Which Is Better VirtualBox Or VMware Workstation 9

Narayan

Member
Member
Messages
127
Location
Kolkata, India
Hello Guys, Hope you all are fine.

I want to install some of the programs and OS that I want to test before installing them on my actual computer. But, here I am confused between the two Virtualization Products:-

1) Oracle VM VirtualBox 4.2.16

2) VMware Workstation 9.0.2

Both of these are popular and will work flawlessly but my question is that which would be more better to work. I know that VBox is free and is GNU whereas VMware is expensive but I am ready to pay for it if its better.

Please help me and tell which I should use.

I need the following qualities:-

1) Easy to use User Interface
2) Reliable
3) Work Flawlessly
4) Should not decrease my Host Performance
5) Should have a good Graphics Acceleration

Thanks..................:D
 
There are tons of articles on this one. Google it: Workstation vs VirtualBox
Here's a recent one:
Review: VMware Workstation 9 vs. VirtualBox 4.2 | Virtualization - InfoWorld

Each time, Workstation wins overall due to the stability, reputation and features it has + you get better performance at cpu and gpu in a VM.

VirtualBox would win the host performance section because it doesn't slow the host (or the least slowdown you can get): no services are installed at all and of course also the best price tag which is free. For the rest, go to Workstation's features. All VirtualBox VM's are usually fast.

Workstation has just a minor impact on performance (due to a lot of features + services) and with modern hardware this isn't a problem at all. Workstation VM's are usually more advanced if you consider the different hardware versions (to choose from) and so many system resources propped in a VM when needed.

On Workstation you also have the best graphic acceleration of the two and drag and drop exists (VBox still works at dnd and is experimental for Linux only at the moment).

If by the way you also need real stretched full screen the you'll need Workstation for its "exclusive mode".
VirtualBox has something called "scale mode" but the graphics still have issues in this mode.

In the end Workstation Unity Mode integrates best between host and guest.

Something I didn't found much about online yet:
Workstation's UEFI mode supports also Windows so you can have UEFI in a VM even if the host is legacy MBR.
VirtualBox UEFI doesn't support Windows yet. You can still install OS X and Linux though.
 
Number 4 on your list is impossible, any virtual environment you run will have an impact on the Host performance. You may want to modify that point to "Have the least impact on my host performance".

Define good graphics acceleration. No VM will have graphics performance anywhere near the graphics performance of the host.

I have never done A-B comparisons between VB and VMWare Workstation so I can't answer your question directly. I have used both VB and VMWare Player quite a bit and find them both very good.

Here is an article that compares the 2 products and gives the nod to VMWare: Review: VMware Workstation 9 vs. VirtualBox 4.2 | Virtualization - InfoWorld
 
Number 4 on your list is impossible, any virtual environment you run will have an impact on the Host performance. You may want to modify that point to "Have the least impact on my host performance".

Define good graphics acceleration. No VM will have graphics performance anywhere near the graphics performance of the host.

I have never done A-B comparisons between VB and VMWare Workstation so I can't answer your question directly. I have used both VB and VMWare Player quite a bit and find them both very good.

Here is an article that compares the 2 products and gives the nod to VMWare: Review: VMware Workstation 9 vs. VirtualBox 4.2 | Virtualization - InfoWorld

That's right but one of the two will be better than the other at some points.

Of course VM's will NEVER match the pure host performance (especially graphics) so that's why we exclude the host: fight is between VM's and virtualization programs alone.
 
After you've tested the two programs yourself you'll decide better. Only listening at others' advice and choices will not help you completely.

I used both and at some points I don't fully agree with online comparisons because it depends on what features you use and mark as more important.
 
But, here I am confused between the two Virtualization Products:-
1) Oracle VM VirtualBox 4.2.16
2) VMware Workstation 9.0.2
VMware is expensive
Why not compare with:
3) VMware Player 5.0.2
It's also free. Supports drag and drop from host to client and vice versa, UEFI boot and GPT drives and hardware of host computer (e.g. webcam, fingerprint reader, WLAN and bluetooth)
 
But, here I am confused between the two Virtualization Products:-
1) Oracle VM VirtualBox 4.2.16
2) VMware Workstation 9.0.2
VMware is expensive
Why not compare with:
3) VMware Player 5.0.2
It's also free. Supports drag and drop from host to client and vice versa, UEFI boot and GPT drives and hardware of host computer (e.g. webcam, fingerprint reader, WLAN and bluetooth)

I don't recommend workstation for enthusiasts as it is expensive and most people are just fine with features of vmware player or virtual box.
 
Hi there
depending on what's running on the VM and above all you have enough RAM (VM's eat RAM for breakfast) then on modern hardware neither VBOX or the VMware products (workstation or player) will cause any degradation on the HOST - certainly none that is noticeable --especially if you have the VM's on one or more SSD's.

If you want to use VIDEO on your VM then the VMware products IMO are far superior to the ORACLE (VBOX) product and it does seem that legacy hardware works better with VMWARE -- for instance some FIREWIRE appliances still work with VMware workstation and an XP Virtual machine.

However for the FREE products it's easy to try both -- just don't ACTIVATE the VM until you have decided on your configuration -- XP allows 30 days before needing activation -- W7 also allows some time too -- only W8 seems to require some type of activation to install it which is a bit of a bugbear if you want to do a lot of configuration testing.

Cheers
jimbo
 
OK, Thank you all for helping and I am ready to use Oracle VM VirtualBox.
But does anyone know how to enable EFI support on VBox?

Thank You............:)
 
OK, Thank you all for helping and I am ready to use Oracle VM VirtualBox.
But does anyone know how to enable EFI support on VBox?

Thank You............:)

You didn't read my post well:
For now, EFI on VBox is experimental and works for Linux and Macs guests only.

There is nothing more to enable, you have a efi checkbox in the system setting of the vm.
 
I've covered UEFI VM's a while ago.
To notice:
VBox suports EFI Linux and Mac guests, Workstation support them too + Windows ones.
What Worstation does can the free Player as well, since the same VMX 'engine' is at work. You basically have less features in Player but with more VM editing you can enable EFI as well.

If you want to test a Windows EFI VM with the free VMware Player see this:
http://www.eightforums.com/virtualization/18753-vmware-player-uefi.html

Regards
Hopachi
 
Hi there
These sort of questions are exceptionally difficult to answer as there might actually be no correct answer. People have their preferences too -- so why not TRY both (VMware's vplayer is FREE as well as VBOX). To create a bootable VM using either program on decent hardware won't take you more than around 15 mins anyway and trying both systems out for real will give you enough experience to learn the intricacies of both systems.

Suffice to say VMWARE's offerings can create a UEFI boot VM even on a non UEFI HOST. You can also create a 64 BIT VM on a 32 bit HOST (assuming the VT technology is enabled --it usually is in modern hardware). Note though HOST and GUEST can only use a max of 4GB RAM if the Host is running a32 BIT OS. - I've tested W8.1 64 bit as a VM on an XP HOST machine !!.

Cheers
jimbo
 
I prefer VMware Player, in my experience it's way faster than Virtualbox, uses less memory and has better graphics support.

I have used Virtualbox until VMware Player implemented creation of new Virtual Machines
 
I prefer VMware Player, in my experience it's way faster than Virtualbox, uses less memory and has better graphics support.

I have used Virtualbox until VMware Player implemented creation of new Virtual Machines

A good choice because it's also easy to use.

However the less memory thing is not entirely true:
The Player's GUI (32bit) uses indeed less memory than VBox's GUI (64bit) but despite this few gained megabytes, a 2GB VM is a 2GB VM on both programs.
 
About EFI: Hyper-V latest version which is included in Windows 8.1 Pro Preview supports Second Generation virtual machines which in its turn supports UEFI, Secure Boot, SCSI boot and PXE boot for guest machines running Windows 8 Pro x64 or Server 2012.

2013-07-24_123119.PNG


Kari
 
Back
Top