Comments on: VirtualBox 3.1.2 vs VMware Player 3.0 (First Class Flyer) http://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/ Journey Into A World of Tech Fri, 03 Sep 2010 01:33:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Brianhttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-10171 Brian Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:55:35 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-10171 Joe,I currently have both installed but tend to use VMware Player more often because I love the drag and drop file transfers between the host and the guest. It's just much easier than going through shared folders. The Easy Install feature is nice to have too.I use VirtualBox for testing of large things as the snapshots feature is very useful and VMware Player doesn't seem to offer that.Thanks for visiting and commenting! Joe,

I currently have both installed but tend to use VMware Player more often because I love the drag and drop file transfers between the host and the guest. It’s just much easier than going through shared folders. The Easy Install feature is nice to have too.

I use VirtualBox for testing of large things as the snapshots feature is very useful and VMware Player doesn’t seem to offer that.

Thanks for visiting and commenting!

]]> By: Joe Alvarezhttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-10169 Joe Alvarez Fri, 02 Jul 2010 15:47:03 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-10169 Thanks for the thorough comparison! VMWare provides a free utility to convert physical machines or virtual machines to the VMWare format. VMware vCenter Converter painlessly moved my VirtalBox Win XP Pro to VMWare format that works with free VMWare Player. VirtualBox has been really great, but VMWare is definitely the main player in the VMWare world and I imagine will be around longer. Thanks for the thorough comparison! VMWare provides a free utility to convert physical machines or virtual machines to the VMWare format. VMware vCenter Converter painlessly moved my VirtalBox Win XP Pro to VMWare format that works with free VMWare Player. VirtualBox has been really great, but VMWare is definitely the main player in the VMWare world and I imagine will be around longer.

]]> By: Lynze Machttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-6619 Lynze Mac Sun, 23 May 2010 19:51:39 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-6619 Good comparision. Thanks!! .-= Lynze Mac´s last blog ..<a href="http://enmacado.lynze.net/enmacado-podcast-01%C3%9704/" rel="nofollow">enMACado Podcast 01×04</a> =-. Good comparision. Thanks!!
Lynze Mac´s last blog ..enMACado Podcast 01×04 My ComLuv Profile

]]> By: Jimhttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-5921 Jim Fri, 14 May 2010 02:16:56 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-5921 I run Virtual PC2007 with an XP Pro VM, virtualbox with Kubunto 9.04 VM, and VMplayer running an XBUNTU 9.1. PC2007 hosts Microsft products very reliably, and nothing else well. For hosting XP on Vista, it was easily best. When comparing Virtualbox to VMware using Vista as host and UBUNTU flavors as VM, its not even a competition... And creating a good working image with VMplayer is sooooo turn-key. Def not the case with Virtualbox with the 5 suselinux and ubuntu linux distros I tried. VMware just seems to do everything better. As far as not being able to Export Images you made with VMplayer, its actually really easy... Maybe theye didn't intend for it to be simple, but it really is. Anyway for me, using a LINUX VM on a Microsoft host, VMplayer wins. (Jim)Also, virtual pc2007 and VMware coexist very well. No conflicts at all when both are running.... For me.... I run Virtual PC2007 with an XP Pro VM, virtualbox with Kubunto 9.04 VM, and VMplayer running an XBUNTU 9.1. PC2007 hosts Microsft products very reliably, and nothing else well. For hosting XP on Vista, it was easily best. When comparing Virtualbox to VMware using Vista as host and UBUNTU flavors as VM, its not even a competition… And creating a good working image with VMplayer is sooooo turn-key. Def not the case with Virtualbox with the 5 suselinux and ubuntu linux distros I tried. VMware just seems to do everything better. As far as not being able to Export Images you made with VMplayer, its actually really easy… Maybe theye didn’t intend for it to be simple, but it really is. Anyway for me, using a LINUX VM on a Microsoft host, VMplayer wins. (Jim)

Also, virtual pc2007 and VMware coexist very well. No conflicts at all when both are running…. For me….

]]> By: Danielehttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-5385 Daniele Wed, 05 May 2010 12:50:53 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-5385 What about USB-Bluetooth dongle? I'm trying under Virtualbox with no result :( Everything OK with VMware Player 3... What about USB-Bluetooth dongle?
I’m trying under Virtualbox with no result :(
Everything OK with VMware Player 3…

]]> By: Brianhttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-1980 Brian Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:57:23 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-1980 Paul,Yep, snapshots are the primary thing that is preventing me from using VMware Player. I do a lot of experimenting inside virtual machines and I need to be able to easily backup and restore everything.Thanks for visiting, Brian Paul,

Yep, snapshots are the primary thing that is preventing me from using VMware Player. I do a lot of experimenting inside virtual machines and I need to be able to easily backup and restore everything.

Thanks for visiting,
Brian

]]> By: Paulhttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-1979 Paul Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:52:19 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-1979 I have tried both Virtualbox and VMWare Player and ended up a little frustrated with both. But I intend to persevere and I found your article very useful. Thanks.I would prefer to use VMWare Player but its one vital shortfall is that it will not keep snapshots. Having created a VM and installed an OS, eg. Win XP, SP2, SP3 and latest updates, the last thing you need is to reinstall the whole lot because you cannot restore from a snapshot. VMs are great for experimenting when you can just wipe a failure and restore to an earlier state, but not with VMWare Player. I have tried both Virtualbox and VMWare Player and ended up a little frustrated with both. But I intend to persevere and I found your article very useful. Thanks.

I would prefer to use VMWare Player but its one vital shortfall is that it will not keep snapshots. Having created a VM and installed an OS, eg. Win XP, SP2, SP3 and latest updates, the last thing you need is to reinstall the whole lot because you cannot restore from a snapshot. VMs are great for experimenting when you can just wipe a failure and restore to an earlier state, but not with VMWare Player.

]]> By: Brianhttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-1510 Brian Sat, 09 Jan 2010 01:04:58 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-1510 Hi Master Gobada. Compare the sizes of XP and Vista. The installation disk of XP is around 600 MB compared to Vista/7 which is almost 3 GB.Vista has a lot more eye candy than XP which significantly slows down the operating system. The system requirements of Vista was significantly higher than XP, which triggered lots of negative criticism because many were not ready for the big change.Also, keep in mind that I only have 3 GB of RAM on the computer I used to test VMware and VirtualBox, and Vista requires 2 GB or more to run smoothly. Compare that to XP which runs perfectly with 512 MB. Hi Master Gobada. Compare the sizes of XP and Vista. The installation disk of XP is around 600 MB compared to Vista/7 which is almost 3 GB.

Vista has a lot more eye candy than XP which significantly slows down the operating system. The system requirements of Vista was significantly higher than XP, which triggered lots of negative criticism because many were not ready for the big change.

Also, keep in mind that I only have 3 GB of RAM on the computer I used to test VMware and VirtualBox, and Vista requires 2 GB or more to run smoothly. Compare that to XP which runs perfectly with 512 MB.

]]> By: Master Gobadahttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-1509 Master Gobada Sat, 09 Jan 2010 00:45:56 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-1509 "First class flyer". Interesting. It's ironic how First Class is more expensive than normal though. }:)I find it hilarious how in nearly every category, XP is faster than Vista. Meh. “First class flyer”. Interesting. It’s ironic how First Class is more expensive than normal though. }:)

I find it hilarious how in nearly every category, XP is faster than Vista. Meh.

]]> By: Creasteryhttp://www.techairlines.com/2010/01/08/virtualbox-3-1-2-vs-vmware-player-3-0-first-class-flyer/comment-page-1/#comment-1503 Creastery Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:18:29 +0000 http://www.techairlines.com/?p=1614#comment-1503 Wow! First class flyer, eh? Nice comparism by the way. Impressed =D Wow! First class flyer, eh?
Nice comparism by the way. Impressed =D

]]>