Hello, Simple question: Is it Worth to create a virtual machine with Virtualbox, or it's better to create it with VmWare? I worked with both of them about 10 years ago, but now I don't know if Virtual Box still working the same as it was 10 years ago. It's for do some fun win Windows 7 and Windows server 2008... Thank you very much.
If you last used VirtualBox since that long ago, then obviously it would've changed significantly. I last used it over two years ago (as I found it awkward and having to download an installer for every new release was just silly. I much prefer Virtual PC 2007). I can't say anything about VMWare though as I never used it.
Hello! I use virtualbox for many years. I've used the vmware. after I found the portable version, working with virtualbox got better.
Hello @Bryn89 , and thank you for your response. The fact is after use both of them ten years ago, I realised VmWare was so much better than Virtual Box. What I wanted to know is if Vitual Box still working the same (the same worse than VmWare, of course), so, after read your comment, it seems to me is still working in the same way. The bad thing is that VmWare license is still expensive for me. Have to use a trial version for work with it. Thank you @hotmusik4u , I'll give a chance to Virtual Box, to see if it worth.
The only downside of it is that it isn't formally supported by VMWare themselves. Everything else about is fine. It's completely free of charge, so use it as long as you like
I use both & vastly prefer VMWare WS mainly because it deals with adding disk drives directly as opposed to making them into network shares - which is very awkward IMO. There are other VB quirks too, but for single/simple VM uses VB is good, which is why I have both. If I need a windoze VM with multiple drive letters though, no contest, it is VMWare all the way.
One significant difference between the two is that Vmware won't support older processors whereas Virtualbox will.
I prefer VMWare, works better for everything. Even Player is superior to VirtualBox, but that's my opinion
VMware Player supports running more than one VM at a time. Just start a second or more Players. If you shutdown a VM in a Player, the Player for this VM closes too. In Workstation the GUI remains open and you can start direct another VM. Snapshots are missing in Player, but with a SSD its easy just to copy the hole VM folder (or make a backup of the .vmdk HD). I prefer VMware products, because if you earn your money in IT, knowledge of VMware products is better - never saw a firm with VirtualBox...
It does not support Snapshots but It does support running more than VM at a time (just open a new VM Player instance)
Snapshots are essential for me (using them as "Undo disks" for tests). If Player did at least support non-controllable snapshotting, so-called Undo-disks, like MS Virtual PC does (at shutdown, asking if you would like to keep the session that just ended and act accordingly), I could use it. With the amount of data that has to be written in VM works (GBs to potentially TBs a day, especially when using snapshots), an SSD would wear out fast, so, I'm using mechanical HDDs.