How can I run OS X, and Ubuntu in a Virtual PC?

M

marley1

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2000
Messages
5,447
I downloaded Virtual PC 2007, but can only do microsoft programs.

I want to run a Virtual Ubuntu and OSX if possible. OS X mite need a bunch of hacking, I dunno if its simple or not, but would like to do Ubuntu.

Whats hte easiest way to do this? Am i really limited to VmWare?
 
Legally, you can't run OSX on non-Apple hardware, and that's all I have to say about that.

Ubuntu might not work quite as well in VirtualPC as it does in VMWare or VirtualBox. Microsoft won't admit it, but Linux distros running inside Microsoft's own virtual machine software just doesn't live up to snuff, basically. It's unsupported, for one thing, but it can work.

I'd suggest VirtualBox, personally, as it's very lean on the resources compared to other solutions.
 
VirtualBox pretty much works the same as Virtual PC? Virtual PC 2007 pretty damn easy to use.

So i cant just buy a OS X dvd and boot of that in a virtual pc??

Any other options?
 
The only advice I can offer is this. Dual boot. It's easy, and it will give you a much better Ubuntu experience if you give it it's own drive. There is no reason to try and run Ubuntu inside Windows.. if your just trying to get a taste, use a live CD until you decide if you like it well enough to dedicate drive space to it.

And, as bbz said.. running OSX on anything other than Apple hardware is technically illegal, so your probably on your own with that one.
 
ii dont really wanna dual boot, i like messing around with the virtual pc, i like being in windows to check out some stuff.

ill check out virtual box.
 
Only issue you will have with virtual pc if they haven't fixed it yet is that you will need to change the color res in linux. A lot of linux distros default to 24 bit color. Virtual pc 04 and before didn't support 24 bit color. Had to go in and change the color of the linux desktop to 16 bit and you were fine. Not sure if 07 supports higher res color then before or not.

As running mac os is not legal on non-apple hardware I'm not going into getting it to work.
 
You can run OSX unmodified with PearPC iirc. I understand it's quite slow though.
 
marley1 said:
So i cant just buy a OS X dvd and boot of that in a virtual pc??
Click to expand...

You have to be a part of the Apple Developer program. http://developer.apple.com/products/

If you're a college student and can provide proof of so, you can get OSX for about $100. If you're not a college student, then you're gonna have to pay $500. HOWEVER, I believe it is illegal to install on non-Apple hardware. But I suggest you contact Apple for more clarification.
 
It is illegal - and for those people that might go into it from the "It's not illegal in my country/province/planet/state of mind" it doesn't matter: the EULA says it's not to be installed on non-Apple hardware, so that's that.

I think it's been established that you're not supposed to do it, so regardless of the solutions that might actually accomplish it, it's probably best that this dog be left alone to sleep <hint, hint>.

I know odoe hates the <hint, hint> thing in most any situation that I and some other people do, but that <hint, hint> should be pretty strong for anyone to understand. :D
 
I'm using Parallels to run OpenSUSE under Windows Vista. I couldn't get Ubuntu to run under Parallels, I'm still not sure why.

I think I might try to play with VirtualBox.
 
Often curious about this... is it really "illegal"? Is there a law against it? I know it's against the EULA (which few people ever read anyway - and thus how can it be binding anymore than me writing "cashing this check means you agree to give me your kidney"?) And a EULA cannot be a contract, since a contract is a "meeting of the minds" and is mutual agreement.

But there is it seems to me a difference between something not allowed or discouraged, or not-licensed and being "illegal" as in against the LAW.

LAW meaning that full force as in GUNS, can be brought to bear against you.
 
digital_exhaust said:
The only advice I can offer is this. Dual boot. It's easy, and it will give you a much better Ubuntu experience if you give it it's own drive. There is no reason to try and run Ubuntu inside Windows.. if your just trying to get a taste, use a live CD until you decide if you like it well enough to dedicate drive space to it.

And, as bbz said.. running OSX on anything other than Apple hardware is technically illegal, so your probably on your own with that one.
Click to expand...

**Ahem...cough cough*** :D
Well now, I have reason to run Ubuntu inside windows, and currently use VMWare to do so. It may not be a reason for you to do so but it is for me - folding using the 64bit Linux client in 32bit windows. I need the PC's to be Windows all the time so it's the only way to do that.

See what happens when we speak in absolutes ;)
 
charpman said:
Often curious about this... is it really "illegal"? Is there a law against it? I know it's against the EULA (which few people ever read anyway - and thus how can it be binding anymore than me writing "cashing this check means you agree to give me your kidney"?) And a EULA cannot be a contract, since a contract is a "meeting of the minds" and is mutual agreement.

But there is it seems to me a difference between something not allowed or discouraged, or not-licensed and being "illegal" as in against the LAW.

LAW meaning that full force as in GUNS, can be brought to bear against you.
Click to expand...

Depending on the state/country you reside in, a violation of the EULA can be illegal. And depending on the mood of the judge, could lead to conviction.

In general, it is the same as any prohibitions listed on a concert ticket. As long as a reasonable attempt was made to make the purchaser aware of the terms and conditions, courts have at times sided with the companies as long as the term or condition is "fair" or not unusual. There is past precedence for courts saying that clicking "I agree" binds you to those terms you probably didn't bother to read, just like there's past precedence for hte opposite. Since most EULA's are agreed to post-sale, they're more difficult to legally enforce.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showpost.php?p=1903351&postcount=25 has a bunch of interesting links about some prior cases, both in support of and against legally enforcing the EULA.
 
Hurshai said:
How do you expect them to find out?
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the event. The whole activiation feature in software/operating systems allows the vendor to verify that certain portions of the EULA are being adhered to. If they find out otherwise, then it's a question of how they want to handle it and if they want to prosecute. However, there's still the more fundamental question of legality.

In other words, "Is it illegal?" and "If I do it will I go to jail?" are two very different questions. While it is illegal to steal a penny from my desk drawer, I doubt I'd press charges if I found out, and I'd be surprised if the "system" would entertain my desire to punish the lawbreaker.
 
charpman said:
**Ahem...cough cough*** :D
Well now, I have reason to run Ubuntu inside windows, and currently use VMWare to do so. It may not be a reason for you to do so but it is for me - folding using the 64bit Linux client in 32bit windows. I need the PC's to be Windows all the time so it's the only way to do that.

See what happens when we speak in absolutes ;)
Click to expand...

Dude your going to get better performance running the 32bit windows client. Until vmware supports hardware virtualization performance in a virtual machine will be marginally slower then native performance.
 
Hurshai said:
How do you expect them to find out?
Click to expand...

I don't really think that's the point.. and this thread is going off topic really quickly here but.... It is clearly stated in the EULA that you are agreeing to use the software on an Apple branded computer only.. Now, God knows I don't want to be so arrogant as to speak in absolutes here, but I have always assumed that an agreement is a "meeting of the minds" and therefore could be considered a contract.

Is there a gray area in the EULA? Yep. Are you going to have the police show up at your door, guns drawn to drag your ass off to jail for running OSX on your PC? Doubtfully. Is this thread going to get locked because it's getting pretty close to discussing warez...........
 
digital_exhaust said:
Is this thread going to get locked because it's getting pretty close to discussing warez...........
Click to expand...

For now, we're just off-topic. The OP's questions have been answered to the best of our abiliites within the rules of the forum, so lttile else needs to be said. But we haven't gone too far afield, yet - we're still in the theoretical oft-repeated debate on how binding EULA's are. (I wonder how many of these threads there are in the forum...)
 
It's a topic that really might do well to be clarified in the rules. In the rules it states that there should be no discussion of illegal activities. However EULAs, or any contracts for that matter, aren't necessarily legally binding. In the case of myself and OSX, it's certainly not illegal for me to discuss it, having never owned an Apple, and subsequently having never agreed to any EULA of theirs. The only law I am bound by is traditional copyright law with respect to OSX at this time.

They could put in a rule that says you are not allowed to discuss activities prohibited by a EULA, but that opens a big can of worms. For example, by using this bulletin board software you agree not to speak or write the letters "T", "R", and/or "E", ever again. It's a EULA, not a legally binding one, but a EULA nonetheless.
 
It's been stated COUNTLESS times around here: discussion of OSx86 and anything related to it is simply not welcome, period. It's an illegal/immoral/etc hack of a proper legal OS - and I should know dammit because I'm the guy that put out the first working generic installer DVD for OSx86 in 2005 but I'm not invovled with it or the project any longer - so I think it would be best to drop this discussion like, now, before we get yet another thread locked down (which is going to happen anyway).
 
We're not discussing OSx86. I presented the option of PearPC to the OP, which doesn't require any modification afaik.

And just because it's in a EULA, doesn't make it illegal, or immoral. I don't get my morals from a EULA.
 
It's like waiting for New Year's around here sometimes... I seem to spend an inordinate amount of my time just waiting for the ball aka hammer to drop.

10...
9...
8...

etc etc
 
On virtual PC, when you were creating your virtual harddrive, did you select Linux then the flavor of linux when asked to select operating system?
Ubuntu runs just fine on my amd64 2800+ under parallels.

And OSX won't run on virtual PC without a hack... which I won't provide. It's slow under vmware anyways.
 
PearPC is just another emulator, so is irrelevant to the out-of-bounds nature of the thread. They're legality is the same as any file-sharing network - they're not responsible for what users do. The legality question concerns running an Apple OS on non-Apple hardware.

What's the countdown at?
 
bbz_Ghost said:
It's like waiting for New Year's around here sometimes... I seem to spend an inordinate amount of my time just waiting for the ball aka hammer to drop.

10...
9...
8...

etc etc
Click to expand...

If this thread gets locked, the only valid reason for doing so would be, becouse you made such a stink about do so...

Nobody here has suggested doing anything illegal.

1: Can we talk about game emulators? You can play the games without the hardware... Is that illegal?
2: Can we talk about nlite? Which is totally violating MS EULA.... Is that illegal?


No? Well what the hell can we talk about? This is a discussion forum for computer enthusiasts... We can talk about computer technology and how best to leverage it. Installing an operating system is not now, and prolly never will be illegal. As long as he pays for his copy of OSX it is legal, and is NOT warez
 
The point is that in the past, the topic of OSX86 has been deemed out of bounds. (Think about it: How does one legally purchase OSX86? The Apple store doesn't sell it as a standalone product...)

Emulation/file sharing/other technologies that can go either way are definitely a gray area, and it is the option of the moderators/forum owners to exercise their judgment. bbz_Ghost is trying to be kind enough to warn us of the (likely) inevitable.
 
The point is it is not his decision. If the mods want us to stop, they'll let us know about it. By him throwing his fit, he just makes the matter worse and drives this thread off topic.
 
LhasaCM said:
Depending on the state/country you reside in, a violation of the EULA can be illegal. And depending on the mood of the judge, could lead to conviction.
Click to expand...
Civil rulings are not convictions. :p Terms like where you can install the OS in an EULA are not laws, statutes or other criminal law rules. There may be parts of the EULA like distributing copies or other things like included high encryption strength for export and similar that are also covered by law, but everything in the EULA isn't law.
---

Linux works great in VMWare, OS X runs horribly in VMWare even with lots of memory and a fast dual core CPU. If you want a Hackintosh, dual boot.
 
pxc said:
Civil rulings are not convictions. :p
Click to expand...

True...it falls under contract law, so in most cases it's civil and not criminal. By definition, a contract is a legally binding agreement between parties that are enforcable by law. So, generically speaking, since an EULA is a contract between the product vendor and the user, it is legally binding as long as the terms and conditions themselves are not unlawful.

In practice, it isn't likely to lead to much. However,depending upon the disputed item in the EULA, local laws regarding contracts, and the mood of the judge, it is theoretically possible that violating the EULA could end up in civil penalties and, depending on the terms violated (i.e., if there is additional protection in law like the DCMA) an actual conviction.
 
Wow...never expected to open such a can of worms. And since I don't think I'm talking about anything illegal I'm quite surprised at some of the draconican interpretations of the forum rules.

For the record, I don't have any version or flavor of OSX, nor a Mac. I don't intend to either. I don't really have anything agsint them, they just aren't for me. I haven't agreed to anything in regards to OSX or Macs in any EULA, but rather was questioning the entire validity of the concept of a EULA.

Since my understanding of a contract is as a "meeting of the minds" and with a EULA I am presented with "AGREE TO THIS IF YOU WANT TO USE THIS PRODUCT" I don't consider that a fair "meeting of the minds". When did I get to contribute my input? Anyone, judge or otherwise, who thinks clicking okay in such a situation makes it a contact.... well we think differently at minimum :) . Especially AFTER I've already purchased and installed something!

But given the way this country is going I suspect we'll all end being criminals eventually, be it for our thoughts, our deeds or some other new and fashionable crime d'jour.

Quite interesting anyway.

Peace all and sorry for the topic drift.
 
Topic drift is fun. :D

The issue of post-purchase acceptance of terms is a big one and has faced a rough test in civil courts over contract law - that's why many companies started putting some form of notification outside the box and have EULA's posted on the website, because of the previous complaints and judgments against them that prior practice was not "fair." (I know my copy of Windows Vista had huge stickers all over saying "by opening this you agree to our terms" so I couldn't reasonably claim ignorance.)

It is a tough question: the vendor alleges that you agreed to the terms by saying you agree by either opening the jewel case or by clicking "I agree" during the installation routine - if you don't agree, you can always choose not to use the product. (I did once, as a lark, return a copy of Norton Internet Security that had been opened under the grounds of disagreeing with the EULA. I forget what bothered me...but the store - Best Buy - allowed the return.) However, it is definitely a "take it or leave it" type of contract. They offer terms, and you either accept or reject. If you accept, you're bound by them. If you reject, you are unable to use the product in their opinion.

In the end, if you say you agree to something, you should be prepared to follow through on that commitment. Willful ignorance is rarely a valid legal excuse, and lying is bad.:mad:
 
LhasaCM said:
Topic drift is fun. :D

The issue of post-purchase acceptance of terms is a big one and has faced a rough test in civil courts over contract law - that's why many companies started putting some form of notification outside the box and have EULA's posted on the website, because of the previous complaints and judgments against them that prior practice was not "fair." (I know my copy of Windows Vista had huge stickers all over saying "by opening this you agree to our terms" so I couldn't reasonably claim ignorance.)
Click to expand...
I agree about this particular topic drift.

Now regarding your post, even if they post something like "by opening this you agree to our terms" on the box it still does little to clarify the legality of the situation. I already have a legal right to open the box after I've purchased it.

For example, I can say, "by reading this post you agree to send me a box of cookies". You already have a legal right to read my posting. You can simply disagree with my terms, retain the legal rights you already have, read the post, and not legally be obliged to send me cookies. I don't think anyone would claim my terms are binding in any way.

The best way for software vendors to resolve this situation, and something many are already doing, is simply refuse to sell the software to those who don't agree to their EULA beforehand. This way they aren't retroactively imposing contracts on the customer, which the customer has every right to disagree with, and continue using the product.
 
jimmyb said:
Now regarding your post, even if they post something like "by opening this you agree to our terms" on the box it still does little to clarify the legality of the situation. I already have a legal right to open the box after I've purchased it.
Click to expand...

Agreed - as I said, the vendor asserts that you've agreed to their terms. If you haven't - where does that leave everyone? Also, when you purchase software, what are you really purchasing? You can open the box, sure, but then what? Is it just a license, a meaningless disk without agreeing to the EULA, or is it actually the right to use/install the advertised product? It is a huge legal gray area. Putting the EULA (or notice of it) on the outside of the box at least provides some warning about their expectations.

jimmyb said:
For example, I can say, "by reading this post you agree to send me a box of cookies". You already have a legal right to read my posting. You can simply disagree with my terms, retain the legal rights you already have, read the post, and not legally be obliged to send me cookies. I don't think anyone would claim my terms are binding in any way.
Click to expand...

It's not quite comparable. Now, if you say "by reading this post you agree to send me a box of cookies" and actually prompt me with a pop-up saying "accept" or "reject" - that is more analogous to the EULA situation. If you make that post and I say "okay, I accept and will read your post" and then I try to say I don't want to give you cookies, there is an actual question to be answered because by clicking I've bound myself to your terms. As asked above more generically: when I buy a copy of Windows, what legal rights to the product have I obtained? According to Microsoft, I have a shiny disk and a license with all of its terms and conditions...

jimmyb said:
The best way for software vendors to resolve this situation, and something many are already doing, is simply refuse to sell the software to those who don't agree to their EULA beforehand. This way they aren't retroactively imposing contracts on the customer, which the customer has every right to disagree with, and continue using the product.
Click to expand...

Definitely - this eliminates a lot of the gray areas.
 
well i got a xp installation running in vmware. i deff need more ram. 1gb isn't cutting it.

im getting a osx86 10.49.6 jas dvd so gonna try to do that in vmware, but i doubt performance will be good. also downloading a ubuntu cd.
 
marley1 said:
well i got a xp installation running in vmware. i deff need more ram. 1gb isn't cutting it.

im getting a osx86 10.49.6 jas dvd so gonna try to do that in vmware, but i doubt performance will be good. also downloading a ubuntu cd.
Click to expand...

See where this ends up going each and every damned time? :)

When you've been online as long as I have, you develop an incredible ability to see the future even when other people are just trying to blow you off. Sheesh...
 
If a mod feels the thread needs to be closed, s/he will do so. It's not necessary for you to attempt to police us yourself. It's actually kind of annoying.

If you're so disturbed by the immorality of our conversation you could simply send a message to a mod asking it to be closed.
 
jimmyb said:
If a mod feels the thread needs to be closed, s/he will do so. It's not necessary for you to attempt to police us yourself. It's actually kind of annoying.

If you're so disturbed by the immorality of our conversation you could simply send a message to a mod asking it to be closed.
Click to expand...

Or here's one Amercian's in general need to learn to do: JUST DON'T READ IT!!!!

Click away, turn the page, look away, change the channel.....apparently these are concepts hard for most in our society today... better to report people, turn them in, enforce your morality on them by passing laws etc. sigh....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top