From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare
on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if
this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software,
or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or
not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in
the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <rpoq65$t0e$1@dont-email.me>, Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare
on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if
this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software,
or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or
not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

it should work fine with a mac host. be sure you have the latest
version.

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in
the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

yep.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2020-11-26 12:55, Panthera Tigris wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare
on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if
this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software,
or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or
not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

No reason it shouldn't work.

If the only roadblock were legal for me to try this at home for my
general curiosity and entertainment I certainly wouldn't hesitate. (I
seem to recall that there were some cases where installing Mac OS (then
OS X) as a VM was not "legal" but that's so far back I'm not sure).

You could also install it on a bootable external for general muckery if
you can accept lesser performance.

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in
the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

I've never used VB but comments over the years suggest that it's not
worth trying. Time is money and they're not printing more of the former
for us.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 26/11/20 13:08, nospam wrote:

In article <rpoq65$t0e$1@dont-email.me>, Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare
on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if
this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software,
or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or
not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

it should work fine with a mac host. be sure you have the latest
version.

Thanks

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in
the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <mSSvH.65734$J92.63141@fx48.iad>, Alan Browne <Blackhole@entropy.ultimateorg> wrote:

If the only roadblock were legal for me to try this at home for my
general curiosity and entertainment I certainly wouldn't hesitate. (I
seem to recall that there were some cases where installing Mac OS (then
OS X) as a VM was not "legal" but that's so far back I'm not sure).

vmware and parallels blocked leopard client because it was an eula
violation. leopard server was allowed and not blocked. there were ways
around the block for those so inclined.

You could also install it on a bootable external for general muckery if
you can accept lesser performance.

that also works.

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

I've never used VB but comments over the years suggest that it's not
worth trying. Time is money and they're not printing more of the former
for us.

yep.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In comp.sys.mac.system Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
...

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in
the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

Yep. VMware Fusion was better than VirtualBox for this scenario when I did it at work.
--
Gobble, gobble! Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, tiredness, z, my body, illnesses (e.g., COVID-19 & SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP), heat, interruptions, issues, conflicts, obstacles, stresses, fires, out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs (e.g., crashes & female mosquitoes), etc. D:
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 26 Nov 2020 at 18:44:34 GMT, Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

On 26/11/20 13:08, nospam wrote:

In article <rpoq65$t0e$1@dont-email.me>, Panthera Tigris
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare >>> on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if
this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software, >>> or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or
not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

it should work fine with a mac host. be sure you have the latest
version.

Thanks

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in >>> the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that. >>
yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

I'm using VB 6.1.16 and it's working very well with my 3 VMs. So a little less bollocks wouldn't go amiss.

--
Tim


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In comp.sys.mac.system Tim <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

On 26 Nov 2020 at 18:44:34 GMT, Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

On 26/11/20 13:08, nospam wrote:

In article <rpoq65$t0e$1@dont-email.me>, Panthera Tigris
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare >>> on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if >>> this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software, >>> or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or >>> not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

it should work fine with a mac host. be sure you have the latest
version.

Thanks

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in >>> the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

I'm using VB 6.1.16 and it's working very well with my 3 VMs. So a little less
bollocks wouldn't go amiss.

Was it easy? How's the speed?
--
Gobble, gobble! Life's so loco! ..!.. *isms, sins, hates, (d)evil, tiredness, z, my body, illnesses (e.g., COVID-19 & SARS-CoV-2), deaths (RIP), heat, interruptions, issues, conflicts, obstacles, stresses, fires, out(r)ages, dramas, unlucky #4, 2020, greeds, bugs (e.g., crashes & female mosquitoes), etc. D:
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2020-11-26 22:31:14 +0000, Tim said:

On 26 Nov 2020 at 18:44:34 GMT, Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

On 26/11/20 13:08, nospam wrote:

In article <rpoq65$t0e$1@dont-email.me>, Panthera Tigris
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare >>>> on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if
this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software, >>>> or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or
not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

it should work fine with a mac host. be sure you have the latest
version.

Thanks

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in >>>> the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that. >>>
yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

I'm using VB 6.1.16 and it's working very well with my 3 VMs. So a little less
bollocks wouldn't go amiss.

VirtualBox works, but it's not a fully polished product, so it is
definitely more difficult to set-up. It has that programmer / hacker
"everyone should know what to do" kind of mentality.

The commercial products from Parallels and VMWare are much easier to
set-up, including having things like step-by-step instructions for
novices that you can simply mouse-click through.

The difference is similar to using a computer with obscure DOS typed instructions or just using a mouse and graphical interface. Those who
like constantly fiddling and tweaking prefer the first, while those who
simply want to get stuff done prefer the second.




--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 26-Nov-2020 at 5:14:06PM PST, "Your Name" <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

On 2020-11-26 22:31:14 +0000, Tim said:

On 26 Nov 2020 at 18:44:34 GMT, Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> >> wrote:

On 26/11/20 13:08, nospam wrote:

In article <rpoq65$t0e$1@dont-email.me>, Panthera Tigris
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare >>>>> on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if >>>>> this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software, >>>>> or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or >>>>> not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

it should work fine with a mac host. be sure you have the latest
version.

Thanks

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in >>>>> the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

I'm using VB 6.1.16 and it's working very well with my 3 VMs. So a little >> less
bollocks wouldn't go amiss.

VirtualBox works, but it's not a fully polished product, so it is
definitely more difficult to set-up. It has that programmer / hacker "everyone should know what to do" kind of mentality.

The commercial products from Parallels and VMWare are much easier to
set-up, including having things like step-by-step instructions for
novices that you can simply mouse-click through.

The difference is similar to using a computer with obscure DOS typed instructions or just using a mouse and graphical interface. Those who
like constantly fiddling and tweaking prefer the first, while those who simply want to get stuff done prefer the second.

I especially found this to be true when using the VM guest Shared Folders on VMware vs. VirtualBox. I have a project that I validate multiple versions of CentOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, and Debian. I've yet to get Shared Folders to work on VirtualBox because the instance kept crashing when I'd try to mount the VirtualBox Exensions from a minimal install. I haven't tried CentOS 6 or 8 or any of the other OS'. VMware Fusion works as expected. All I have to do is
put the instructions on what to do in the README.md.

As a counterpoint, Vagrant, ansible, chef, puppet, and Packer work just fine with VirtualBox and don't cost anything.
--
DeeDee, don't press that button! DeeDee! NO! Dee...


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 26 Nov 2020, Gobbling Ant wrote
(in article<QeOdnYwfPKRQu13CnZ2dnUU7-W2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>):

In comp.sys.mac.system Panthera Tigris<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
...

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

Yep. VMware Fusion was better than VirtualBox for this scenario when I did it at work.

Remember now that VMware is free for non-commercial usage on the Mac. VMware Player, increasingly misnamed because it can create machines as well as play, easily suffices for my VM needs.

The only thing I’m having hassle with now is at OS level - can I -hell- get Ubuntu or Mint to understand the Mac keyboard. Rather difficult when a lot of my usage is scripts (so need the # character, which I can’t get it to understand).

Cheers,
Ian


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

On 26 Nov 2020, Gobbling Ant wrote
(in article<QeOdnYwfPKRQu13CnZ2dnUU7-W2dnZ2d@earthlink.com>):

In comp.sys.mac.system Panthera Tigris<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:
...

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in >>>>> the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that. >>>>

yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

Yep. VMware Fusion was better than VirtualBox for this scenario when I did it
at work.

Remember now that VMware is free for non-commercial usage on the Mac. VMware Player, increasingly misnamed because it can create machines as well as play,
easily suffices for my VM needs.

The only thing I’m having hassle with now is at OS level - can I -hell- get
Ubuntu or Mint to understand the Mac keyboard. Rather difficult when a lot of
my usage is scripts (so need the # character, which I can’t get it to understand).

Yes I’ve had problems in the past with VM keyboard mappings and ended up
with a rather large .Xmodmap file to get around it!

--
Cheers, Alan
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 11/26/20 12:55 PM, Panthera Tigris wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare
on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if
this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software,
or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or
not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in
the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

Running Big Sur in a VM now. VMWare Player, free for non-commercial use,
and this is definitely non-commercial. The main problem is a distinct
lack of speed, but that's probably due to the VM being two cores of a
quad core i7 and 6 GB out of 16. It's more than adequate for having a
look around.

I shall be ordering an Apple Silicon Mac mini and possibly a MacBook Pro
I suspect that _those_ will run Big Sur quite quickly.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 27 Nov 2020, Panthera Tigris Altaica wrote
(in article <rpqlq4$q6n$1@dont-email.me>):

he main problem is a distinct
lack of speed, but that's probably due to the VM being two cores of a
quad core i7 and 6 GB out of 16.

Partially, but I think it’s more that VMware doesn’t accelerated graphics for Mac.guests. Well, unless that’s changed very recently.

Cheers,
Ian


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <0001HW.25713DE5005EDD10700003F4538F@news.individual.net>,
Ian McCall <ian@eruvia.org> wrote:

he main problem is a distinct
lack of speed, but that's probably due to the VM being two cores of a
quad core i7 and 6 GB out of 16.

Partially, but I think it¹s more that VMware doesn¹t accelerated graphics for Mac.guests. Well, unless that¹s changed very recently.

<https://kb.vmware.com/s/article/81657>
Enable 3D acceleration in MacOS 11 (Big Sur) virtual machines (81657)
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2020-11-26 17:31, Tim wrote:

On 26 Nov 2020 at 18:44:34 GMT, Panthera Tigris <northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

On 26/11/20 13:08, nospam wrote:

In article <rpoq65$t0e$1@dont-email.me>, Panthera Tigris
<northerntiger@outlook.com> wrote:

I may attempt to run Big Sur in a VM on an Intel system, probably VMWare >>>> on a Windows machine or Parallels on a Mac. In both cases, older
hardware, quad-core i5 or i7, 16 to 24 GB installed RAM, an SSD
replacing the HDD which shipped with the machine. Does anyone know if >>>> this is even possible, or if Apple has put roadblocks, legal, software, >>>> or otherwise in to prevent this? Or if it's even possible, whether or >>>> not Apple tried/didn't try to block it?

it should work fine with a mac host. be sure you have the latest
version.

Thanks

Note: Virtual Box need not apply. I have had bad experiences with VB in >>>> the recent past. VB is worth every penny that you pay. Or less than that.

yep.

The only reason to use VB is that it's free. However, it's such a pain
that I, for one, will gladly pay to avoid it.

I'm using VB 6.1.16 and it's working very well with my 3 VMs. So a little less
bollocks wouldn't go amiss.

What are you running in those VM's?


--
"...there are many humorous things in this world; among them the white
man's notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-Samuel Clemens
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113