Comments for VMware vs. VirtualBox Part 2 at http://marsbox.com , comment 1 to 13 out of 13 comments http://marsbox.com Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:30:11 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-348 VMWare gets annoying now with their web interface... I rather have it through an application, and don't have to open my browser to use the program I installed... - Mart Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:06:13 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-340 Sorry, read that as @skysen !!;D - Noughtfornothing Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:41:09 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-339 Its about mid-January 2011 now. So, @sysken, where are the links to your benchmarks for us to see and evaluate.? Cheers - Noughtfornothing Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:39:40 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-333 @skysen I wrote the article and I'm not a hater. I currently run VMware Workstation 7.1.2 myself. I use VMware now because of better DirectX support and I find myself generally more productive with it. However, the benchmarks were very accurate in March 2009 when I conducted them. Perhaps you could provide a link to your benchmarks for others to see? - Grant Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:14:30 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-332 Another vmware hater monkey took couple of hours to write down this fake benchmark. The only problem is it's a lie. I recently did benchmarks on the same hardware and vmware come up better in almost everything. You either made this whole thing up or used different settings or different hardware. - skysen Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:03:44 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-319 [i][b]Thank you for the info, it was so useful and you clear my doubts. 8)[/b][/i] - AL-X-OR Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:18:54 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-277 FWIW, I have been using VB 3.1.x on my Ubuntu box (AMD 9850 / 8G DDR2 / 7200RPM SATA) to host a Win7 VM and was pretty disappointed. CPU usage in the guest was always >20% and it seemed that things took forever to launch and were agonizingly sluggish in use. I just switched to VMWare (3.0.x Player) and the difference is amazing. The guest is actually usable now. I see in one of the comments to your original article that setting VB to emulate SATA drives makes a big difference; I don't know what my current setting is, I'll try that and see if if the performance improves. Thanks for the article! - Random Coolzip Thu, 20 May 2010 08:53:28 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-240 I have both VMWare Fusion and VirtualBox on my MacBook Pro. I also have VirtualBox on both of my Windows 7 machines. The biggest VirtualBox advantage to me is that it operates the same across all of the major operating systems. I am can't afford to purchase VMWare Workstation for so much more $$ when I already purchased Fusion. It is also nice to be able to just run my VMs on my desktop when I get home. - DJara Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:28:54 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-218 Was looking for benchmarks of vmware vs virtualbox and finally found yours! Had almost decided against virtualbox based on older diskspeed issues but given the new benchmarks, am going for virtualbox now! Thanks! - Aditya Gilra Tue, 29 Dec 2009 03:52:44 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-201 I think it is the most useful material for comparison between the 2 VM giants I have seen so far! thanks! - sxathk Thu, 19 Nov 2009 22:49:40 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-200 Thanks for the update, If possible I'd really like to see a feature comparison between VB and VMware WS, say about snapshots, network user interface, etc ... on both apps. I like the tests graphics. - mb Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:14:17 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-137 Hey, looks like you compared performance of physical disks and forgot to take into account that VmWare is constantly updating the snapshot. To avoid this (useful) overhead, you may want to add an additioanl disk and check "Independent" checkbox. In this case disk won't be covered by snapshot. I'd expect significant performance boost in this case. -dda - dda Thu, 23 Apr 2009 17:29:45 +0100 http://marsbox.com/blog/reviews/vmware-vs-virtualbox-part-2/#comment-125 Hey, thanks for writing this up. I came upon your old review through 4sysops and saw your update. I've been looking for a helpful substantiated summary between these two for a while now. Thanks again! - Paul Sun, 05 Apr 2009 10:17:08 +0100