Slashdot Mirror
VMware Workstation vs. VirtualBox vs. Parallels
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy takes an in-depth look at VMware Workstation 7, VirtualBox 3.1, and Parallels Desktop 4, three technologies at the heart of 'the biggest shake-up for desktop virtualization in years.' The shake-up, which sees Microsoft's once promising Virtual PC off in the Windows 7 XP Mode weeds, has put VirtualBox — among the best free open source software available for Windows — out front as a general-purpose VM, filling the void left by VMware's move to make Workstation more appealing to developers and admins. Meanwhile, Parallels finally offers a Desktop for Windows on par with its Mac product, as well as Workstation 4 Extreme, which delivers near native performance for graphics, disk, and network I/O. 'There's some genuine innovation going on, especially in the areas of hardware support and application compatibility,' Kennedy writes. 'All support 32- and 64-bit Windows and Linux hosts and guests, and all have added compelling new VM management capabilities, ranging from automated snapshots to live VM migration.'"
They call VMware Workstation at $189 "expensive".
It's a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the hardware needed to run any of these products well.
They say a max of 4 virtual CPU in the review but they FAIL to mention that each of these CPU can have 4 cores, so really it supports 16 virtual processors.
These two inaccuracies also just happen to be the only two "Cons" that they assign to VMware.
If you actually bother to boot up and try VirtualBox you will find it very buggy compared to VMware, to the point of being not very usable. I spent several days trying to get VirtualBox to work for me but there were just too many problems.
VirtualBox is a lovely product, but remember it's now owned by Oracle.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I worry about your attention span and quality of life if you can't successfully multitask.