VMware Fusion update lets users virtualize Leopard, Snow Leopard (MacWorld)

[Lifeisabeach]

VMware Fusion update lets users virtualize Leopard, Snow Leopard | Macworld

But one big change with this update isn’t documented anywhere: The software has been modified so that it will run the non-server versions of Snow Leopard (Mac OS X 10.6) and Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5). Previously, VMware Fusion supported virtual Macs running Lion, Lion Server, Snow Leopard Server, and Leopard Server.

So there you have it, folks. It will be possible to run Snow Leopard in a virtual machine now, although whether or not the terms of your OS X license ALLOWS you to is another issue entirely. VMware is simply leaving it up to you to determine if you have the right to do it or not. They will no longer outright block it.

 

[vansmith]

I'm not lawyer but as I read the SL EULA, you're granted the right to run one copy of the software on an Apple branded computer at a time. Since Lion and SL are technically two different pieces of software, covered by two different EULAs (which you have agreed to separately), it would seem that you could virtualize SL on a Mac running Lion without problem. I get the feeling similar logic was used by VMWare here.

Like I said though, I'm not a lawyer (oh how law bores me to no end) but it seems that this is how the technical decision was justified.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

I'll be curious to see if Apple weighs in on this in the near future. I'm inclined to believe that they'll simply look the other way since Lion explicitly allows it for Lion specifically anyway, and there still are a lot of people who really need to virtualize Snow Leopard for Rosetta support. Regardless, so long as Fusion allows running Snow Leopard, I'll just do it if the need arises. Trying to decipher the EULA is just too tedious.

 

[chscag]

Glad to see you back. Where have you been hiding these past months?

I agree with Van regards to the EULA. It would be a different matter entirely if Fusion were used to virtualize L or SL on other than Mac hardware. I probably should upgrade my Fusion 3 to 4 but around this time of year I have to pinch the pennies.

 

[vansmith]

So, here's VMWare's explanation of the situation:

VMware Fusion 4.1 changes the behavior of the new virtual machine assistant when creating a Mac OS X virtual machine. Starting with Fusion 4.1, you are presented with an additional prompt to confirm that the operating system is licensed to run in a virtual machine.This additional prompt reminds you that installing Mac OS X in a virtual machine is subject to the license agreement that accompanies the Mac OS X software.

It would seem then that VMWare is leaving up to us the users to decide if it's properly licenced which seems like a terrible decision. How many users are going to know the answer to this? Better yet, how many are going to say "no"?

Surely VMWare is aware of the conditions of the EULAs so they must feel that the EULA for Leo. and SL allow for this (otherwise, why allow users to do this in the first place?).

 

[harryb2448]

Bit of a Pontius Pilate hand washing exercise.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

So, here's VMWare's explanation of the situation:It would seem then that VMWare is leaving up to us the users to decide if it's properly licenced which seems like a terrible decision. How many users are going to know the answer to this? Better yet, how many are going to say "no"?

Surely VMWare is aware of the conditions of the EULAs so they must feel that the EULA for Leo. and SL allow for this (otherwise, why allow users to do this in the first place?).

That's pretty what I was thinking. From what I understand, Apple doesn't own the rights to Rosetta… they licensed it. As a result, perhaps they can't outright green light use of Snow Leopard in a VM. But… perhaps they can look the other way. Regardless, we'll see what happens. If they do have a problem with it, they undoubtedly will let VMware know so in no uncertain terms.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Glad to see you back. Where have you been hiding these past months?

Eh… I lost interest. I'm not really back back. I've been poking my nose in on and off for some time. I'm just feeling extra chatty this weekend.

 

[cwa107]

Woo hoo! Can't wait to try this out....

I've been looking for an easy way to revert back to Snow Leopard. This may ease the process....

 

[chscag]

I've been looking for an easy way to revert back to Snow Leopard. This may ease the process....

My thoughts also. Only I hate to pay VMWare the $49.99 they want to upgrade from version 3. Maybe they'll run a special like they did with 3.X? I hope.

 

[mac_addict]

You can virtualize Snow Leapard using VBox and its free

 

[vansmith]

Looks like it was all a big mistake on VMWare's part (source).

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Looks like it was all a big mistake on VMWare's part (source).

Oopsie.

Still… if VirtualBox can and will install the client version of Snow Leopard as mac_addict says, then I have to wonder why VMWare can't or won't allow it.

 

[vansmith]

I tried installing SL in VBox (on top of a Lion install - I used the EULA logic in my first post) and it doesn't work (maybe I'm missing something). From what I've read, the reason it won't (shouldn't?) work is quite simply because OS X checks for an appropriate mobo model number and VBox doesn't pass that to installers. Because of this, the OS X installer doesn't recognize that you're on a Mac and fails.

 

[chscag]

All very interesting. Anyway, as I stated above I'm not about to give VMWare another $49.99 for an upgrade. I guess if we really want or need to run SL a dual boot is the only legal way to do it.

Software publishers (Intuit and others) need to get off their duff and get their programs free of any PPC code. Maybe that's asking too much...

 

[vansmith]

Software publishers (Intuit and others) need to get off their duff and get their programs free of any PPC code. Maybe that's asking too much...

Couldn't agree more. This is the much better solution. The last models made the switch to Intel in August of 2006. It's been more than five years already. And from where I sit, Rosetta was not an excuse not to update the software but rather a way to ease the transition that developers were supposed to make. But, as we all know, what's supposed to happen never always does...

 

[Lifeisabeach]

Couldn't agree more. This is the much better solution. The last models made the switch to Intel in August of 2006. It's been more than five years already. And from where I sit, Rosetta was not an excuse not to update the software but rather a way to ease the transition that developers were supposed to make. But, as we all know, what's supposed to happen never always does...

Agreed all the way. If Apple can revise their entire operating system 3 times in 5 years, then there's no excuse for a developer to take even half that to update their software to support the platform change. I would seriously be questioning their long-term commitment even if Apple had stayed on PPC and they went this long without a proper update.