to address virtulisation in todays IT climate and here's why http://www.zelotus.com/2007/01/29/why-not-being-able-to-virtulise-mac-os-x-is-going-to-hurt-apple/

Well it explains alot :) Realy I was working in SWSoft more than 4 years and realy know what Parallels team can not joins this company more than 5 or 6 month ago. So Serge Belousov just lie as usualy.

seems they(VMware/parallels) can make a version for running on your windows bootcamp install on your mac that wouldn't violate the Eula, but incidentally would work on any machine. that way you could access your mac while in bootcamp and as a result others would be able to try the mac experience on their 'whatever' hardware.

@tim said: "It is going to suck if OS X is sold to be put on PCs, because then more and more people will have it, which means more crap that is on Windows will affect it (spyware, viruses)."

This was one of the ludicrous reasons people gave for Apple NOT to switch to Intel. "If OS X is on Intel, we'll have all of those Intel viruses, on noes!"

Totally incorrect. The viruses run on the operating system, not the hardware. Having OS X on PC hardware will not make it more susceptible to viruses.

Now, if you meant that when OS X becomes more popular it will be a bigger target for virus makers, then that may be true. However, that's a problem that Steve & Co. are only too glad to have.

"We've doubled our market share, and now we have viruses, what shall we do?"

"I know, sell them iVirus Protector!$!"

Dave Schroeder has a good summary of the issues here:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3280205&postcount=136

I just came across this site:

http://osxx86.tk/

It is going to suck if OS X is sold to be put on PCs, because then more and more people will have it, which means more crap that is on Windows will affect it (spyware, viruses).

Apple has superior hardware? How is a Core2Duo MacBook any different than a Core2Duo Dell? Don't they both have Intel boards inside? Same RAM? Same CPU? Perhaps you could argue that the LCD is better ... I don't know that it is... but c'mon... once Apple made the jump to Intel a lot of the Apple-Hardware-is-better argument kinda goes out the window. I had hundreds of 1st Gen LCD iMacs that died... lots of iBooks with another logic board issue... hundreds of recalled batteries... MacBooks that had some kind of thermal issues and had to go back to repair... an Intel XServe that had a dead drive controller after 24 hours of use...

so really ... I use a mac... I like my mac... but I mostly use the Mac hardware because of OS X... if I could run OS X on other hardware it would probably be a Dell D820 laptop honestly.

"A. This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time."

Nothing that my Brother P-Touch can't solve!

Thanks for bringing reason back into the discussion, Nathan. That was great!

This makes me very nervous for Apple's future. The typical thinking has been that this might rehash the clone years. However, one HAS to assume that Apple foresaw this inevitability with the switch to Intel.

Therefore, one also has to assume that Apple had a contingency plan for when this happened. Perhaps they really WILL start licensing the OS and pray that iPod/iPhone revenue will offset any lost hardware revenue. They are no longer "Apple Computer," after all.

If they do license the OS or allow virtualization to proceed, they may have to come up with value-adds for their hardware to compete. Perhaps .mac for free with Apple hardware?