Run virtual Snow Leopard from Lion?

[R. Millstein]

Ok, I know we've heard this a zillion times before, but this one just
might be the real deal -- the thing that lets us run Eudora on Snow
Leopard while running Lion:

http://www.macworld.com/article/163755/2011/11/vmware_fusion_update_lets_
users_virtualize_leopard_snow_leopard.html

Still to be determined is how integrated the experience would be, e.g.,
could we double-click on an attachment in Eudora and have it open up in
Lion? But people tell me that vmware has managed good integration with
some of their other OSes, so... maybe?!
--
Roberta Millstein
use...@spamaway.rlm.net
Remove "spamaway" to reply

[David Morrison]

In article <usenet-A2A986....@free.teranews.com>,

"R. Millstein" <use...@spamaway.rlm.net> wrote:

> Ok, I know we've heard this a zillion times before, but this one just
> might be the real deal -- the thing that lets us run Eudora on Snow
> Leopard while running Lion:
>
> http://www.macworld.com/article/163755/2011/11/vmware_fusion_update_lets_
> users_virtualize_leopard_snow_leopard.html

It seems to work with Snow Leopard. Seems a bit sluggish - maybe they
have not optimised it yet. It doesn't seem to allow drag and drop of
files into the virtual machine window even with the VMWare Tools
installed.

Eudora seems to work, although I haven't tested it thoroughly.

> Still to be determined is how integrated the experience would be, e.g.,
> could we double-click on an attachment in Eudora and have it open up in
> Lion? But people tell me that vmware has managed good integration with
> some of their other OSes, so... maybe?!

It's a configurable option. However, Eudora seems to have lost the
connection between the attachment in the message, and the file it refers
to. Well, for some files. And even with it configured to use the "Mac's"
applications, it still opens the virtual Mac's Preview for PDF files.

[Julian Y. Koh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <usenet-A2A986....@free.teranews.com>,
"R. Millstein" <use...@spamaway.rlm.net> wrote:

> Ok, I know we've heard this a zillion times before, but this one just
> might be the real deal -- the thing that lets us run Eudora on Snow
> Leopard while running Lion:

This is definitely kind of cool, but I'm wondering if the hassle of
maintaining another OS environment is worth being able to run Eudora.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 9.9.1.287

wj8DBQFOyomoDlQHnMkeAWMRAvj0AKCHe4N5salKJHv7pvIF/RJsggWNIQCgqnXg
TpS5Ct4YR3M/FC19fF3MxSA=
=Wa9r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


--
Julian Y. Koh
koh...@gmail.com
PGP Public Key: <http://bt.ittns.northwestern.edu/julian/pgppubkey.html>

[Darrell Greenwood]

In article <kohster-0111C8.11260621112011@localhost>,

"Julian Y. Koh" <koh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is definitely kind of cool, but I'm wondering if the hassle of
> maintaining another OS environment is worth being able to run Eudora.

FWIW, I upgraded to Lion a month ago on a MacBookPro 15 inch mid 2009. I
switched to OSX Mail 5.1 from Eudora 6.2.4 cold turkey when I did.

I also needed to run Quicken 2007 which requires Rosetta, so I set up a
10.6 OSX server in Parallels 7 (Parallels enforcement of Apple licensing
excludes 10.6 non-server). Worked OK and completed my transition to Lion.

Saw this thread and set up VMWare 4.1 and 10.6. Quicken 2007 works
better (smoother, faster). I expect I will use that combination in
future.

I will be experimenting with Eudora and VMWare. I expect using the new
Spaces features and Lion's full screen feature it could be usable if no
bugs turn up.

(No bugs at all have appeared with Quicken 2007, including downloading
from bank sites, in the virtual machine but I did have to upgrade from
4GB to 8GB for $87 to keep the system running smoothly.)

Cheers,

Darrell

[Patty Winter]

In article <kohster-0111C8.11260621112011@localhost>,
Julian Y. Koh <koh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

>This is definitely kind of cool, but I'm wondering if the hassle of
>maintaining another OS environment is worth being able to run Eudora.

Heresy! Heresy!!

:-)

As Darrell just pointed out, this product will also let Lion users
run the older, actually useful versions of Quicken.

Personally, I'm sticking with the real Snow Leopard, but it's nice
to know that something like this is available should I ever need to
move to Lion.


Patty

[Darrell Greenwood]

In article <4ecab83e$0$1691$742e...@news.sonic.net>,

Patty Winter <pat...@wintertime.com> wrote:

> In article <kohster-0111C8.11260621112011@localhost>,
> Julian Y. Koh <koh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >This is definitely kind of cool, but I'm wondering if the hassle of
> >maintaining another OS environment is worth being able to run Eudora.
>
> Heresy! Heresy!!
>
> :-)

Yeah Heresy! :-)

I have moved Eudora, it took only a few moments to accomplish.

Eudora really works surprisingly (to me) well using VMWare4.1/10.6 on
Lion.

From my experience with moving Quicken, I decided to download a fresh
copy of Eudora 6.2.4 to the virtual machine running on VMWare 4.1 and
OSX 10.6.

Because of hiccups with file transferring when I moved Quicken I chose
to zip up my Eudora folder (5000 items, 800 MB), and transfer it in
order to have the Eudora folder in place before opening Eudora in the
virtual machine.

Eudora open immediately and started working without a single hitch nor
any apparent reduction in speed (this MacBookPro is dramatically faster
than my previous iBook). I checked archived stuff back several years and
everything was there including out and in attachments.

I'm running Eudora 6.2.4 on Lion 10.7.2 without a problem. The virtual
machine file is 15.67 GB.

I have the VMWare window expanded to full screen now and can switch
between Lion and Snow Leopard with a quick three finger stroke of the
trackpad. Can't ask for anything better than that.

Since I am stuck maintaining a 10.6 environment for Quicken anyway
adding Eudora so far looks good, no hassle for me.

Cheers,

Darrell

--
To reply, substitute .net for .invalid in address,
i.e., darrell.usenet7 (at) telus.net

[R. Millstein]

In article
<darrell.usenet7-E5...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Darrell Greenwood <darrell...@telus.net> wrote:

> Saw this thread and set up VMWare 4.1 and 10.6. Quicken 2007 works
> better (smoother, faster). I expect I will use that combination in
> future.

Good to hear!! And good to hear (as you wrote in your other post) that
Eudora works well, too!

Roberta

[Julian Y. Koh]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Sounds like future updates to VMware will likely take away this capability.
:(

<http://www.macworld.com/article/163795/2011/11/vmware_backtracks_on_os_x_c
lient_virtualization.html>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 9.9.1.287

wj8DBQFOzOg+DlQHnMkeAWMRAq9FAKDquSrNEOnzXXtYL/KZBEEsvi2GsQCg38CC
0xewBL05RIb5wXWihc+SlEQ=
=qDAr

[John H Meyers]

On 11/23/2011 6:34 AM, Julian Y. Koh wrote:

> Sounds like future updates to VMware will likely take away this capability :(

> <http://www.macworld.com/article/163795/2011/11/vmware_backtracks_on_os_x_client_virtualization.html>

I have read from other sources that Apple is threatening legal action
against any software or system which permits bypassing its licenses,
and thus is indirectly acting to strangle anything that can preserve PPC apps.

If Mr. Jobs had lived to be older, he might have reconsidered
trying to outlaw everything that isn't young and new.

It's a good thing that Apple doesn't own the Taj Mahal,
or they might want to tear it down to build a more modern Apple Store.

--

[David Morrison]

In article <kohster-C4E1E1.06341323112011@localhost>,

"Julian Y. Koh" <koh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Sounds like future updates to VMware will likely take away this capability.
> :(
>
> <http://www.macworld.com/article/163795/2011/11/vmware_backtracks_on_os_x_c
> lient_virtualization.html>

And the moral is to get a copy of this version of 4.1 which will
presumably continue to work for some time......

Although I find it a bit lame that my new MacBook Pro came with Lion,
but I actually went and bought a copy of Snow Leopard while I could in
case I wanted to revert. So now even though I have a licence not
associated with a physical Mac, I cannot use it on a virtual machine on
the MacBook Pro.

[Daniel Cohen]

David Morrison <davi...@excite.com> wrote:


> And the moral is to get a copy of this version of 4.1 which will
> presumably continue to work for some time......
>
> Although I find it a bit lame that my new MacBook Pro came with Lion,
> but I actually went and bought a copy of Snow Leopard while I could in
> case I wanted to revert. So now even though I have a licence not
> associated with a physical Mac, I cannot use it on a virtual machine on
> the MacBook Pro.

Seems to be too late, if you haven't already got it.

At any rate, I was able to download version 4.1.1, dated yesterday. I
could click on "View History", which listed a load of other versions for
download. 4.0.2 looked as if it would download ok, but 4.1.0 gave the
message "invalid download group".

It is especially annoying that Apple does not allow this, since the
actual wording of the license does permit it.
--
<http://www.decohen.com>
The Labyrinth of the Heart: Changed Myths for Changing Lives
book and e-book <http://www.decohen.com/labyrinth>
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address, not the From address.

[David Empson]

John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/23/2011 6:34 AM, Julian Y. Koh wrote:
>
> > Sounds like future updates to VMware will likely take away this
> > capability :(
>
> > <http://www.macworld.com/article/163795/2011/11/vmware_backtracks_on_os_x_
> > client_virtualization.html>
>
> I have read from other sources that Apple is threatening legal action
> against any software or system which permits bypassing its licenses,
> and thus is indirectly acting to strangle anything that can preserve PPC apps.

Not "anything" that can preserve PPC apps, just anything that can do it
for a relatively low price.

You can run Mac OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6 in a virtual machine to get
Rosetta, and Apple (and the VM vendors) are fine with that.

Original retail price for those versions of Mac OS X Server started at
US$499. I managed to get a cheap copy of 10.5 Server, but I'm still
looking for 10.6 Server.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

Daniel Cohen <dcohe...@talktalk.net> wrote:

> David Morrison <davi...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>
> > And the moral is to get a copy of this version of 4.1 which will
> > presumably continue to work for some time......
> >
> > Although I find it a bit lame that my new MacBook Pro came with Lion,
> > but I actually went and bought a copy of Snow Leopard while I could in
> > case I wanted to revert. So now even though I have a licence not
> > associated with a physical Mac, I cannot use it on a virtual machine on
> > the MacBook Pro.
>
> Seems to be too late, if you haven't already got it.
>
> At any rate, I was able to download version 4.1.1, dated yesterday. I
> could click on "View History", which listed a load of other versions for
> download. 4.0.2 looked as if it would download ok, but 4.1.0 gave the
> message "invalid download group".
>
> It is especially annoying that Apple does not allow this, since the
> actual wording of the license does permit it.

Based on what VMware and others are saying, Apple Legal is of the
opinion that the Snow Leopard licence does not permit virtualization,
and it seems that was Apple's intention.

I have a theory about this which seems plausible, but which cannot be
proved because it requires knowledge of the contract under which Apple
obtained Rosetta, which has not been disclosed.

My theory is that Apple can't allow non-server editions of Mac OS X
which contain Rosetta to run in a virtual machine, because Apple's
licence agreement with Transitive/IBM for Rosetta only permits one
instance of Rosetta to be running per Mac, or per retail copy of Mac OS
X Server 10.5 or 10.6. The cost of Apple's licence for Rosetta is
incorporated into the price of the Mac and the price of Mac OS X Server
10.5 and 10.6.

Macs that came with 10.6 or earlier preinstalled are licensed to run one
instance of Rosetta. Macs that came with Lion preinstalled might not be
licensed to run Rosetta, because they don't need to if they only run
Lion. (The cutoff might be new models introduced with/after Lion, to
cover potential downgrades.)

The non-server edition of 10.5 and 10.6 can't be virtualized because
running a virtual 10.5 or 10.6 on top of 10.6 or earlier would result in
an unlicensed copy of Rosetta being able to run.

Lion doesn't include Rosetta, so it can be virtualized.

Retail editions of Mac OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6 can be virtualized,
because that copy of Rosetta has been licensed separately, and the
licence key for Mac OS X Server provides a reasonable degree of
enforcement of only one running instance of Rosetta per licence of Mac
OS X Server.

If this theory is right, then in principle Apple could allow a single
instance of 10.5 or 10.6 non-server to be virtualized on a Mac which
came with 10.6 or earlier preinstalled, as long as the computer was
running Lion. They presumably haven't done so because it would require
rewriting the licence agreements for those versions, and describing a
complex set of conditions which may be difficult to enforce.

Any such permission would not extend to Macs that came with Lion
preinstalled. Those Macs can only run a properly licensed copy of
Rosetta by running Mac OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6 in a virtual machine.

Apple might be solve this problem by selling a more expensive edition of
non-server Mac OS X 10.6 for use in a virtual machine (somewhere between
$30 and $499), which has Rosetta licensed separately, but there could be
other factors preventing that, such as IBM refusing to extend Apple's
licence for Rosetta beyond existing agreements for 10.6 Server and Macs
with 10.6 preinstalled.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[John H Meyers]

On 11/24/2011 5:04 PM, David Empson wrote:

> You can run Mac OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6 in a virtual machine to get
> Rosetta, and Apple (and the VM vendors) are fine with that.

How does the "number of Rosettas installed per machine" differ,
between whether you choose to attempt to run a non-server older OS version
vs. a server older OS version, on the same actual host machine?

--

[David Empson]

John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

The question isn't how many copies of Rosetta are installed, but the
number of licenced copies of Rosetta which are allowed to be running at
the same time.

If my theory is right (see my post elsewhere in this thread), then Apple
has licensed the rights to run one copy of Rosetta per Mac, plus one
copy per retail Mac OS X Server 10.5 or 10.6. This would explain Apple's
requirements for which versions and variants of Mac OS X are allowed to
be virtualized.

The copy of Rosetta included in non-server 10.4 (Intel), 10.5 and 10.6
is not licensed directly, but rather relies on the computer itself being
licensed to run that copy of Rosetta. Apple doesn't permit running these
versions in a VM, because that would allow an unlicensed copy of Rosetta
to be running.

10.4 Server (Universal), 10.5 Server and 10.6 Server have a separately
licensed copy of Rosetta (the cost for which is included in the price of
Mac OS X Server), so Apple allows 10.5 and 10.6 Server to be
virtualized. (There may be other reasons why Apple didn't also allow
10.4 Server to be virtualized.)

I expect that the Rosetta licence was quite expensive, and if Apple had
included a licence for it in retail 10.5 and 10.6 non-server, those
products would have been much more expensive (especially family packs),
which would have discouraged upgrades of existing Macs.

I can't be certain that this theory is correct, but it fits with my
observations of Apple's rules about which versions and variants of Mac
OS X they will allow to be virtualized.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[John H Meyers]

On 11/25/2011 7:34 PM, David Empson wrote:

> I can't be certain that this theory is correct, but it fits with my
> observations of Apple's rules about which versions and variants of Mac
> OS X they will allow to be virtualized.

Can you present this in a Mac discussion forum,
and see what the rest of the Mac world thinks?

It seems to me that there has to be some limit
on what an original manufacturer can impose
upon the use of what you buy from them.

Also, is there any source of older versions
of what later runs only with restrictions?

For example, a version of Windows Eudora that contains
an "X1 - superfast search" feature is no longer distributed
by Qualcomm, since its license requires some royalties
that are no longer payable out of Eudora direct sales and ad revenue,
but there are sources (e.g. FileHippo) where you can still
download the older versions.

--

[David Empson]

John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/25/2011 7:34 PM, David Empson wrote:
>
> > I can't be certain that this theory is correct, but it fits with my
> > observations of Apple's rules about which versions and variants of Mac
> > OS X they will allow to be virtualized.
>
> Can you present this in a Mac discussion forum,
> and see what the rest of the Mac world thinks?

I will if the subject comes up. It happened to be pertinent to this
thread.

> It seems to me that there has to be some limit
> on what an original manufacturer can impose
> upon the use of what you buy from them.

Nope. You are purchasing the right to use software, under conditions
imposed by the software publisher.

If Apple's software includes components they have licensed from other
companies (such as Rosetta), then Apple will have a contract or licence
from the supplier of that software which specifies the conditions under
which that software can be used. Apple must ensure that Apple's software
is only used in ways which do not violate the conditions of Apple's
licence for Rosetta. This is done by imposing restrictions on the use of
Mac OS X.

> Also, is there any source of older versions
> of what later runs only with restrictions?

That isn't relevant for the question of running older versions of Mac OS
X in a VM, because retail 10.4 and earlier require a PowerPC processor
and therefore cannot run on a Mac with an Intel processor. They would
require a PowerPC emulator, and I'm not aware of any emulators which
support Mac OS X running inside the emulator.

10.4 also existed for Intel Macs, but the non-server was not sold as a
retail product and was only licensed for use on the single Mac it came
with. (Its licence agreement is otherwise similar to 10.5, so it isn't
allowed to be virtualized either.)

10.4 Server was available as a Universal edition (from 10.4.8), but for
some reason Apple didn't allow it to be virtualized.

10.5 Server and 10.6 Server are officially permitted to run in
virtualization on a Mac. Apple is still selling 10.6 Server (for
US$499), and 10.5 Server can be obtained from second hand sources.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Morrison]

In article <1kbaaa3.16kizrd1ws6vsoN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,

dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:

> My theory is that Apple can't allow non-server editions of Mac OS X
> which contain Rosetta to run in a virtual machine, because Apple's
> licence agreement with Transitive/IBM for Rosetta only permits one
> instance of Rosetta to be running per Mac, or per retail copy of Mac OS
> X Server 10.5 or 10.6. The cost of Apple's licence for Rosetta is
> incorporated into the price of the Mac and the price of Mac OS X Server
> 10.5 and 10.6.

Your theory is consistent with the observed situation. What it does not
explain is why Server includes a licence for Rosetta. After all, Server
was intended to run on a Mac which by this theory was already licensed
to use Rosetta.

The only reason I can see that they would bundle a Rosetta licence with
Server is if they knew it was going to be virtualised. They did along
the line allow virtualisation of Server, but I cannot imagine they would
have lumbered every installation of Server with the licence fee for the
sake of the few dozen or hundred that were virtualised.

Even if their own server farm ran OS X on non-Apple hardware, why lumber
every Server installation with the licence fee for the sake of a few
hundred/thousand instances at Apple?

And as a final point, what would a machine acting as a server need
Rosetta for anyway? From Snow Leopard on, there were no PPC components
left in the operating system. It would only have been used for legacy
applications.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/25/2011 11:22 PM, David Empson wrote:

JHM:

>> Also, is there any source of older versions
>> of what later runs only with restrictions?

DE:

> That isn't relevant for the question of running older versions of Mac OS

> X in a VM, because retail 10.4 and earlier require a PowerPC processor...

What I meant was the older version of _VMware_
(the version which lets you run a virtual SL on Lion)

Unless they send "firemen" to "burn" everything ever downloaded
(including backups by Time Machine, USB drives, even cloud drives),
it's usually hard to "recall" what's already been published.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks>

--

[David Empson]

John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/25/2011 11:22 PM, David Empson wrote:
>
> JHM:
> >> Also, is there any source of older versions
> >> of what later runs only with restrictions?
>
> DE:
> > That isn't relevant for the question of running older versions of Mac OS
> > X in a VM, because retail 10.4 and earlier require a PowerPC processor...
>
> What I meant was the older version of _VMware_
> (the version which lets you run a virtual SL on Lion)

Ah, I was struggling to work out what you meant.

VMware have pulled 4.1.0 and it isn't available for download any more
(unlike earlier versions). Unof

It isn't particulary important, because:

1. Apple's position is clearly that running 10.5/10.6 non-server in a VM
is a violation of the licence, so anyone who wants to comply with the
spirit of the licence agreement would not be running those versions even
in VMware Fusion 4.1.0.

2. For those who choose to ignore Apple's position and interpret the
licence agreement differently (or simply don't care), I gather it was
easy enough to work around the technical check that VMware was using in
earlier versions. I haven't seen any commentary on whether the same
methods work with Fusion 4.1.1, but I haven't gone looking.

3. There is an alternative: Virtualbox appears to not be enforcing the
"must be server" rule, even though their documentation says that is the
rule. I don't know how long that will last. From descriptions I've seen,
it sounds like VirtualBox is technically inferior to VMware Fusion or
Parallels Desktop for Mac OS X as a guest OS, so this may not be a good
alternative.

> Unless they send "firemen" to "burn" everything ever downloaded
> (including backups by Time Machine, USB drives, even cloud drives),
> it's usually hard to "recall" what's already been published.

True, but if someone wanted it and hadn't download it already, they
would have to find a trustworthy source. Torrents are not trustworthy -
they are a common vector for malicous software.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Empson]

David Morrison <davi...@excite.com> wrote:

> In article <1kbaaa3.16kizrd1ws6vsoN%dem...@actrix.gen.nz>,
> dem...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
>
> > My theory is that Apple can't allow non-server editions of Mac OS X
> > which contain Rosetta to run in a virtual machine, because Apple's
> > licence agreement with Transitive/IBM for Rosetta only permits one
> > instance of Rosetta to be running per Mac, or per retail copy of Mac OS
> > X Server 10.5 or 10.6. The cost of Apple's licence for Rosetta is
> > incorporated into the price of the Mac and the price of Mac OS X Server
> > 10.5 and 10.6.
>
> Your theory is consistent with the observed situation. What it does not
> explain is why Server includes a licence for Rosetta. After all, Server
> was intended to run on a Mac which by this theory was already licensed
> to use Rosetta.

Because Apple wanted to allow 10.5 Server and 10.6 Server to be
virtualized. Their licence agreements specifically allow multiple
separate licences of Server to be running simultaneously on the same Mac
(implying virtualization).

Assuming my theory is right, that would require a separate Rosetta
licence for each retail copy of 10.5 Server and 10.6 Server (but not for
the copies bundled with Mac Server models like the Xserve and Mac Mini
Server, since the computer licence would cover that copy).

> The only reason I can see that they would bundle a Rosetta licence with
> Server is if they knew it was going to be virtualised. They did along
> the line allow virtualisation of Server, but I cannot imagine they would
> have lumbered every installation of Server with the licence fee for the
> sake of the few dozen or hundred that were virtualised.

I don't see much "lumbering".

10.5 Server cost the same as 10.4 Server and earlier versions, so
assuming Apple had to pay a licence fee for Rosetta, it was absorbed
into the existing price of Mac OS X Server. (Either Apple reduced their
profit margin, or the Rosetta licence fee replaced other licence fees
Apple had to pay for software included in 10.4 Server and earlier, which
may have been replaced with open source alternatives in 10.5 Server.)

For those who needed more than 10 file sharing clients, 10.6 Server
halved in price compared to previous versions. (This had nothing to do
with the Rosetta licence, which would only apply to applications running
on the server, not file sharing.)

> Even if their own server farm ran OS X on non-Apple hardware

One example: Apple used Sun servers for running .Mac/MobileMe mail
servers. Those didn't run Mac OS X at all.

I don't know how much use Apple made of Mac OS X Server internally.

> why lumber every Server installation with the licence fee for the sake of
> a few hundred/thousand instances at Apple?
>
> And as a final point, what would a machine acting as a server need
> Rosetta for anyway? From Snow Leopard on, there were no PPC components
> left in the operating system. It would only have been used for legacy
> applications.

That may be an argument for 10.6, but I'm sure there were still quite a
few PowerPC-only third party applications running on Mac OS X Server in
the 10.5 era.

In any case, it isn't a question of whether the server needed to be
running Rosetta, just whether it was capable of running Rosetta. Apple
had decided to keep supplying Rosetta in 10.6 client, so excluding it
from 10.6 Server or certain installations of Mac OS X Server would have
caused complications.

They might have been able to get away with not including Rosetta support
in retail copies of 10.6 Server, but keeping it in bundled copies
supplied with an Xserve, Mac Pro Server or Mac Mini Server (thus
preventing virtualization of Rosetta but allowing it to run on the host
OS), but I expect that would cause problems with management of software
builds, testing and updates.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[John H Meyers]

On 11/26/2011 6:17 AM, David Empson wrote:

> VMware have pulled 4.1.0 and it isn't available for download any more

This doesn't mean that "third parties" can't have kept a copy
where it still can be downloaded.

> If someone wanted it and hadn't download it already,

> they would have to find a trustworthy source.

Secure hashes (MD5, SHA-x, etc.) permit you to verify downloads for yourself,
provided you have any trustworthy source for the original hash itself
(no one violates anything by posting hashes of what they already
downloaded, so getting these from any number of trusted independent
people should be easy).

--

[David Morrison]

In article <4ED0F781...@nomail.invalid>,

John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:

> On 11/26/2011 6:17 AM, David Empson wrote:
>
> > VMware have pulled 4.1.0 and it isn't available for download any more
>
> This doesn't mean that "third parties" can't have kept a copy
> where it still can be downloaded.

But you have to ask how long you can keep running the superseded
version. Sooner or later, there is going to be a bug that you need
fixed, or a new feature that you need, and you will have to upgrade.

[David Morrison]

Here's a tricky little gotcha. My MacBook Pro has an i7 processor. This
processor first became supported with OS X 10.6.4. (Also the i5.)

In a VMware virtual machine, it reports the processor as the actual
processor, which 10.6.3 and earlier (including Leopard) will not
recognise. So you have to have a DVD with 10.6.4 or later, or install it
on some other machine, update it to 10.6.4 and bring over the virtual
machine to the i7 computer.

I suspect that Leopard would not work at all. When I tried it, it just
stopped half way through the install, saying 21 minutes left for hours.

Which means that this technique is a short term solution for running
Eudora. As soon as you get a Mac which cannot run 10.5 or 10.6, that's
the end of Eudora. :-(

[David Empson]

David Morrison <davi...@excite.com> wrote:

> Here's a tricky little gotcha. My MacBook Pro has an i7 processor. This
> processor first became supported with OS X 10.6.4. (Also the i5.)
>
> In a VMware virtual machine, it reports the processor as the actual
> processor, which 10.6.3 and earlier (including Leopard) will not
> recognise. So you have to have a DVD with 10.6.4 or later, or install it
> on some other machine, update it to 10.6.4 and bring over the virtual
> machine to the i7 computer.
>
> I suspect that Leopard would not work at all. When I tried it, it just
> stopped half way through the install, saying 21 minutes left for hours.

I have installed Leopard Server in VMware Fusion on my mid 2010 MacBook
Pro (which has a Core i5 processor). I think I had a problem on my first
attempt, but it worked fine the second time.

My VM is configured as "Mac OS X 10.5 64-bit", configured to use 2
processor cores and 1 GB of RAM.

Non-server Leopard with VMware Fusion 4.1.0 should be able to get away
with less memory assigned to the VM.

"About This Mac" in my Leopard Server VM reports the processor as "2 x
2.28 GHz Unknown".

I haven't tried setting up a 10.6 VM yet. My MacBook Pro originally
shipped with a special build of 10.6.3 (and can't boot from a 10.6.3 or
earlier retail DVD).

> Which means that this technique is a short term solution for running
> Eudora. As soon as you get a Mac which cannot run 10.5 or 10.6, that's
> the end of Eudora. :-(

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz

[David Morrison]

In article <davidmor-4486FD...@news.internode.on.net>,

I just created a virtual machine with Leopard Server on another older
machine, and transported it across to VMware on the MBP. It will not
start at all. The screen starts out with the grey apple in the centre,
but it shortly changes to a circle with a diagonal line across it.

Curiously I was able to install Snow Leopard (client) from a 10.6.0 DVD,
which should not have supported the i7.

[John H Meyers]

On 11/26/2011 5:27 PM, David Morrison wrote:

>>> VMware have pulled 4.1.0 and it isn't available for download any more

>> This doesn't mean that "third parties" can't have kept a copy
>> where it still can be downloaded.

> But you have to ask how long you can keep running the superseded
> version. Sooner or later, there is going to be a bug that you need
> fixed, or a new feature that you need, and you will have to upgrade.

That sounds like a strong argument for not even running Eudora 6.2.4,
which hasn't been updated in more than five years -- and never will be :)

--

[D.F. Manno]

In article <davidmor-26CDDB...@news.internode.on.net>,

And if the software "phones home," couldn't the company just disable
4.0.1 and force you to upgrade?

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
I am a kind of paranoiac in reverse. I suspect people of plotting to make
me happy. (J.D. Salinger)

[David Empson]

D.F. Manno <dfm...@mail.com> wrote:

> In article <davidmor-26CDDB...@news.internode.on.net>,
> David Morrison <davi...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <4ED0F781...@nomail.invalid>,
> > John H Meyers <jhme...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > On 11/26/2011 6:17 AM, David Empson wrote:
> > >
> > > > VMware have pulled 4.1.0 and it isn't available for download any more
> > >
> > > This doesn't mean that "third parties" can't have kept a copy
> > > where it still can be downloaded.
> >
> > But you have to ask how long you can keep running the superseded
> > version. Sooner or later, there is going to be a bug that you need
> > fixed, or a new feature that you need, and you will have to upgrade.
>
> And if the software "phones home," couldn't the company just disable
> 4.0.1 and force you to upgrade?

4.1.0, and the software does not "phone home" for activation, so no.

It does check for updates, but you can disable that in its preferences.

--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz