VMWare Vs. Virtualbox ?

[allend66]

Pro's and cons for each? I'm testing them both now but would like anybody's comments.

I noticed VMware needed a reboot and took longer to instal. Will be installing Ubuntu and XP Pro on virtualHDs but will take a while.

Comments please...

 

[Clinkz]

I have found Virtual Box to be quicker for the host + guest OS compared to VMware Player. I have used both for the last year or so. In terms of networking VMware player was faster for me, and better with 64 bit installations. If you want to install XP + Ubuntu, i would recommend Virtual Box, it seems to run these VM's a lot faster then VMware Player.

If you want some detailed benchmarks, have a look at:

Virtualbox Vs. VMWare - Techairlines

and

Virtualbox Vs. VMWare - Sysprobs

 

[pparks1]

I've used both in the past. I lean towards VMWare Player, as I am a VMWare admin at work..so it's consistency among the products that sells it for me. With that said, I've found both products to work and function well and not cause significant issues.

The "one" thing that annoys me with virtualbox is the following scenario. I like to setup and test many things, but don't like to constantly load the OS when I fire up a new VM. For this reason, I prefer to install Windows, and then run "sysprep" and then have that hard drive file copied to an images directory. Then, when I fire up a new VM, I copy in the sysprepped Windows image hard drive, attach to it, boot the machine and windows is up and running in just a few seconds. Unfortunately, virtualbox makes you put the hard drives into the virtual media manager and when you try to fire up a VM using the same HD image file, virtualbox complains that the UUID number is the same. Now, I can go out with a command line tool and manually change the UUID number, but this is simply another step that isn't required under VMWare Player.

If you really want to take advantage of virtual machines, and can afford to have a second machine on your home network, you might want to consider looking at building a whitebox ESXi install. http://ultimatewhitebox.com/forum/showThread/460. I've got a few of these at work, and they are fabulous with managing resources and such when you need to run a small LAN to test a handful of things together at the same time. The ESXi install itself is free.

 

[karthik dm]

link to download virtual box

frnz...
i need to download virutualbox,,for my new windows 7 64 bit os,,
i downloaded frm ,virtualbox website,,,but its not working,,
is dre any other link to download,,,,virtualbox,,,
plz...tell about tat,,,,
thanks..

 

[kado897]

I have found Virtual Box to be quicker for the host + guest OS compared to VMware Player. I have used both for the last year or so. In terms of networking VMware player was faster for me, and better with 64 bit installations. If you want to install XP + Ubuntu, i would recommend Virtual Box, it seems to run these VM's a lot faster then VMware Player.

If you want some detailed benchmarks, have a look at:

Virtualbox Vs. VMWare - Techairlines

and

Virtualbox Vs. VMWare - Sysprobs

These comparisons are well out of date both are on v4 now and are both much improved. I find VirtualBox the faster of the two. Just a general feeling no benchmarks. There is an issue with the current version of VMPlayer not connecting to the server to download guest additions but the previous version is OK. ATM I would use VirtualBox. A number of the Linux distributions including Ubuntu now recognize a VirtualBox install and load tested versions of the Guest Additions for you so unless you need the very latest you don't need to go through the hassle of installing them yourself.