On 2015-07-01, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
Snit wrote:

On 6/30/15, 7:49 PM, in article 20150701044907.477722be@maxa-pc,
"Melzzzzz" wrote:

On Wed, 01 Jul 2015 02:45:18 GMT
Wildman wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:09:55 -0700, Snit wrote:

On 6/30/15, 4:15 PM, in article ,
"Wildman" wrote:

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 14:28:27 -0700, Snit wrote:

[deletia]

While we are that I have downloaded different images in order to try it
in virtualbox and none worked. Seems that it is easier to install it on
bare metal (non Mac) then in VM....

OS X runs fine in Parallels on a Mac... so you can run older versions of
OS X.

Yes. You can ONLY run MacOS on a Mac.

You can kind of hack your way around that with a custom hardware build
but it's even more bothersome than trying to build a Linux box in the early
90s.


While I have iMac in the office I just wanted to try it in VM, but alas
virtualbox support is very lousy.

From what I have seen and read, VirtualBox in general does not work as
well as Parallels and VMWare... but it is also free.

What you have seen and read is balderdash

Generally VirtualBox runs better than VMware and has more options. There is
currently only one area where VMware perfroms slightly better. The speed of
the virtual network is a little higher than that of VirtualBox.


That's not been my experience. Although VirtualBox is more than adequate
for "light duty" work. Admittedly my experience may be soured by the whatever
Ubuntu has done with their build of Virtualbox.

On the other hand, I don't see this being at all an issue for pedestrian
Apple users. It's likely that their only real objection to VirtualBox is that
it doesn't afford them the opportunity of feeling superior by way of
demonstrating that they are more willing to waste money.