The ravings of a sane person.

Sometimes filled with information.

  • 1

VirtualBox is pathetic

"Once the ad ends you'll be returned to your LiveJournal experience" dear lord...

OMG you're still using Virtualbox? It is no comparison with VMWare and Parallel. Give these products a try, their player versions are free and once you try them, you'll never go back to Virtualbox again. I promise.

Re: VirtualBox is pathetic

You've complained before about reading this blog at LJ. Every article is syndicated out via RSS, which is readable in Google Reader, and is available in Facebook. You don't need to come here to read it, and comments can go to Facebook or email.

I've used both Parallels and VMWare in the past. Parallels has a 2 week trial on their product, which is not nearly enough to trial it seriously. Running some benchmarks, maybe, but not using the product full-time. I remember leaving VMWare because their client licensing BS had issues on Win2k and XP back in 2005.

Also, I've had bad experiences with shared folders on all three virtualization products, so my current workflow requires both a host-only connection and a NAT connection. I know that Parallels doesn't support that configuration (Chris ran into the issue himself when trying Parallels on Mac). VMWare does support it, but unless it has significantly improved it's performance in the last 6 months, it's still a little slower or about comparable to Virtualbox: and

Unless you can show me apples-to-apples benchmarks proving that VirtualBox is significantly slower than VMWare and/or Parallels, I am hesitant to switch - VirtualBox works for me, has everything I need, and costs me zero to maintain.

Is there something in particular that VirtualBox falls behind in for you? Maybe it's a particular setup where VirtualBox isn't comparable, you were using Mac host and Windows guest, right?

  • 1

Log in