Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Desktops (Apple)

VirtualBox Beta Supports OS X As Guest OS On Macs 154

Posted by kdawson
from the macs-on-macs-oh-my dept.
milesw writes "In addition to a slew of new features, VirtualBox 3.2.0 Beta 1 offers experimental support for Mac OS X guests running on Apple hardware. Got to wonder whether Larry Ellison discussed this with Steve Jobs beforehand, given Apple's refusal to allow virtualizing their (non-server) OS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

VirtualBox Beta Supports OS X As Guest OS On Macs

Comments Filter:
  • OSX on Vmware (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gaspyy (514539) on Friday April 30, 2010 @10:35AM (#32044042)

    OS X has been working for quite some time on VMWare with a Windows/Linux host. It's been even hacked to work with AMD processors on the host, so from a technical standpoint, nothing new.

    Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike. A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why? When Microsoft did that with WMA vs MP3, people complained. Loudly.

    • Re:OSX on Vmware (Score:5, Informative)

      by dingen (958134) on Friday April 30, 2010 @10:39AM (#32044096)

      A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why?

      That's not true at all. I have QuickTime Pro right here. When I choose "export" from the file menu, you can choose to export to an MP4 file. When you click "options", you can set the codec to H264. Here's a screenshot [kicks-ass.org].

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by gaspyy (514539)

        Doesn't work for me in Windows... sorry, I really didn't mean to sound trollish.

        • by dingen (958134)
          Seriously, QuickTime Pro in Windows? I'm amazed there are people who use that combination :-P
          • Please tell this to the people that produce movies in quicktime format that require quicktime. Until then, I still have to use QT. *

            * Although some media players can play that codec it seems, besides QT, but not always reliably for some reason...

            • Please tell this to the people that produce movies in quicktime format that require quicktime

              Not to encode...

              There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?

              • by CondeZer0 (158969)

                > There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?

                Because if you are a business, you are opening yourself to getting sued all the way into bankruptcy.

                Anyone can implement any patented algorithm and release the code as open source (hell, we all know it is impossible to write even "Hello World" without infringing on patents), but just because somebody wrote the code and it is out there, and maybe nobody has not been sued yet, that doesn't mean anyone using or distributi

                • by dingen (958134)
                  Only in countries which recognize software patents, such as the US. In Europe, there's no risk at all.
                  • by CondeZer0 (158969)

                    If you think there is no risk that Europe will get software patents some day you are either incredibly optimistic or incredibly naive.

                • by jedidiah (1196)

                  >> There are at least a lot of open source h.264 encoders, why not just use one of them?
                  >
                  > Because if you are a business, you are opening yourself to getting sued all the way into bankruptcy.

                  Then you use one of the many proprietary alternatives indicated by the existence of the Free Software one.

                  The point being that the Apple-only gear is hardly required by anyone.

                  The idea that it is, is just clueless fanboy nonsense.

                • Because if you are a business, you are opening yourself to getting sued all the way into bankruptcy.

                  Fine, then use any number of commercial encoders! There are a ton of choices, but the REALITY is that many people use software like FFMPEG today to encode h.264 videos that Quicktime plays back just fine. The thought that you need to encode using Quicktime, ever, is absurd!

                • This shows how the only way the world manages to deal with the insanity that is so called "intellectual property [cat-v.org]

                  I agree. However they include a quote by Thomas Jefferson, who started out as opposing patents. His friend James Madison convinced him patents could encourage progress though, and Jefferson eventually took out some patents himself. Jefferson was the one who determined how long patents should last, using actuary or Life [wikipedia.org] tables he calculated they should last 14 years with one 14 year extension p

            • by dingen (958134)
              The trend is to produce videos in an MP4 container using the H.264 codec. You can create and play this sort of video files with or without QuickTime, so everybody wins.
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by CondeZer0 (158969)

          QuickTime in Windows is an exercise in masochism.

    • by Smurf (7981)

      A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container.

      That's very odd. I can definitely export to H.264 + AAC in an MP4 container. Maybe it's because I'm still using Leopard (or QuickTime 7.6.6) ?

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike. A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container. Why? When Microsoft did that with WMA vs MP3, people complained. Loudly.

      Just rename the .MOV to .MP4. The formats are practically identical - the MPEG-4 group chose Apple's MOV format for that basis of the MP4 fo

    • Re:OSX on Vmware (Score:5, Insightful)

      by catmistake (814204) on Friday April 30, 2010 @11:34AM (#32044854) Journal

      Frankly, I'm getting really tired of all the artificial limitations that Jobs is placing left and right for developers and consumers alike

      I read your other posts, and it's not that you sound trollish or anything, just that you have your own experience, which as it turns out isn't what it's supposed to be and not Apple's fault. But I quoted you because it is becoming extremely trendy to bash Apple for jealously protecting their IP. It is difficult for one to separate personal preference or bias from the truth of the matter when trying to make a global evaluation of a company using a few gripes repeated ad infinitum by the uninformed. It's not an artificial limitation that Apple is employing. Or rather, it's no more artificial than Windows requiring a key. But Apple's money comes from hardware, and by restricting their software to only run on their hardware, by any means, they are creating a consumer insentive to buy their hardware. To quote the insane and immoral tyrant himself, "it's as simple as that."

      • by Urza9814 (883915)

        it's no more artificial than Windows requiring a key.

        I would disagree with you there. There's a huge difference between saying 'you can only use our software if you purchase it legally' and 'you can only use our software if it's on our hardware'. If their hardware was different and they didn't want to do extra work to make OS X run on non-mac hardware, fine. But it isn't anymore. There's really no difference between a mac and a high end Dell. The _only reason_ you can't run OS X on a Dell is because Steve Jobs says so. For some reason nobody defends Microsoft

        • The Mac is the key. Think of it as a great big dongle. It's really the same thing. However, there are more complex reasons I won't go into concerning user experience and streamlining customer support that speak to your hair splitting. In a nutshell, Apple doesn't sell computers, they sell lifestyle... and accessories to go with that, including Macintosh. The product they sell isn't a PC, though it duplicates all a PC can do. Apple doesn't have a business division, for all those multibillion dollar businesse
        • There's really no difference between a mac and a high end Dell.

          There is a big difference, they both make money on hardware. Apple makes software too though whereas Dell doesn't. Once upon a tyme Apple did allow Mac clones [wikipedia.org] but Apple lost money on them.

          Falcon

      • Apple's money comes from hardware and software both.

        and by restricting their software to only run on their hardware

        Apple releases software for Macs and Windows. QuickTime 7 Pro for Windows [apple.com]. Apple even has iTunes [apple.com] and Safari [apple.com] for Windows. While not much there are some Windows software from Apple.

        they are creating a consumer insentive to buy their hardware.

        Insensitive? I switched from MS Windows PCs to Linux and Macs and I have not had as many problems with my Mac in the almost 3 years I've had it than I ha

    • by Kenja (541830)
      Also works with OS X running in VMware Fusion with an OS X host. Not sure how any of this is news.
    • MP4 [wikipedia.org] and QuickTime MOV are the same container format, actually. You could have renamed the .MOV extension to .MP4 and the world will not notice a tree falling in the middle of a forest.
  • Than what about the Apple approved boot camp? VMware Fusion, and a bunch of other products?

    Granted those have a host OS of OSX and a VM of something else. Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM? I know quite a few people who would do that. They have a need for OSX. However, that need does not justify buying an all out Apple computer. A VM for the use would fit the bill better.

    I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This w

    • by dingen (958134)

      Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?

      Because Apple is not in the business of selling operating systems, they are in the business of selling computers. If people could run Mac OS X on non-Macs, that would hurt Mac sales, virtualized or not.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jedidiah (1196)

        The biggest threat that comes from virtualized MacOS is the possibility that people might be
        able to try MacOS without any real investment in the process. They could easily and cheaply
        determine for themselves if it is "all that".

        You will no longer need to be a "geek" to give MacOS a serious test drive.

        That will likely cause all of Apple's mystique to evaporate.

    • Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?

      Because Apple can't make any money off their hardware if people weren't forced to buy it along with OS X.

      The big barrier keeping OS X from running on any ol' box came down when they switched to Intel, so now they protect their income stream with a EULA and a bunch of lawyers instead.

      • Still why can't someone buy OSX 10.6 and put it in a VM?

        Because Apple can't make any money off their hardware if people weren't forced to buy it along with OS X.

        The big barrier keeping OS X from running on any ol' box came down when they switched to Intel, so now they protect their income stream with a EULA and a bunch of lawyers instead.

        Except that isn't it either. Snow Leopard was the first Mac OS that required an Intel CPU. Leopard [wikipedia.org], released on 26 October 2007, could be installed on a PowerPC G4 [apple.com] from

    • by Joe U (443617)

      I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support. Or is that against the law?

      Breaking a EULA isn't illegal. There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware, the ruling was that you can't tie software to hardware.

      If you can go out and buy OSX in a store, you can install it on your microwave oven if you really want to.

      Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this isn't legal advice. (It's obviously a template for a microwave oven OSX installation guide that I'm working on)

      • Breaking a EULA isn't illegal. There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware, the ruling was that you can't tie software to hardware.

        1. Breach of a EULA isn't illegal, but it means that you lose _all_ rights to the software involved, including making _any_ copies that run _anywhere_. It's not the breach of the EULA that is your problem, it is the consequent copyright infringement. If Apple's EULA said "you have to pay us $10,000 for any copy that you install on a Dell computer", and you installed MacOS X on a Dell, you would most likely be able to argue that you don't have to pay $10,000 because you didn't agree to the EULA, but you woul

        • by Joe U (443617)

          1. Breach of a EULA isn't illegal, but it means that you lose _all_ rights to the software involved, including making _any_ copies that run _anywhere_. It's not the breach of the EULA that is your problem, it is the consequent copyright infringement. If Apple's EULA said "you have to pay us $10,000 for any copy that you install on a Dell computer", and you installed MacOS X on a Dell, you would most likely be able to argue that you don't have to pay $10,000 because you didn't agree to the EULA, but you would have to face the full consequences of your copyright infringement.

          I don't buy that. I paid for software in a software store and I'm not making copies for anyone else. As far as I'm concerned, it's a sale. When you have me sign the EULA before the sale, then I'll agree with you.

          Data General vs. Digidyne is quoted again and again and again but it doesn't apply as long as you don't have hardware that can run MacOS X _and nothing else

          That's the problem with rulings like this. It didn't specifically say that, what it did say was The court concluded that the tying arrangement was illegal per se, because petitioner's RDOS operating system was sufficiently unique and desirable to an appreciable number of buyers to enable petitioner

      • There was a supreme court ruling in 1985 [findlaw.com] that dealt with installing software on unsupported hardware

        The problem here is that, in addition to EULA, there's encryption involved too (Mac OS X relies on a key inside the TPM chip of the target mac).
        And although USA did apparently consider EULAs invalid, according to the case you cite, the USA's DMCA law doesn't not allow enough provisions to circumvent that DRM (although in Switzerland, it would have been probably possible).

        So you could install Mac OS X legally on any hardware you would like, but there's a lock that prevent you from doing it and this lock can

    • I know it is related to support. Jobs is afraid of people having OSX issues and people complaining about OSX. This would go against the belief that OSX is perfect and never crashes or has problems. Simply put in a disclaimer: If you run OSX on non Apple hardware or in a VM you are on your own for support.

      Jobs is also concerned about Apple losing money allowing OEMs to install OS X on non-Apple hardware. Apple [wikipedia.org] already tried that.

      Falcon

  • VMWare and OS X (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I have been running OS X virtualized in VMWare for the last 6 months now. Unfortunately Apple won't release their SDK for Windows, so I had to look into it. Oh and its running on an AMD host as well. Heres the (30 minute) guide:

    http://adbge.org/installing-snow-leopard-as-a-virtual-machine/

  • Why is installing MacOS so painfully slow...

    • No idea, I had to do it three times today... and Apple's definition of 35 minutes for Snow Leopard is similar to the Microsoft Time Units used to measure Vista install times.

      Windows 7 smokes OS X on install time. (Although, is install time THAT big of a deal?)

    • Installing OS X take me less tyme than installing MS Windows did. And that's on a Mac laptop versus a PC tower.

      Falcon

  • This is a promising start, but to what end? Everything I'd do on a Mac is done much better on either Windows or Linux. I triple boot on a Dell Mini10v, and I never boot into mac anymore. Recording Music and Editing Video are way better in Linux Mint (and faster, and easier). And games are all obviously better and easier and faster on Windows. I have Firefox on all 3 platforms, but it still seems to run best on Windows. Frequently I actually run Firefox on a VDI of MicroXP, just so I can have all my bo

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable.

Working...