Comments on: 5 reasons why you should use VirtualBox, instead of VirtualPC or VMware

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:23:35 +0000

I use virtualbox for everything and it is defidentally my preference. I have a Dell poweredge 750, 4gb of ram and a 2.8GHZ P4 with Hyper Threading. It runs ubuntu desktop 9.04, and plays host to 4 Windows Server 2003 machines VIA virtualbox. Essentially every piece of my domain with the exception of Exchange is virtual. It is very fast and very reliable. Dont attempt to do a similar setup with a Windows host. Always use a linux Host.

As far as network connections and IP addresses go. You can either have virtualbox NAT which provides you the bogus 10.X.X.X address. Or you can link the vitualboxes to individual host adapters allowing you real DHCP from your server.

I fully support and stand behind virtualbox.

But I will say that VMware has the neat ability to transfer your VM’s from one vmware server to the other while the OS is in use. So if you are a large corporation, you might consider VMWare. But small corps (like mine, 20 people) Virtualbox is great.

By: jonny rotten

jonny rotten — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:00:36 +0000

Does virtual box support VPN yet? Last time I tried it, it couldn’t handle GRE for VPN. Surprise surprise, VMware does.

By: Liam

Liam — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:38:30 +0000

I am giving VirtualBox a try. I have using Virtual PC since 2006 without any problems except when I ventured to use Linux. It should be pointed out that Linux will run acceptably on Virtual PC but only with a bit of maintenance, however it runs much slower and is unsupported for file sharing etc. VM Additions for Linux are available, but only with MS Virtual Server 2005 (free), which is more resource intensive and not suited to my needs right now.

While VMWare server is clearly far more feature-rich that VPC or VB, it is not suited for desktop casual use. Workstation was impressive though I found it notably slower than Virtual PC hosting Windows Server 2003 as a VM, so that a few years ago I found myself testing complex network management server running on several Windows 2003 servers in Virtual PC instead!

By: Dacke

Dacke — Thu, 07 May 2009 20:52:37 +0000

There is a VERY nice feature about Virtual PC that I like, and that it the ability to drag and drop files from the host OS onto the guest OS. I used VM’s for testing software all the time and to attempt to live without this capability or have to setup a network share for it just seems like a hassle.
I know it sounds petty, but no more so than some of the other comments posted here. Oh well, just my 2 cents.

By: Wirasto S. Karim

Wirasto S. Karim — Sat, 02 May 2009 12:01:04 +0000

Nice article

By: El Guapo

El Guapo — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:28:20 +0000

You lost me on this blog article dude… Virtual PC has all the features you mention except maybe “lightweight” whatever that means… VPC seems pretty lightweight to me. So, I’m thinking this is just advocacy rather than useful information but please feel free to correct me.

By: ned

ned — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:03:04 +0000

VirtualBox causes frequent BlueScreen of deaths, over and over and over for me, VirtualPC is junk, it miscalculates data all the time and has many bugs. If you schedule a task for rebooting the system every 2 hours in VirtualPC, it reboots WAY before 2 hours (maybe instantly or about 5 minutes) it’s just useless. I’m going to try VMWare next. I hope theirs is decent.

By: dirn

dirn — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 12:57:57 +0000

1. Mouse Integration – Nothing can beat the feeling of not having to search for your mouse when you switch OS and the cursor moving at different speeds.
- Every VMs has this feature once you installed the guest additions

2. Share Folder – There might be third-party software out there, but this feature comes with VirtualBox. Simple installation and your Windows files are available on Linux. Nothing change except the OS.
- VirtualPC 2007 has the same feature as well

3. Super lightweight – Self-explaination. The smallest VM I ever seen.
- Yes, this is the best part of VirtualBox

Comparing the free VMs, if you hosted it in Linux undoubtedly VirtualBox is the best but that is not the case if it’s in Windows. Whenever you upgraded your VirtualBox, chances for your guest image to get corrupted is high (ONLY in Windows)

Another nice feature in VirtualBox is the USB support (VMWare has this capability as well).

Bridging the network is a bit complicated for VirtualBox whether it’s in Linux or Windows (VMWare and VirtualPC won this part).

In the end, it doesn’t matter what we use as long as it serve the purpose to finish our jobs

By: David

David — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 05:11:44 +0000

VirtualBox makes it impossible to share your network IP address with the Virtual Machine. In VirtualPC you get a 192.168.1.x IP but not VirtualBox you get some off the wall 10.x.x.x Ip address.

Also, I only have XP64 and it will not load it. I don’t get it, you download VirtualBox for AMD 64 but it can’t install a 64Bit Os. what the heck is the point of this? useless.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:58:31 +0000

[...]VirtualBox free (FOSS) edition has some serious limitations. I’ve listed what you get in the closed ie what is missing from the FOSS version: [...]

Note that both versions are free, just not both open source . (albeit the first one with some restrictions)

By: Eric

Eric — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 13:55:16 +0000

VirtualPC has no access to host USB and native partitions.
VmWare isn’t free.

By: GPL

GPL — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 01:38:04 +0000

VirtualBox is free as in speech!

By: Multitasker

Multitasker — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:14:51 +0000

I have used MS VPC and VirtualBox but VMware workstation 6 is currently the top product for home & home office use.

1. USB devices work in VMware without a struggle.
2. It can clone your physical PC.
3. It works on Vista 64 bit hosts and Linux guests.
4. VMware player allows you to copy a VM to another PC in the home.
5. No need for a slow shared folder – you can map the entire real drive from within the VM.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:47:32 +0000

I really like VirtualBox but, just to play Devil’s advocate for a moment, the first two features are common to all three applications compared. All three require that guest additions be installed for mouse integration and all three offer an easy way to do this through the GUI.

I agree completely about speed. VirtualBox is fast. It’s also free. VirtualPC is free as well, though not open source.

The one reason that makes it hard to completely do away with VirtualPC or VMWare Workstation is the ability to create differencing images. This is a huge feature, especially when dealing with Windows guest OS’s that require activation. If you want various configurations of Windows Server, you can install it once as a base image, activate, and then create all the differencing images you want for the various configurations. Both VirtualPC and VMWare Workstation offer this.

By: unknown

unknown — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:25:49 +0000

Hmm, i tested and compared all virtualisation software, don’t lie guys, virtualbox slowest