You apparently didn't bother to *read* any of the links you gave, otherwise you'd find out that all of them are illegal methods as they are violations of the EULA, and your last link even explains why they are illegal. Again, you can't virtualize OS X client prior to Lion at all, you can virtualize OS X Server and OS X Lion client, but only if you are running on OS X as a host OS, ie not VMWare ESX or Citrix XenServer, or Microsoft Hyper-V, or any other bare-metal hypervisor, in other words, a useless non-feature.

Again, you clearly didn't bother to give even a cursory glance at the results. Half of them are forum posts asking if OS X will ever have the ability to host terminal services (because it doesn't at the moment), and the other half are TS *clients* for accessing *Windows* terminal servers. The one relevent link, iRAPP, explicitly says that in order to conform to Apple's EULAs, they only allow multiple connections to OS X Server, not Client, which misses the entire point of having terminal services in the first place, and again makes it nothing more than VNC with a few more bells and whistles.

You obviously didn't understand what I was talking about *at all*. You mentioned VirtualBox, Fusion 4, and Parallels. Try running OS X in VirtualBox or Parallels without using a hacked up OSx86 version. Oh wait you can't. Try virtualizing more than two instances of OS X on the same server by any method without violating the EULA. Oh wait you can't. Try doing anything remotely useful with OS X and virtualization, the single most important and transformative technology in the IT world today. Oh wait you can't.

In response to my asking about terminal services, you respond "OSX has terminal". Clearly you have no idea what I'm talking about and didn't even bother to do the five seconds of googling to find out. Terminal services refers to the ability to have one server host multiple remote login gui sessions, each with their own desktop and user settings. I refrained from calling it "Remote Desktop", because you'd probably come back with Apple Remote Desktop, misunderstanding the conversation yet again. ARD is just VNC with a few bells and whistles thrown in.

Lol what? Hyper-V plus SCVMM is pretty damn good. I'll grant that it's not as good as a fully decked out VMWare solution with vCenter, but its a hell of a lot less expensive too. OS X on the other hand can't do virtualization at all. Its against the EULA. Sure there's some token attempt (two total virtual instances per physical machine! We're cooking with gas now!), but its not even worth mentioning.

No. Configuration management is more than just managed preferences and ARD. Where is the OS X equivalent of SCCM? Where is the automated image creation and deployment workflows? Where is the automated software packaging and deployment? Where is the support for Intel AMT style boot to shutdown remote control?

If Windows sucks at terminal services, then everybody does, because Windows is the undisputed best in the market by far. Look, I'm not saying Macs aren't great computers for single person use, they are. In fact, I'd say they are better for that purpose than other brands. But they simply have no place in a large enterprise environment. I welcome the day when Apple changes that, but I don't see it happening any time soon.

How about virtualization? How about terminal services? How about configuration management?

So you agree then that if I get past you and mix my labor with your computer, it becomes mine? Wonderful, let me go call some guys. A single semi-automatic shouldn't be much of a problem at all.

Wonderful. I'm gonna go install a RAM chip in your computer and therefore mix my labor with your computer so your computer becomes my property.