testing software, testing apple's updates to make sure they don't kill your 1. machine, 2. your software you are developing. Installing a server. Creating a virtual OS to run applications on that you are unsure you want to hork up your system. Hiding activity from [insert tin foil hat here] by having a virtual machine you can clone and delete...the list is enormous.
Well, I've heard of people getting OS X to run under VMWare, so I know it's possible.
I haven't read through the agreement with a fine tooth comb, so you'll have to quote the section which is violated when running under an emulator.
It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.
I personally like having my technology as open as possible for any possible use I could ever imagine. But if you like being locked down by the world of business, then by all means, go right ahead.
It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.
I'll let the OSx86 guys do that for me. (in a country which doesn't enforce those laws)
It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.
Since not only hasn't Apple prevented OS X running under VMware before, but has publicized it, it will be interesting to see if they have changed their policy.
If you are a developer than you are (or should be) an MSDB subscriber, and you have a different EULA licensing agreement to handle this sort of scenario. You will probably (note that I said "probably") be able to install on up to 10 machines.
The company I work for has an MSDN subscription, but I personally don't. And not all the work I do is for the company, so I'm not always covered by that EULA.
I don't know the current terms of the developer EULA, or how it will change for Vista, but let's hope MS handles this intelligently...
[QUOTE=nascarnate326]But with 10.4 almost equaling vista, why would someone pay $300 when 10.5 is better and already installed? /QUOTE]
Say what? Wow, this comment has completely slipped under the proverbial radar. You would normally be run off these boards for making a comment like this, yet there has been nothing...
i read that wording differently than some people do. I can kind of see how it looks like it means you cant run a copy of the OS in a virtual machine on the same licensed copy of the OS, where youd have to buy 2 copies...
I dont read it that way though, i read it as you have to have ultimate or corprate to run it under any virtualization on any OS even with a different license.
Mainly because, if your "licensed device" is say the Parallels virtual machine, and you install Windows on it, you are running that copy of Windows in a virtual environment. The text said it cannot be run on that device in a virtual or emulated system, which is what it is your doing if you try to license it to that single virtual machine.
The article claims: "...[Apple] has declined to comment on whether it has been working behind the scenes to transition the technology into its own virtualization solution."
Wrong. Phil Shiller said this to an analyst:
?Absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we?re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.?
But with 10.4 almost equaling vista, why would someone pay $300 when 10.5 is better and already installed? /QUOTE]
Say what? Wow, this comment has completely slipped under the proverbial radar. You would normally be run off these boards for making a comment like this, yet there has been nothing...
oh everyone of you that bash M$ crack me up completely. Waaaah, Have to pay to virtualize the OS.
Ok, now go run OS X in a virtual machine...oh wait, YOU CAN'T! Not at ALL. Its against the terms of the software agreement.
I'd prefer to PAY for an option compared to NOT HAVE IT AT ALL.
GO bash Jobs over this one. I'd love to have a virtual OS X set up to develop on. The bad guy here is APPLE, not M$. At least you CAN. It might COST you, but YOU bloody CAN do it.
Ever since Apple was conceived, the whole point was to develop the OS specifically for the hardware. That is what Apple do and have done for ever. If OSX ran in any way (certainly legally) on Joe Shlong's PC then Apple would lose a huge aspect of what makes them unique. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always claimed that their OS is for any computer - that is what differentiates Apple from Microsoft.
So you see, Apple is not being evil, they are simply doing what they have always done.
What Microsoft are doing is understandable, though somewhat annoying, and a bit lame (like petty oneupsmanship).
At the end of the day, I don't see why most of us should care. We will all find our own solutions and for the few who require legitimate virtualisation then, yes, I guess you'll have to cough up the somewhat overpriced (yet understandable) premium.
For me, boot camp is fine. I have office on my mac (although, come on Steve, you should be able to at least equal it. I mean, Pages...? Sort it out), and will use some form of windows (which will no doubt have to be Vista sooner or later) for a few games and maybe Maya (if AutoDesk abandon it on OSX - which they had better not!).
I personally think what MS is doing is great. It will require most users to make a clean break from Windows. Buy a Mac and don't even bother installing Vista. Why pay 200 more for an inferior OS with inferior apps. Sure, there are apps on Windows that don't exist on OS X...the same can be said about OS X.
I hope MS continues to restrict and remove support for apps on the Mac.
Doesn't the wording of the licencing for Vista mean that with Vista Home one may not run the same licence in virtual machine? So that to run a virtualisation of Vista Home requires two licenced products while if one had Vista Premium one could run a virtualised version of Vista using the product licence (i.e.: one would not be required to buy another licence? It would seem to be the intent behind the wording.
In effect, if one bought/had an unused Vista Home licence one could install that as a VM on an Apple Computer computer. One should hope so, anyhow.
"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device," the company wrote in the licensing agreements for the higher-priced systems. So device=the hardware computer (the product key licenced to the physical mahine) may not be used again in a virtual environment -unless one have Premium Biz edition.
If you make the assumption that only one OS is ever running at any given time, and each OS has access to it's own separate section of memory and hard drive space, then the problem becomes much simpler.
Fascinating... But I'm still not sold on the practicality to implement something like this. There must be some authority in charge of ensuring that the resources used by one OS (filesystem and memory) are truly distinct from the resources used by the other OS. The argument could probably be made that that authority is acting as an "other form of emulation"... (That wording is open to a pretty broad range of possible definitions)
It would really be unfortunate if we ended up going through what was effectively a complete hibernation cycle (save complete state to protected storage), then reboot into other OS (which proceeds to load its state out of protected storage and resumes) every time. As far as I'm concerned, there wouldn't be enough tangible benefit over old-fashioned dual booting other than being somewhat faster on the turnaround.
As for license terms and the fact that all MSDN members get to use a sweeter deal than regular mortals...
Consider a company that isn't directly in the business of writing Windows software, but which is the first line of support for a branded software product that comes from a third source. This company routinely uses virtualization to achieve more in-depth troubleshooting technical data to try to find a cause before forwarding the problem to the third party. But their core competency revenue stream doesn't justify the ongoing cost of subscribing to MSDN. They're already invested in the "Pro" versions of Windows XP (they cannot run their CAD software on XP Home...), and they'd opt for the "business" version of Vista whenever it becomes available. This might be a money-saver for them come upgrade time, since they'll be able to replace two Pro XP seats with a single Business Vista seat.
I personally know several folk whose software development goes on as a hobby, or otherwise without the direct support of Microsoft. They use virtualization just like the big boys. Currently, if they want to obey their license terms, they must own two complete copies of any Windows XP edition. Possibly with Vista, they'll be able to own just one copy (one of the Pro versions) and the virtualized copy of the OS for cleanroom testing would be included in the original purchase price. Sorta renders the "multiple licenses" portion of the special MSDN EULA obsolete, doesn't it...
Comments
Now, remind me again, WHY would you do this??
testing software, testing apple's updates to make sure they don't kill your 1. machine, 2. your software you are developing. Installing a server. Creating a virtual OS to run applications on that you are unsure you want to hork up your system. Hiding activity from [insert tin foil hat here] by having a virtual machine you can clone and delete...the list is enormous.
Well, I've heard of people getting OS X to run under VMWare, so I know it's possible.
I haven't read through the agreement with a fine tooth comb, so you'll have to quote the section which is violated when running under an emulator.
It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.
Now, remind me again, WHY would you do this??
I think the question for me is: why not?
I personally like having my technology as open as possible for any possible use I could ever imagine. But if you like being locked down by the world of business, then by all means, go right ahead.
It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.
I'll let the OSx86 guys do that for me.
Well, I've heard of people getting OS X to run under VMWare, so I know it's possible.
I haven't read through the agreement with a fine tooth comb, so you'll have to quote the section which is violated when running under an emulator.
Yes. Apple has never stopped that from working.
It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.
Since not only hasn't Apple prevented OS X running under VMware before, but has publicized it, it will be interesting to see if they have changed their policy.
If I choose to pay them for a full OS, I'm going to use it how I please. "Intellectual property" is BS anyway.
It's pretty obvious that you don't have any.
If you are a developer than you are (or should be) an MSDB subscriber, and you have a different EULA licensing agreement to handle this sort of scenario. You will probably (note that I said "probably") be able to install on up to 10 machines.
The company I work for has an MSDN subscription, but I personally don't. And not all the work I do is for the company, so I'm not always covered by that EULA.
I don't know the current terms of the developer EULA, or how it will change for Vista, but let's hope MS handles this intelligently...
Say what?
I dont read it that way though, i read it as you have to have ultimate or corprate to run it under any virtualization on any OS even with a different license.
Mainly because, if your "licensed device" is say the Parallels virtual machine, and you install Windows on it, you are running that copy of Windows in a virtual environment. The text said it cannot be run on that device in a virtual or emulated system, which is what it is your doing if you try to license it to that single virtual machine.
Listen M$: you have NO right! I will never ever purchase any M$ product again. Ever!
Oh geez.
As someone else mentioned, Microsoft has every right. They created the OS, they dictate the terms.
You, as a consumer have every right to buy or not buy their products.
Wrong. Phil Shiller said this to an analyst:
?Absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and we?re not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.?
http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07...smac/index.php
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/...09120049.shtml
Now, they may have something in the works regardless of what they say in public, but to claim they've 'declined to comment' is JPW*.
*Just Plain Wrong
But with 10.4 almost equaling vista, why would someone pay $300 when 10.5 is better and already installed? /QUOTE]
Say what?
Uh ... Ok. But he was right, wasn't he ? ...
Listen M$: you have NO right! I will never ever purchase any M$ product again. Ever!
Yeah! nor me!
... Ill keep using one or two though
oh everyone of you that bash M$ crack me up completely. Waaaah, Have to pay to virtualize the OS.
Ok, now go run OS X in a virtual machine...oh wait, YOU CAN'T! Not at ALL. Its against the terms of the software agreement.
I'd prefer to PAY for an option compared to NOT HAVE IT AT ALL.
GO bash Jobs over this one. I'd love to have a virtual OS X set up to develop on. The bad guy here is APPLE, not M$. At least you CAN. It might COST you, but YOU bloody CAN do it.
Ever since Apple was conceived, the whole point was to develop the OS specifically for the hardware. That is what Apple do and have done for ever. If OSX ran in any way (certainly legally) on Joe Shlong's PC then Apple would lose a huge aspect of what makes them unique. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always claimed that their OS is for any computer - that is what differentiates Apple from Microsoft.
So you see, Apple is not being evil, they are simply doing what they have always done.
What Microsoft are doing is understandable, though somewhat annoying, and a bit lame (like petty oneupsmanship).
At the end of the day, I don't see why most of us should care. We will all find our own solutions and for the few who require legitimate virtualisation then, yes, I guess you'll have to cough up the somewhat overpriced (yet understandable) premium.
For me, boot camp is fine. I have office on my mac (although, come on Steve, you should be able to at least equal it. I mean, Pages...? Sort it out), and will use some form of windows (which will no doubt have to be Vista sooner or later) for a few games and maybe Maya (if AutoDesk abandon it on OSX - which they had better not!).
I hope MS continues to restrict and remove support for apps on the Mac.
In effect, if one bought/had an unused Vista Home licence one could install that as a VM on an Apple Computer computer. One should hope so, anyhow.
"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device," the company wrote in the licensing agreements for the higher-priced systems. So device=the hardware computer (the product key licenced to the physical mahine) may not be used again in a virtual environment -unless one have Premium Biz edition.
If you make the assumption that only one OS is ever running at any given time, and each OS has access to it's own separate section of memory and hard drive space, then the problem becomes much simpler.
Fascinating... But I'm still not sold on the practicality to implement something like this. There must be some authority in charge of ensuring that the resources used by one OS (filesystem and memory) are truly distinct from the resources used by the other OS. The argument could probably be made that that authority is acting as an "other form of emulation"... (That wording is open to a pretty broad range of possible definitions)
It would really be unfortunate if we ended up going through what was effectively a complete hibernation cycle (save complete state to protected storage), then reboot into other OS (which proceeds to load its state out of protected storage and resumes) every time. As far as I'm concerned, there wouldn't be enough tangible benefit over old-fashioned dual booting other than being somewhat faster on the turnaround.
As for license terms and the fact that all MSDN members get to use a sweeter deal than regular mortals...
Consider a company that isn't directly in the business of writing Windows software, but which is the first line of support for a branded software product that comes from a third source. This company routinely uses virtualization to achieve more in-depth troubleshooting technical data to try to find a cause before forwarding the problem to the third party. But their core competency revenue stream doesn't justify the ongoing cost of subscribing to MSDN. They're already invested in the "Pro" versions of Windows XP (they cannot run their CAD software on XP Home...), and they'd opt for the "business" version of Vista whenever it becomes available. This might be a money-saver for them come upgrade time, since they'll be able to replace two Pro XP seats with a single Business Vista seat.
I personally know several folk whose software development goes on as a hobby, or otherwise without the direct support of Microsoft. They use virtualization just like the big boys. Currently, if they want to obey their license terms, they must own two complete copies of any Windows XP edition. Possibly with Vista, they'll be able to own just one copy (one of the Pro versions) and the virtualized copy of the OS for cleanroom testing would be included in the original purchase price. Sorta renders the "multiple licenses" portion of the special MSDN EULA obsolete, doesn't it...