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 400069
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: I don't think....
by l3v1 on Thu 17th Dec 2009 08:31 UTC 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[3]: I don't think....
by Slambert666 on Thu 17th Dec 2009 13:00 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think...."
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

...then I lose all confidence and stop using it.


Exactly the same happened to me...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: I don't think....
by ctl_alt_del on Thu 17th Dec 2009 19:00 in reply to "RE[2]: I don't think...."
ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

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).


"386 hardware", really?!? That's so 1980s and to top it off, WinXP requires a Pentium (586) anyway.

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...


Insert YMMV here . . . Pretty much the same could be said for the initial release of any new software version (or cars for that matter ;) .

Reply Parent Score: 2