Will Apple allow us to run Snow Leopard in a virtual environment??

...Can you point me to someone who has successfully installed Snow Leopard into VM Fusion or Parrallels running on Lion? This is not a "challenge," I'd just like to know positively it can be done legally before I move to Lion.

You can point to me. I have done this in a Fusion virtual machine as an academic exercise to see how difficult it was. There is no technical reason that you cannot virtualize any version of OSX. (You have to hack a few things so not for the faint of heart, but not impossible.) It's all a legal thing. VMware has posted many, many, many times on their forums that their interpretation after speaking with Apple is that only the server versions of 10.5 & 10.6 are allowed in virtual machines as long as they are running on Apple hardware. VMware has reiterated that at the moment, Apple has not changed the EULA for 10.5 & 10.6 (both client and server versions) even after Lion's release. I state elsewhere in this thread that while I believe Apple's EULA is vague enough that I don't completely agree with VMware's stance, VMware being the industry leader in virtualization, I must respect their interpretation. And with that, I will not go further into how to virtualize 10.5 or 10.6. One can Google the info and proceed as their morals see fit.

And not just VMware. Parallels and Virtual Box also only allow the server versions of Leopard and Snow Leopard. They won't install a client version.

What the EULA says, or doesn't say isn't the issue, it must be some sort of rule/agreement between Apple and the makers of virtualization software.

Ergo, if "the Apple Software" refers to only that particular version of the software covered by the license agreement, you may NOT install a different version of the software in a virtual machine.

Usage of Lion in a virtual machine is not intended to be a way for people to continue to use free software from 2006 that has been abandoned by its author. Please, just let Quicken die.

I was able to retire early, at the age of 57, mostly because I don't spend money unnecessarily. I am, for example still driving a 1995 car, which is the third car that I have ever owned. Being retired, I am even less inclined to spend money unnecessarily.

When I purchase a piece of software, I expect to enjoy the functionality that that software provides into the indefinite future. I don't expect to have to buy that same functionality again every few years, as much as the software industry would like me to.

I repeat: It isn't just Quicken. It is JMP, a statistical package that I used to use when I was a researcher, and which I still enjoy using to meta-analyze things I read in the newspaper or in journals. I am using version 5.0. The current version is 9.x and costs $1,895. I am not going to buy it. There are small things, like ManOpen, a delightful GUI on man pages with hot links to other pages. There is no intel version. I have RayGun sound processing software which works fine for ripping my LPs. There is no Intel version. Why should I buy something else that does the same thing, possibly worse? The list is very long and totals many thousands of dollars, more than the cost of a new top-of-the line Mac-Pro.

etresoft: you may spend your money any way you like, but please dont lecture those of us who want to be frugal.

If you want to be frugal (and/or run old software), then why are you buying new computers or operating systems? If JMP 5.0 runs great for you, fine, then keep using it. Just use it on hardware and operating systems for which it was designed and supported. Don't use it on new systems that it was never designed and tested on.

In addition, you should consider buying the new version. Here is a software company developing and supporting professional Mac software. Don't complain if they drop the Mac version altogether.

If you buy a 2010 mac mini server (a shade over $800 at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Mac-Mini-MC438LL-Server/dp/B0013FO7TQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie= UTF8&qid=1317152837&sr=8-1">amazon</a> ) and the $29 Lion upgrade from the app store, you will have

• a very nice little piece of hardware
• a legal copy of mac os x server 10.6
• a legal copy of Lion

Just something to keep in mind...

Thanks for the advice.

I see that "etresoft" has rudely ignored my request to stop giving advice. Is it too much to ask that I be able to run my old software and also take advantage of some features of Lion on one machine? Indeed, I have found a soulution that is going to let me do just that. Please do not criticize me for it.

JMP was a reasonably priced piece of software, when I used it professionally in the '80s and '90s. No, I am not going to "support" its current authors (the SAS institute, a big mainframe software company which originally wrote SAS for the VAX) for charging. $2000 for a program that I now only use recreationally. If they want to price themselves out of the market, let them do so. I am under no obligation to them.

Bye to this discussion. Thanks to those who were helpful. No thanks to those who were rude.

cathy fasano wrote:

If you buy a 2010 mac mini server (a shade over $800 at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Apple-Mac-Mini-MC438LL-Server/dp/B0013FO7TQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie= UTF8&qid=1317152837&sr=8-1">amazon</a> ) and the $29 Lion upgrade from the app store, you will have

• a very nice little piece of hardware
• a legal copy of mac os x server 10.6
• a legal copy of Lion

Just something to keep in mind...

Just one observation, if the idea was to get a copy of SL Server to run in a virtual machine, the recovery disks that would have been supplied with this machine are model specific and would NOT be able to be used to create a virtual machine. At least not without some work. Not impossible, just not as simple as insert-disk-and-create-new-virtual-machine either. 😉

The suggestion does allow for dual-booting between SL Server and Lion, thus avoiding the virtualization legal issues completely. But if one wants to run OSX as a virtual machine, normally one needs the retail version of the OSX disks, which for Leopard Server and Snow Leopard Server, that was $500 originally.

etresoft wrote:

Ergo, if "the Apple Software" refers to only that particular version of the software covered by the license agreement, you may NOT install a different version of the software in a virtual machine.

How are you coming to that conclusion, etresoft?

The Lion license governs what you can do with Lion and Lion only. It does not govern what you can do with any other OS.

The Snow Leopard license governs what you can do with Snow Leopard and Snow Leopard only. It does not govern what you can do with any other OS.

If you want to know the permitted uses of running Snow Leopard under virtualization, read the Snow Leopard license. What may or may not be said in any other license does not apply.

Apple and Microsoft are quite capable of creating their own virtualization software and/or tying up VM software makers in costly court proceedings. So they exist as long as they play ball.

On PowerPC processors, there was VirtualPC, which allowed Windows to run on Mac's although it was slow it worked. Microsoft bought them and killed it. Now VirtualPC is used to allow Windows 7 Pro to run XP.

Apple is new to Intel processors, and now it's customers are seeing the benefits of virtualization software, so they let Snow Server, but not Snow client because they likely thought there wasn't a need.

Microsoft see's a advantage to expand it's influence over Mac users so it allows Windows to be virtualized and even Bootcamped on Mac's.

Apple see's a benefit to allow Lion client to be virtualized in Lion client only.

It takes time for Apple to come to it's senses and allow certain things here and there, it's looking for what benefits Apple and not always necessarily what benefits it's customers.

Apple is likely terrified OS X client will be weaponized as a vm on Windows, surely would kill hardware sales fast.

Also Apple considers most of it's users newbie computer users, so always strives to create a ToyStory Disney World like computing experience, it's "Pro" users are almost second class citizens compared to the majority of those who all they know how to do is poke their fingers at a iOS screen.

I've been a long advocate of allowing OS X to be virtualized (but in a very hobbled fashion) on Windows PC's to gain swtichers and educate Windows users how OS X works.

Perhaps one day that will occur, and the previous EULAS again won't apply.

ds store wrote:

Apple is new to Intel processors, and now it's customers are seeing the benefits of virtualization software, so they let Snow Server, but not Snow client because they likely thought there wasn't a need.

Hi ds store,

Apple has never come out and said that Snow Leopard Client cannot be run in a virtual machine. Neither is their any such prohibition in the Snow Leopard Client software license agreement. Making that claim that "Apple does not allow Snow Leopard Client to be vitualized" is wrong, at least until Apple comes right out and says so.

Apple is likely terrified OS X client will be weaponized as a vm on Windows, surely would kill hardware sales fast.

Excellent point. Apple's business is to sell hardware, not software. OS X and the iOS exist to sell the hardware they run on. If it were allowed to virtualize SL client, then every Windows user would do that, and never actually buy a Mac.

What Apple would have to allow VM vendors to do is have the VM software check to see if:

1) The hardware you are using is a Mac.

2) Lion (or later) is the operating system in use on the startup drive.

Then you could use SL client in a VM. Otherwise, the VM software would refuse to load or run it.

Király wrote:

Apple has never come out and said that Snow Leopard Client cannot be run in a virtual machine. Neither is their any such prohibition in the Snow Leopard Client software license agreement. Making that claim that "Apple does not allow Snow Leopard Client to be vitualized" is wrong, at least until Apple comes right out and says so.

The problem is finding a company or person that don't care about what Apple wants and will virtualizes anything and stays safely out of lawsuit range.

If a user wants to code their own vm software, and run snow client in it, there is certainly nothing in the EULAs to disallow that, it comes down to practicality.

There is a lot of necessary cooperation between vm makers and OS makers, there has to be. A outsider would forever be behind with all the changes Apple inflicts.

Can we just agree to let the dead rest in peace? Maybe let's have a new community rule that no one can post a message about Rosetta in Lion except on Halloween.