On 10/16/07, Scott Horowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm surprised by some of the replies. Frankly, I found vmware to be > much more straightforward to set up compared to virtualbox. I've been > using it for many months without a single problem, I highly recommend > it. It's also much easier to do bridged networking with vmware (simply > tell it the interface and you're done) while virtualbox requires a lot > of manual labor.
I actually prefer virtualbox OSE over vmware server (I do use both). Running without hardware virtualization support (athlon XP 2500+) I don't notice any major difference in speed, however there are some differences which force me to use a specific solution depending on what I'm trying to achieve. Virtualbox: - Properly supports a mergedfb dual monitor setup. - Dynamically modifies the guest resolution as you resize the VM window. - Lacks hardware breakpoint support (used when debugging w32 applications) - The OSE edition is really free (although I personally wouldn't disregard any non-free solution) VMware: - Screws up on full screen display, drawing the VM screen in the center of my two monitors. - Does support hardware breakpoints - Does not automatically alter the guest resolution (maybe I missed an option somewhere?) Haven't got much experience with networking, on VMware it works fine for sure (both bridged and NAT), on vbox I've only used NAT networking. I use VMware for w32 debugging and server-like purposes (easy remote management using the server console), and virtualbox for most applications which are win32 only - 'general' usage. Joerie _______________________________________________ arch mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
