[muhkayla]

I've only ever used VMware, so I can't really vote fairly in the poll. However, I will say that VMware has never left me wanting more.

[BetaWar]

VMWare workstation for me. Got to love its power.

[Atli]

baavgai, on 20 January 2012 - 10:58 PM, said:

In every environment I've tried this, identical guest configurations side by side, VMWare doesn't just preform better than VirtualBox, it's an order of magnitude better.

I've been trying VMWare Player the last couple of days, and I've found out two things. First, you are absolutely right about the performance. This is especially true when running Windows 7 and the Windows 8 Dev preview. - The Win 8 Dev Preview is barely usable in VB, but in VMWare you can almost forget it's running in a VM

However, there is one area where VMWare kind of fails. When running 3D accelerated non-Windows desktops, like Ubuntu (Unity) and Fedora (Gnome 3). VMWare Player doesn't seem to have any 3D acceleration support for non-Windows systems, which is kind of a deal-breaker for me. I'm so used to the 3D effects when running Ubuntu and Fedora that the 2D alternatives bug the hell out of me.

So I'm now running Windows VMs in VMWare and Linux VMs in VirtualBox. I like the VMWare interface a lot better though, so if they ever get 3D effects running for Linux I'll most likely switch over to that altogether.

[Sergio Tapia]

I use WMWare because VirtualBox seems to feel laggy and has failed me on two crucial times before.

[Programmist]

Virtual Box. I don't see a reason to pay for software when a perfectly good free alternative is available

[lordofduct]

Why does everyone bring up "pay" for this.

Parrallels is the only 'must pay' virtual machine I can see in the list. VMWare is only pay for the Enterprise Server versions, you can run it free at home with all the features you would really need (and pretty much the same if not more than Virtual Box), while ALSO being a server (VirtualBox does not offer server functionality).

Also as for the list...

KVM? Do you mean Kernel-based Virtual Machine? You might want to be a little more specific there... KVM actually has several meanings that could be confusing and also the technology is not actually a commonly known option.

Where are other options. Like srsly, QEmu and Xen don't make the list? You have KVM and "Virtual Machine Manager" on the list, but you don't have QEmu or Xen. You don't even have Microsoft's "Virtual PC".




Don't get me wrong, I use Virtual Box. I have it installed on my computer I'm on right now. It has about 8 virtual machines on it. I also ran VMWare in linux for a while, and was about to install their hypervisor when I decided to use Xen's hypervisor instead. Virtual Box is a very capable virtual machine emulator for local virtual machines ran in a single-user session. But it's not like it's the only free option, and things like VMWare, Xen, offer up FAR MORE functionality than Virtual Box... for free. The necessity for it though hinges on a necessity for a server style service.

[Atli]

lordofduct, on 26 January 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

(VirtualBox does not offer server functionality).

That's not entirely true though. It's true that it doesn't include a way to set it up as a service/daemon via the GUI, but the command line tools allow you to start the VMs in headless mode, which you can easily use to set up a startup script on Linux. And there is the VBoxVmService tool for Windows that makes it easy to set VMs up as a services.

[supersloth]

lordofduct, on 20 January 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Dogstopper, on 20 January 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

The Caffeine Lounge talks about geek technology (as stated in the forum description), and thus this qualifies.

Was just saying, because I usually see threads similar to these computer subjects get moved.

and you are right. just because the lounge exists as a catch all doesn't mean there aren't better places for certain topics. moved to a more appropriate forum.

[lordofduct]

Atli, on 25 January 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

lordofduct, on 26 January 2012 - 03:50 AM, said:

(VirtualBox does not offer server functionality).

That's not entirely true though. It's true that it doesn't include a way to set it up as a service/daemon via the GUI, but the command line tools allow you to start the VMs in headless mode, which you can easily use to set up a startup script on Linux. And there is the VBoxVmService tool for Windows that makes it easy to set VMs up as a services.

Well by that technicality nearly all software in linux meets that demand despite not being considered server. VMWare, Xen, etc, these are designed to be easily serviceable and managed as a server application for remote use. VirtualBox requires extra work and/or code to do so.

"My bicycle is technically a motor vehicle, all I have to do is stick a weed-whacker engine on it."



Note - VMWare and Xen are designed to be what they call a hypervisor. It is a self contained server installed barebone on the machine (they use there own custom linux kernel). VMWare just happens to also have a version that can be hosted by an existing OS.

My point, VMWare offers far more than Virtual Box. And yep, the free versions have this stuff.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 26 January 2012 - 07:41 AM

[Gorian]

Moved from Computer Support Archive to Software Support