Virtual Machines

[Christopher A. Williams]

On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 23:37 +0100, Joao Ferreira gmail wrote:

> I've used VMware Player and VMware Server2 for about 3 years.
> 
> More recently I came to a new project where the "law" is VirtualBox and
> I started using VirtualBox.
> 
> Both systems allow you to make your installs.
> 
> My experience up to now is: I've only used fresh installs; several
> Linux'es, Sun10, WinXp and Win7 on VMware; several Linux'es and WinXp on
> VirtualBox.
> 
> Both allow bridged networking, host-only networking and NAT networking.
> 
> I found VMware more professional while VirtualBox seems faster and
> easier to use.

I would tend to agree. VMware is much more feature rich than vBox and
very useful in larger environments especially where VMware vSphere is
used. It's also a bit "heavier" resource wise.

VirtualBox is a little faster and quite easy for "basic virtualization
on your desktop" stuff when you really are only interested in running a
VM or two. It's also markedly better at USB support. I don't know why
VMware has such issues with the way this gets handled in Workstation,
but several USB devices go plain goofy with it.

Other than that, both most certainly pass the "good enough" test and
then some. But I've been leaning a lot more towards VMware lately
because I have my own fears about vBox in the form of Oracle. We'll see
what actually happens...

Cheers,

Chris


-- 

==============================
"If you are calm while all around you is chaos,
then you probably haven't fully understood
the magnitude of the situation."

--Unknown