Parallels vs vmware vs virtualbox vs bootcamp

PARALLELS VS VMWARE VS VIRTUALBOX VS BOOTCAMP SOFTWARE

The VM runs very well and starts up incredibly fast.

I'm currently running Ubuntu 9.10 x86 in Windows 7 Professional ењ†4, sharing 4 CPUs and allocating 512 MB of RAM to the VM. It has a simple GUI interface to setup your VM, provides sane settings by default, and allows lots of optimizations (like increasing # of cores used and 3D accel) easily. I've played around with VMWare 7, Virtualbox, and VirtualPC, and Virtualbox is about as easy as a virtualization program can get. I just wanted to say that I have some experience with Virtualbox 3.1 and I disagree with the 'ease-of-use' assessment of 7/10. 'All support 32- and 64-bit Windows and Linux hosts and guests, and all have added compelling new VM management capabilities, ranging from automated snapshots to live VM migration.''

'There's some genuine innovation going on, especially in the areas of hardware support and application compatibility,' Kennedy writes. Meanwhile, Parallels finally offers a Desktop for Windows on par with its Mac product, as well as Workstation 4 Extreme, which delivers near native performance for graphics, disk, and network I/O.

PARALLELS VS VMWARE VS VIRTUALBOX VS BOOTCAMP SOFTWARE

Snydeq writes 'InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy takes an in-depth look at VMware Workstation 7, VirtualBox 3.1, and Parallels Desktop 4, three technologies at the heart of 'the biggest shake-up for desktop virtualization in years.' The shake-up, which sees Microsoft's once promising Virtual PC off in the Windows 7 XP Mode weeds, has put VirtualBox - among the best free open source software available for Windows - out front as a general-purpose VM, filling the void left by VMware's move to make Workstation more appealing to developers and admins.

Parallels vs vmware vs virtualbox vs bootcamp