OK, the Parallels-dar was apparently down for refurbishment this weekend, since everyone else has this story already: CNN/Money has posted a column by David Fitzpatrick of Fortune that reveals some fascinating tidbits about virtualization in, and virtualization of, Mac OS X.Fitzpatrick announced, apparently for the first time in public, that Parallels is the corporate child of server-side virtualization company SWsoft, makers of VM tool Virtuozzo and server management console Plesk. It's SWsoft's deep pockets that have been keeping the lights on during the cold Moscow winters (most of the Parallels dev team is located in Russia). Even more fascinating, Fitzpatrick quotes the chiefs of both SWsoft and VMware on another topic (emphasis mine):
VMware's CEO Diane Greene told me last week that her company's existing x86 desktop product is already being used by some to run Mac OS on computers from Dell, HP and others, though this is not intentional on VMware's part.
SWsoft's Beloussov says that this spring, Parallels will upgrade its software further, in a way that by coincidence will make it easier to run Mac OS on a non-Apple computer. He also insists that is not deliberate, but just a consequence of the nature of the technology, especially now that Intel builds virtualization technology into its chips.
Really truly? If this is happening, it's a very big deal. With the back-office expertise of both VMware and SWsoft, when Mac OS X (or, more likely, Mac OS X Server) becomes a virtualized player on server-class systems, it's going to shake things up quite a bit for Mac server admins. If any of you out there are already running Mac OS X under VMware on Windows... don't hide your light under a bushel, let us know about it.Update 8 am ET: Several loyal night-shift readers have noted that a hacked version of OS X has been runnable under VMware for some time. I'm aware of this, but -- and no disrespect to the dedicated folks at insanelymac.com that are working to optimize the experience -- this situation is parallel (pun intended) to the XPonMac.com boot loader vs. Boot Camp. When a boxed copy of OS X runs under a standard install of VMware or Parallels, you've entered what I shudder to call the Hack-Free Zone; that's a place where the non-enthusiast community may take advantage of the capability, as happened with Boot Camp. Not to forget, OS X does not require serial number activation... so a Parallels image of OS X would be infinitely portable. That's not gonna last.
Thanks David!
[via Download Squad/Engadget]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
1-23-2007 @ 1:41AM
Nate said...
I don't know too many server admins that would be willing to break a License Agreement to run OS X via virtualization. I do know a lot of scruffy-looking people that rarely shower who would be willing to do so, however.
The Parallels-SWsoft connection is very intriguing. That explains a LOT.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 1:45AM
Joe Golike said...
Hmmmm... How long do you think it will be before Steve Jobs and Co. sue?
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 2:39AM
Mr Lizard said...
Back to the TPM drawing board!
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 2:41AM
D said...
Gee, some ancient news. People have been running OS X quite succesfully under both VMWare and natively since the first Intel leak came out in mid 2005, and from what I know, it's farily painless and easy too.
Did you guys know that you can drag the dock around holding shift?!
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 2:43AM
D said...
Didn't wnat to sound That sarcastic, sorry. I love you guys, group hug everyone!
But seriously though, the Mac users must have really been in denial - those who really wanted, and had a compatible PC config for that, could run OS X on their PCs for quite some time now.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 2:45AM
Denmaru said...
You really think just by stating stating that it's illegal in some kind of EULA, it is REALLY illegal? YOu can write everything in these, it isn't worth a damn unless you *prove* to a court that is is illegal. And I want to see Apple doing this.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 2:46AM
D said...
Oh, and Nate, what exactly does it explain? With or without that in mind, we still have a piece of software that sells hotter than anything else, comparable to, perhaps, only MS Office for Mac.
I work at a Mac reseller store, and we can barely keep up with stocking more and more Parallels.
You know what's not hot? Windows Retail and Taxtron. Oh, and that iPod fitness software with a gay guy on the cover. I think he looks kind of nice, but most people clearly don't share the same point of view.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 3:05AM
Nitewing98 said...
Uh, I don't think even the EULA for OS X says anything about running it on non-Apple equipment, does it? Just because you're running it in a virtual environment, that doesn't mean it's illegal as long as you PURCHASED a copy of the OS.
Or am I missing something?
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 3:09AM
Kai Howells said...
Yes, it works... But...
I've seen it in action - 10.4.8 running in VMWare on Windows XP - but it was an illegal version of Mac OS X someone downloaded off bittorrent that had been hacked to remove the TPM checking parts... In other words, it was a version of OS X for generic PC hardware and as such was not only illegal, but comes with no support from Apple whatsoever.
Oh, and no, I didn't inhale...
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 3:13AM
Erik Zandboer said...
I too got it to work without trouble. Indeed a hacked version. runs both natively and under VMware products. However, I have not seen this running under VMware ESX which would REALLY stir things up. Anyone seen this?
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 3:56AM
tom said...
haha... this is news?
OS X has been running on PCs since not more than a month after Apple's switch to intel processors. It is in fact easier to install than MS windows. There is clearly no plans to sue, take a look at insanelymac.com where modified drivers and system extensions are created and released. The development is actually proceeding as if it were an open-source OS like linux. My current hp pc is a "hackintosh" and runs with full opengl and quartz extreme thanks to the insanelymac community.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 4:06AM
Fritz Laurel said...
OSX on Dell, et al?? Yeah, whatever. I'm all over SheepShaver, baby!
Actually, all seriousness aside, this whole "virtualization" industry is quite interesting to me. I can almost see a day where running apps on the hardware becomes less OS-dependent. Why stop with so-called virtualization?
I mean, we're not really talking about virtualization so much as it used to be. What's being "virtualized?" It's really just the environment the OS runs in. For the most part, Windows and OSX can run natively on whatever modern x86-based hardware. CPUs are the same now, and the rest of the hardware looks like it's following suit with what appear to be largely Intel-designed boards in Macs now, too.
If hardware is no longer the delimiting factor, then where is the line drawn? Will it be all about the apps at that point? Will the apps come bundled with OS tidbits? Is this pointing to something like OpenDoc again?
Just thinking out loud...
Cheers,
FL
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 4:42AM
Amy Veeres said...
I'm running OS X through parallels on my MacBook that runs XP. :D
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 7:31AM
petard said...
@Nitewing98: Did you read the license? It's not subtle. You can get a copy here: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx1044.pdf
In Paragraph 2:
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. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple
Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 7:47AM
Geoff said...
peterd said: "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. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple
Software on any non-Apple-labeled computer, or to enable others to do so."
Do I get to view that license before opening the box, etc? No? So, it's not printed on the outside of the box or something then eh? Hm, interesting...
Regardless, do you suppose that clause is worth the paper it's written on? If Apple puts a clause in there that says I have to kill someone, and I don't, am I in breach of contract?
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 7:59AM
Erik Zandboer said...
@ Eric (reply 14):
I think you're right, that's why the OSX under VMware appeared to be so slow on my machine I guess under VMware. Opening/closing of windows etc. has to be run through software instead of through graphic (hardware) accelerators.
I assume you can get rid of all of these "nice things that don't really do anything" like scrolling/fading/curving/whathaveyou, and then it might be useable under VMware...?
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 7:59AM
Felipe Cepriano said...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/felipecn/258793632/
A cracked version of OS X running on VMWare.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 8:02AM
Johnny Thrash said...
Apple has superior hardware, why would you want Dell, HP or any of the others?
I know Apple is more expensive, but after all, you get what you pay for.
I'd prefer Apple hardware running the other OS's anyday.
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 8:04AM
Eric said...
Well
everything is fine if you have 4Gig ram.
just the graphic card... is too slow.. no matter wot, non-fix.
os x's graphic is non-usable in vmware even u have 2 x 8800GTX SLI
Reply
1-23-2007 @ 8:13AM
Mike Rose said...
I've updated the main post in response to some of the comments, thanks everybody for burning the midnight oil... :-)
Reply