I don't get the harsh criticism of VirtualBox. I have not used vmware in a couple years. Last time I tried I could not get the drivers to compile against the kernel I was using, which was no doubt to new for vmware. Yet I've never had a problem compiling vbox drivers for any kernel.

I use VirtualBox on a Core2Duo laptop with a 15.4" 1680 x 1050 display and a 20" 1600x900 external display. I run VirtualBox full screen on my external display and it runs great. I even run Windows XP and watch netflix in the vbox while I'm doing real work on my laptop screen.

VirtualBox accelerated drivers work great with my Intel graphics chipset. How does vmware compare?

Nathan


On Tuesday, January 31, 2012 12:26:02 PM Jim March wrote:

The only good reason to use VirtualBox (the Oracle VM manager they got from Sun) is that it works on CPUs that lack "hardware virtualization" - what Intel calls "VT-x" and AMD calls "AMD-x".

A surprising number of Intel CPUs lack hardware virt support.  AMD seems to have shipped it on damned near anything with two or more cores, but a lot of Intel "Pentium dual-core", "Core Duo" and even "Core 2 Duo" chips plus the lower-power stuff (Nano) lacks it. 

Which leaves you stuck with VirtualBox...

If you don't know what your chip supports, google it and you'll generally find a tech specs page from Intel, AMD or whatever.  Look for VT-x, AMD-x or the like if you've got something oddball.

Jim