Linked by snydeq on Wed 16th Dec 2009 20:13 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes 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.
Thread beginning with comment 400050
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I don't think....
by Slambert666 on Thu 17th Dec 2009 05:09 UTC
Slambert666
Member since:
2008-10-30

I don't think that the author of the article actually has been using the 3 programs over any extended period of time.
He talks about scalability in the context of number of Virtual Cores (!) not disk access or network performance for example (both these things matters to me a lot more than cores).
Further he does not comment on the massive instability issues that virtualbox has even on supported platforms and with supported clients (don't believe me? then check out the virtualbox forums, or try for yourself :-).

Reply Score: 2

RE: I don't think....
by flanque on Thu 17th Dec 2009 05:42 in reply to "I don't think...."
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Are you sure it's VirtualBox that's the issue, or just the hosted OS that doesn't play well with what VirtualBox offers up?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: I don't think....
by Laurence on Fri 18th Dec 2009 09:57 in reply to "RE: I don't think...."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Are you sure it's VirtualBox that's the issue, or just the hosted OS that doesn't play well with what VirtualBox offers up?


It's a bit of both, but I've had countless problems with VBox - particularly with VBox 3.0.x.

In fact, I've been forced to downgrade to 2.1.4 just to keep my VM alive (and even then it only works with 1 VM - any more and the whole machine dies).


I've been toying with the idea of wiping the system and installing VMWare instead, however VMWare does have some features that I do like and it is easy to maintain in a command-only environment.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: I don't think....
by strcpy on Fri 18th Dec 2009 15:23 in reply to "RE: I don't think...."
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Are you sure it's VirtualBox that's the issue, or just the hosted OS that doesn't play well with what VirtualBox offers up?


In all fairness, I must confess that I am sick and tired of hearing the ethos that an OS is broken or bad or whatnot if it does not work under virtualization. Several times I've seen an OS that works perfectly fine with real hardware but fails to work when inside a VM. In these cases the VM is always the one to blame.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: I don't think....
by l3v1 on Thu 17th Dec 2009 08:31 in reply to "I don't think...."
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

instability issues that virtualbox has


I've read about some of those every now and then, but I have yet to experience any of it, although I've been using vbox on Linux and Windows hosts with Linux and Windows guests for some years now, both for virtual server hosting and for development environments.

Note: As with every software, some people always bump into issues, while others don't. Me being ok with vbox doesn't mean it's the best, it just means it's been good for me.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: I don't think....
by kloot on Thu 17th Dec 2009 11:31 in reply to "RE: I don't think...."
kloot Member since:
2009-12-17

When the 2.0 series first came out, you couldn't even setup a vm on 386 hardware with Windows XP (it kept crashing although the software was released as final).
After asking a technical presales guy from Sun about this issue, his remark was: "don't take the first releases, they need to stabilize over time". So it is a bit like FreeBSD and KDE, where you need to wait 3 releases before it really gets where you want it to be, only with FreeBSD and KDE they don't hide that tip from you...

For me, a filesystem and a vm are such basic building blocks that I don't want to use the experimental versions as the base of my solutions. If the creators hide the real status of their product, then I lose all confidence and stop using it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: I don't think....
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Thu 17th Dec 2009 16:58 in reply to "I don't think...."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Well, for me, Disk and network would be a problem, if I had enough CPU cores. So, it may just vary depending upon your particular pattern of usage. Well, actually disk is also an issue at times. There are several times where I didn't expect disk to be an issue, but was.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: I don't think....
by BluenoseJake on Fri 18th Dec 2009 16:34 in reply to "I don't think...."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I've never seen "massive instability" From Virtual Box.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: I don't think....
by boldingd on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:10 in reply to "RE: I don't think...."
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

If I shutdown a guest that was using VT-x, my kernel panics. Every time.
That's the only problem I've had, and it's easy to work around: the world doesn't end if I just turn of VT-x. It also appears to be a problem with the ancient 2.6.9 kernel that Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 uses, and not with Virtual Box. But I think I can call that an instability.

Reply Parent Score: 2