Maybe you don't understand their current business model. They are a hardware company, always have been. They make 33% income on each machine, which equates to far more than 100 dollars. It costs them $500 per copy to develop Mac OS X, and it would be impossible for them to keep quality control over the system. Since they haven't gone outside the scope of their own hardware with their OS, and the last time they did this was with a different architecture, the whole Mac experience will be lost.
Mac OS X may be based on BSD and have 4000 engineers, but it does not compare with the amount of people needed for Microsoft to keep their OS running. Even with UNIX behind it, at 30% marketshare, the bugs would be worse than Windows, unless they hired 10000 more engineers and developed an even better quality control scheme. It is simply not worth it for them to do this.
I heard the opposite about Leopard. I heard it'd be harder, as they would be removing ACPI portions related to BIOS. Apple is pushing 14% notebook marketshare and 11% overall, they are not hurting. Jobs also said on the D5 All Things Digital that he has no intention on holding the majority of the market. If it happens it happens, but there's no way Apple compares to Microsoft as far as the ability goes to keep a system afloat. Yes, Windows is pretty terrible, but it works for at least 75% of the 90% marketshare, so obviously they have some knowledge on engineering. Apple on the other hand was plagued with problems on their own hardware with the original MacBook Pros, and I seriously doubt that in less than 5 years from now you'll see retail copies of their system. Their operating system is not their ace card, it may lure people, but their strategy is still hardware. Their hardware bugs have most been explunged now with their third revision MacBook Pros and second generation MacBook, but software is another challenge, probably greater because of the complexity.
They'd have to be developing the virtualization solution may it be with an exclusive deal with Parallels or VMware, but the licensing fees would have to recoop the costs. Trust me, it costs them a lot more to implement what they do under the covers than it does with Windows. Microsoft has been piggybacking on the same code for over a decade with millions of customers, so their R&D is clearly a lot less. Apple is the first to innovate, since the late 70's through the 80's they were the ones who brought a simple design metaphor and built something that a consumer could somewhat use. They licensed rights from PARC, and Microsoft just took it from Jobs without himself paying a license to PARC, but it wasn't until Windows 3.1 before they took over the market. Windows clearly does not innovate much if you've used their products over the last 15 years. I've used every revision since 2.03, and they clearly only do enough to hush a few people from complaining. Apple is no longer overpriced with their hardware if you are going for a medium-class notebook or a high-class workstation, so it's best just to buy from them, and reap the benefit of quality integration and solid hardware.
Hackintosh is illegal. 10.4.3 was on hardware Apple made from various vendors with TPM chips, and developers were under NDA. It leaked, and the TPM kernel extensions were hacked out, and ever since people have been grafting each OS update onto it. There are even some people risky enough to directly hack retail copies of 10.4.6 and backport changes after first removing the DoNotStealMacOS kernel extension. I've seen someone run this, and it's a bad experience, it's a lot worse than just running Windows. Slow, buggy, not supported form the vendor, only accelerated if you have GMA because the EFI device drivers for NVIDIA and ATI cards are clearly not easy to fudge, no matter how much gdb experience you have.
Sorry for this long post, but seriously, unless Apple itself announces this, and claims otherwise to the above, you shouldn't even bring it up. It's sickening to run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, I know what you might think. Virtualization would be nice, but I don't see a reason to run it in a VM. Mac OS X hasn't caught on in the corporate world that much, so demonstrating AD authentication for instance doesn't really matter. What can you honestly need out of it under a VM? It's an intense graphical operating system, far more video hungry than anything up to Windows XP, I don't see what makes it useful under a VM, unless you want to run Mac OS X server, which is pretty horrid even on their own servers after a few months. It requires horsepower I doubt any of your VM's will deliver, if you intend to use it in production that is. Clearly you haven't educated yourself about their business model. Directly competing with Microsoft now would completely clobber their company. Allowing virtualization is an almost direct competition with Microsoft, on their most profitable front, servers. Microsoft makes most their money on client access licenses, then clients themselves on the side.
Davco, I believe you meant "Unity" mode. I understand what you're saying, and I think that the fullscreen should run like it does under workstation if you want it to. It should be free from odd glitches and resize problems. Their current way of implementing it was to change the resolution of the host and sort of focus on the guest at its resolution.
