Way OT-Virtual Machines
Sorry to clutter the board with BS, but I know there is a lot of IT guys who visit MGoBlog. I have a question about Virtual Machines, I currently have both the VMWare player and Virtual Box. I seem to like Virtual Box better but was curious if anyone had a differing opinion. Fwiw, I currently have my first server class so I am running Microsoft Server 03 from Virtual Box.
I don't hate virtual PC when I'm on windows.
When i'm on a Mac, not only am I happier individual, I prefer parallels.
For servers, LabManager isn't bad.
March 29th, 2010 at 10:30 PM ^
A couple of months ago, I'd have chosen VirtualBox (VB) over VMware Player 2.0.
However, I've since switched to VMware Player 3.0. I think VMware Player 3.0 addressed a lot of deficiencies relative to VirtualBox (shared folders, usb connectivity, etc.). I've found VMware to be faster for Windows XP guests on an Ubuntu 9.10 linux host. It also seems to be better suited to running Mac OS X guests, though I think VirtualBox will probably eventually catch up. VMware player does not give you snapshots, however, though I've found that capability in VB to be very problematic on linux. That's the other reason I prefer VMware - it's way easier to migrate machines using VMware than using VB.
I used VirtualPC on Windows XP. My only foray with Virtual PC on Windows 7 is with XP mode, and I hated it. It seemed much more restrictive than either VMware or VirtualBox.
I think VirtualBox has an open-source option, whereas VMware is strictly proprietary.
I think it's a 'pick your poison' arena these days. I find they both have their uses.