Mac OSX Lion guest on Mac OSX host
Posted: 13. Aug 2012, 23:20
Seeing the different threads on this forum, I see that the EFI is not working on VirtualBox for Mac OSX >= Lion Installation. The result is that booting the VM with the mac installer DVD (iso image or dmg from the installer, InstallESD.dmg), results in an error "This version of Mac OS X is not supported on this platform!"
Parallels has this working but I would rather use VirtualBox. I downloaded the 4.2.0 BETA 1 of vbox to see if the new version would have the necessary changes so that the EFI would pass through the correct information to the installer, but it appears it does not.
As a developer with 10.8/Mountain Lion installed, the need to test against XCode 4.2 and Safari 5 makes the need to run a Mac guest extremely important. Is there any possibility of having the EFI patched for 4.2 to allow Lion and Mountain Lion to be installed as a guest on a mac host?
Please do not mention SLA on this thread, OSX Lion is allowed to be installed into two VMs in the SLA provided that the host is Mac hardware, so there is no licensing reason why this should not work.
At one point, it seemed someone was working on a patch as issue 9388. Could this be increased in priority?
Parallels has this working but I would rather use VirtualBox. I downloaded the 4.2.0 BETA 1 of vbox to see if the new version would have the necessary changes so that the EFI would pass through the correct information to the installer, but it appears it does not.
As a developer with 10.8/Mountain Lion installed, the need to test against XCode 4.2 and Safari 5 makes the need to run a Mac guest extremely important. Is there any possibility of having the EFI patched for 4.2 to allow Lion and Mountain Lion to be installed as a guest on a mac host?
Please do not mention SLA on this thread, OSX Lion is allowed to be installed into two VMs in the SLA provided that the host is Mac hardware, so there is no licensing reason why this should not work.
At one point, it seemed someone was working on a patch as issue 9388. Could this be increased in priority?