Comments for VMware vs. VirtualBox at http://marsbox.com , comment 0 to 5 out of 5 comments http://marsbox.com Tue, 19 Aug 2008 22:41:18 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.2 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox/#pc_55 Under "file system" graph: why is lower transfer speed described as being better? Why no testing of both SCSI and ATA emulation? - Phil Thu, 08 May 2008 15:33:46 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox/#pc_53 This is pretty good comparison, but I think it would be more productive to compare apples to apples by putting the free VMware server up against VirtualBox. I am willing to bet that VMware has cut back on some of the performance stats on the free version to try to get people to buy the Workstation or ESX Server. Also, VirtualBox has some other "enhancements" over VMware since VMware has no seamless mode (at least not in the free version) which I find very useful when running Windows apps on my Ubuntu box. Good article though, I really liked the charts... pictures are always good... - Bryan Fri, 02 May 2008 17:41:55 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox/#pc_44 What about CPU Utilization when both host and guest OSes are idle? That would help me make a choice. Thanks - Ravi Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:42:32 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox/#pc_36 Agreed, very informative. Thanks. I am really curious how MS Virtual PC now measures compared to the other two given the time since the last use. I've tried using VMware Player, which is supposed to be able to use Virtual PC vmc and vhc files, but this resulted in an error message. Perhaps because I'm comfortable with Virtual PC I've continued to use it. Stephen - StephenB Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:14:17 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox/#pc_35 Very informative. Thanks. - Runfer Fri, 04 Jan 2008 01:17:59 +0100