Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #451439 > unrolled thread

VMware v VirtualBox

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  VMware v VirtualBox Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-11 22:34 -0700
    Re: VMware v VirtualBox bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-12 11:39 -0400
      Re: VMware v VirtualBox Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 12:38 -0700
        Re: VMware v VirtualBox bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-12 15:51 -0400
          Re: VMware v VirtualBox Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-12 14:23 -0700
            Re: VMware v VirtualBox bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-13 10:21 -0400
              Re: VMware v VirtualBox Gerhard Hoffmann <ghf@hoffmann-hochfrequenz.de> - 2017-03-13 16:57 +0100
              Re: VMware v VirtualBox Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2017-03-13 17:37 -0500
                Re: VMware v VirtualBox Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-13 17:20 -0700
      Re: VMware v VirtualBox Martin Riddle <martin_ridd@verizon.net> - 2017-03-12 16:08 -0400
    Re: VMware v VirtualBox bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-03-12 15:37 -0400
    Re: VMware v VirtualBox Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> - 2017-03-13 11:18 +0000
    Re: VMware v VirtualBox Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2017-03-13 17:33 -0500
      Re: VMware v VirtualBox Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2017-03-14 09:42 -0700

#451439 — VMware v VirtualBox

A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.

Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?

[AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#451487

On 03/12/2017 12:34 AM, Don Y wrote:
> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>
> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>
> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]

For just a single machine to supporting legacy tools, rather than 
"enterprise" I prefer VirtualBox.

Cross-platform (.vdi images can be used with any host binary on any host 
operating system), open-source, dead simple to use, you can have 
cross-platform shared folders i.e. save work onto a Linux host machine 
in ext4 when the old Windows guest can only "see" NTFS or FAT32 (I don't 
think VMWare used to be able to do this, may have changed), USB 
passthough from the host machine to the guest OS works great

I have some old USB hardware that only has Win98/XP/NT drivers; I have a 
Vbox image of an XP SP3 machine that I run on an Ubuntu laptop; all the 
drivers from the manufacturer install fine and the equipment is 
recognized by the guest OS through the virtual USB port no problem.

The XP guest runs like a bat out of hell with an i7 mobile processor and 
cheapo Best Buy SSD, about 7 seconds from "power on" to a usable desktop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451510

On 3/12/2017 8:39 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 03/12/2017 12:34 AM, Don Y wrote:
>> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
>> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
>> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>>
>> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
>> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>>
>> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
>> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]
>
> For just a single machine to supporting legacy tools, rather than "enterprise"
> I prefer VirtualBox.

Why?  (As I say, my only experience is with VMware -- and Sun's Chimera, but
that's a different fish)  I'd imagine building the first virtual machine is
a bit of an effort in *either* environment.  But, thereafter, just "more of
the same"

[Perhaps suffering from some "relearning curve" if you haven't done it
in a while -- notes are A Good Thing.]

> Cross-platform (.vdi images can be used with any host binary on any host
> operating system), open-source, dead simple to use, you can have cross-platform
> shared folders i.e. save work onto a Linux host machine in ext4 when the old
> Windows guest can only "see" NTFS or FAT32 (I don't think VMWare used to be
> able to do this, may have changed), USB passthough from the host machine to the
> guest OS works great
>
> I have some old USB hardware that only has Win98/XP/NT drivers; I have a Vbox
> image of an XP SP3 machine that I run on an Ubuntu laptop; all the drivers from
> the manufacturer install fine and the equipment is recognized by the guest OS
> through the virtual USB port no problem.
>
> The XP guest runs like a bat out of hell with an i7 mobile processor and cheapo
> Best Buy SSD, about 7 seconds from "power on" to a usable desktop.

I don't think performance is an issue; experience with most of the tools one
would be expecting to preserve/support would have already been used on slower
boxes (IME, you tend to rearrange your work style to fit the performance
of the tools -- smaller undertakings when tools/machines are slower, etc.)

[E.g., I maintain a 386/20 ISA chassis for some legacy *hardware* tools...
amazing how much slower it is!  Yet, the overall utility of the tools is
roughly comparable, over time]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451513

On 03/12/2017 03:38 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 3/12/2017 8:39 AM, bitrex wrote:
>> On 03/12/2017 12:34 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
>>> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
>>> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>>>
>>> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
>>> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>>>
>>> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
>>> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]
>>
>> For just a single machine to supporting legacy tools, rather than
>> "enterprise"
>> I prefer VirtualBox.
>
> Why?  (As I say, my only experience is with VMware -- and Sun's Chimera,
> but
> that's a different fish)  I'd imagine building the first virtual machine is
> a bit of an effort in *either* environment.  But, thereafter, just "more of
> the same"

It's dead-simple in Vbox. Select the size you want for the new image 
drive, choose the amount of system memory to be allocated to your 
machine, select an ISO file and let it install to the virtual drive, and 
hit "start machine."

Once inside the VM you can download and install the "Guest Addons" 
package which adds stuff like shared host folders, USB passthru and 2D 
acceleration for desktop graphics.

After that it's the same as configuring any other physical machine

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451524

On 3/12/2017 12:51 PM, bitrex wrote:
> On 03/12/2017 03:38 PM, Don Y wrote:
>> On 3/12/2017 8:39 AM, bitrex wrote:
>>> On 03/12/2017 12:34 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
>>>> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
>>>> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>>>>
>>>> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
>>>> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>>>>
>>>> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
>>>> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]
>>>
>>> For just a single machine to supporting legacy tools, rather than
>>> "enterprise"
>>> I prefer VirtualBox.
>>
>> Why?  (As I say, my only experience is with VMware -- and Sun's Chimera,
>> but
>> that's a different fish)  I'd imagine building the first virtual machine is
>> a bit of an effort in *either* environment.  But, thereafter, just "more of
>> the same"
>
> It's dead-simple in Vbox. Select the size you want for the new image drive,
> choose the amount of system memory to be allocated to your machine, select an
> ISO file and let it install to the virtual drive, and hit "start machine."

Under VMware, you typically use the wizard and just answer multiple
choice questions (including "Typical" if you don't have any idea as
to the "best" answer for a particular question).

There are some issues if the host filesystem has constraints that carry
into the guest OS (e.g., the machine's virtual memory can't be larger than
the largest supported file size on the host OS's filesystem on which it
will be created).

And, whether the guest machine will have a separate IP address from the
host, etc.

[ISTR there is also a question re: supported SCSI HBA vs. IDE, etc.]

There's also the choice of whether to use a vdisk or a *physical* disk
for the OS (on one of my machines, I use hot-swappable drives as a
quick and dirty way to just "pick" the guest OS).  And, I think there is
an upper limit on the size of the disks that you can support (though
I tend to want small disks as each machine is really only created for some
specific task instead of as a "general workstation" -- which might need gobs
of space for applications)

But, these sorts of things are usually not important if you just want to
slap together a machine.

> Once inside the VM you can download and install the "Guest Addons" package
> which adds stuff like shared host folders, USB passthru and 2D acceleration for
> desktop graphics.
>
> After that it's the same as configuring any other physical machine

IME, the biggest "adjustment" is to the whole concept of a machine within
a machine.

The biggest *risk* coming from tools that have particular hardware
requirements that the virtual machine can't emulate.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451618

On 03/12/2017 05:23 PM, Don Y wrote:

> There's also the choice of whether to use a vdisk or a *physical* disk
> for the OS (on one of my machines, I use hot-swappable drives as a
> quick and dirty way to just "pick" the guest OS).  And, I think there is
> an upper limit on the size of the disks that you can support (though
> I tend to want small disks as each machine is really only created for some
> specific task instead of as a "general workstation" -- which might need
> gobs
> of space for applications)

One thing I learned the hard way is that with one particular application 
I had to save any work I did to a shared folder on the host OS - 
sometimes when I saved work from it to the vdisk, restarted the virtual 
machine and attempted to open the file I'd find that it had been corrupted.

This happened under both VMWare and VirtualBox, so I think it has 
something to do with a peculiarity in the way that particular Windows 
app writes files.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451625

Am 13.03.2017 um 15:21 schrieb bitrex:
> On 03/12/2017 05:23 PM, Don Y wrote:
>
>> There's also the choice of whether to use a vdisk or a *physical* disk
>> for the OS (on one of my machines, I use hot-swappable drives as a
>> quick and dirty way to just "pick" the guest OS).  And, I think there is
>> an upper limit on the size of the disks that you can support (though
>> I tend to want small disks as each machine is really only created for
>> some
>> specific task instead of as a "general workstation" -- which might need
>> gobs
>> of space for applications)
>
> One thing I learned the hard way is that with one particular application
> I had to save any work I did to a shared folder on the host OS -
> sometimes when I saved work from it to the vdisk, restarted the virtual
> machine and attempted to open the file I'd find that it had been corrupted.
>
> This happened under both VMWare and VirtualBox, so I think it has
> something to do with a peculiarity in the way that particular Windows
> app writes files.

I think this is related to the shutting down mode of the newer Windows
versions. By default, they do not switch off completely but enter only
some Zombie state where some buffers are not flushed.
I have forgotten how it is done, but it can be changed.

I moved from VirtualBox to VMware because at that time (2 or 3
years ago) they had better USB support for virtual machines.
I needed it for a tiny but excellent vector network analyzer.
(that is not superfluous even sitting next to my VNB-8)

It was possible to transport VMs from Virtual box to VMware without
problems using this open virtual machine format.

regards, Gerhard

<  http://sdr-kits.net/VNWA3_Description.html  >

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451687

bitrex wrote:

> On 03/12/2017 05:23 PM, Don Y wrote:
> 
>> There's also the choice of whether to use a vdisk or a *physical* disk
>> for the OS (on one of my machines, I use hot-swappable drives as a
>> quick and dirty way to just "pick" the guest OS).  And, I think there is
>> an upper limit on the size of the disks that you can support (though
>> I tend to want small disks as each machine is really only created for
>> some specific task instead of as a "general workstation" -- which might
>> need gobs
>> of space for applications)
> 
> One thing I learned the hard way is that with one particular application
> I had to save any work I did to a shared folder on the host OS -
> sometimes when I saved work from it to the vdisk, restarted the virtual
> machine and attempted to open the file I'd find that it had been
> corrupted.
> 
What I do now is have the virtual guest OS's user directory on the host OS.
That way, the files are available to the host OS even when the VM is not 
running, and it gets backed up with the host OS files.  This does seem 
easier on VirtualBox than VMWare, but both can do this.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451704

On 3/13/2017 3:37 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> bitrex wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2017 05:23 PM, Don Y wrote:
>>
>>> There's also the choice of whether to use a vdisk or a *physical* disk
>>> for the OS (on one of my machines, I use hot-swappable drives as a
>>> quick and dirty way to just "pick" the guest OS).  And, I think there is
>>> an upper limit on the size of the disks that you can support (though
>>> I tend to want small disks as each machine is really only created for
>>> some specific task instead of as a "general workstation" -- which might
>>> need gobs
>>> of space for applications)
>>
>> One thing I learned the hard way is that with one particular application
>> I had to save any work I did to a shared folder on the host OS -
>> sometimes when I saved work from it to the vdisk, restarted the virtual
>> machine and attempted to open the file I'd find that it had been
>> corrupted.
>>
> What I do now is have the virtual guest OS's user directory on the host OS.
> That way, the files are available to the host OS even when the VM is not
> running, and it gets backed up with the host OS files.

+1

It also makes it easier to make smaller, more "focused" VM's and pass
files between VM's (i.e., treat the VM *as* an application instead of
a complete system).

So, I can create a schematic using a schematic editor hosted by a
particular guest OS instance.  Then, layout the PCB using a layout tool
hosted in a *different* guest OS instance (perhaps even a different
guest OS)

Otherwise, the VM's get bulkier and you end up with more duplication
of applications ("Ah, I need this app in this machine... and this other
machine...")

> This does seem
> easier on VirtualBox than VMWare, but both can do this.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451514

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:39:45 -0400, bitrex
<bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 03/12/2017 12:34 AM, Don Y wrote:
>> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
>> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
>> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>>
>> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
>> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>>
>> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
>> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]
>
>For just a single machine to supporting legacy tools, rather than 
>"enterprise" I prefer VirtualBox.
>
>Cross-platform (.vdi images can be used with any host binary on any host 
>operating system), open-source, dead simple to use, you can have 
>cross-platform shared folders i.e. save work onto a Linux host machine 
>in ext4 when the old Windows guest can only "see" NTFS or FAT32 (I don't 
>think VMWare used to be able to do this, may have changed), USB 
>passthough from the host machine to the guest OS works great
>
>I have some old USB hardware that only has Win98/XP/NT drivers; I have a 
>Vbox image of an XP SP3 machine that I run on an Ubuntu laptop; all the 
>drivers from the manufacturer install fine and the equipment is 
>recognized by the guest OS through the virtual USB port no problem.
>
>The XP guest runs like a bat out of hell with an i7 mobile processor and 
>cheapo Best Buy SSD, about 7 seconds from "power on" to a usable desktop.
>
>
>
>
>
>
One thing about Vbox is that if you copy a vdi and try to run it you
have to jump thru some hoops to get it to run. Not realy portable, but
it is supposed to be. I guess something is broken in the VM manager.

Cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451509

On 03/12/2017 12:34 AM, Don Y wrote:
> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>
> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>
> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]

A more cynical IT person I know who works on the "enterprise" side of 
things put it this way to me today:

"They're both horribly broken. It just depends on what kind of broken 
you prefer..."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451602

On 2017-03-12, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>
> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>
> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]

The free versions of both are roughly equivalent, basically you're
choosing between Oracle and Adobe. 

-- 
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451684

Don Y wrote:

> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
> 
> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
> 
> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]
VMWare's tech support is absolutely the worst in the world!  They make you 
pay to get tech support, and then can't answer the question.  I had some 
simple issues, I ended up telling them how to fix it.

VirtualBox works pretty well.  I can point to a few TINY little nits.
VMWare keeps separate state for the shift lock in each guest OS, separate 
from the host OS.  VirtualBox seems to only have one shift lock state.

VMWare allows you to turn the parallel port connection between guest and 
physical hardware on and off.  If the VirtualBox guest OS is interfering 
with the parallel port of your host environment, you have to shut down the 
guest OS.
I use the parport to run some device programmers.  But, that's a really 
minor issue.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#451779

On 3/13/2017 3:33 PM, Jon Elson wrote:
> Don Y wrote:
>
>> A colleague asked for my opinions of the two.  But, I only
>> run VMware.  Some googling turns up LOTS of hits re: this
>> issue.  But, all seem to be pretty "sterile" writings.
>>
>> Anyone with experience with *both* (or, who left one in favor
>> of the other) to share some first-hand experiences?
>>
>> [AFAICT, he's looking for this as a way of supporting legacy
>> tools w/o dedicating hardware to the task]
> VMWare's tech support is absolutely the worst in the world!  They make you
> pay to get tech support, and then can't answer the question.  I had some
> simple issues, I ended up telling them how to fix it.

I can't recall relying on "tech support" for ANY product in the past
couple of decades.  The last such contact (telephone call!) was for MS's
first VC++ product.  I interrupted the support guy before he could start
on his "script" and said:
    "Open the product.  Type in the following ~6 lines of code.  Compile.
    See the problem?"
To which he replied:
    "Yup!  You've found a bug.  But, we no longer support that version
    of the product.  For $99 you can upgrade to the NEXT version..."
    <plonk>

> VirtualBox works pretty well.  I can point to a few TINY little nits.
> VMWare keeps separate state for the shift lock in each guest OS, separate
> from the host OS.  VirtualBox seems to only have one shift lock state.

Hmmm... I'd have to think how that would impact *me* -- to imagine how it
might impact others.  I routinely work with as many as six (physical)
workstations, simultaneously, so I manage different UI states all the
time (along with different keyboard layouts, UI characteristics, etc.).
It might be harder for me to carry some state from one to another when
I regularly discard all of that as I move between workstations.

[I don't think there is an easy way for me to test that short of installing
VBox]

> VMWare allows you to turn the parallel port connection between guest and
> physical hardware on and off.  If the VirtualBox guest OS is interfering
> with the parallel port of your host environment, you have to shut down the
> guest OS.
> I use the parport to run some device programmers.  But, that's a really
> minor issue.

I had a similar issue with an earlier version of VMware and the USB subsystem
(but, IIRC, only under Windows host).

I think most folks can adapt to OBVIOUS problems (whether or not they are truly
"problems" or just "unexpected situations").  The bigger issue seems to always
be those things that defy (obvious) logic and require a fair bit of
head-scratching to resolve.  I.e., if it seemed obvious (to you) that your
guest OS was interfering/interacting with the host application and you just
had to grumble and shut it down, that's an "inconvenience".  OTOH, if you
lose a day or more trying to figure out why it works *now* but didn't work
*yesterday* (because you don't have a VBox instance running *now* but did,
*then*), then that becomes an open sore and source of significant lost time.

I spent a fair bit of time trying to understand why a ~75 page document that
I'd been actively creating/editing was suddenly inaccessible to me.  Attempts
to open it just locked up the application.  Given that I'd been able to open
and close it previously, I suspected I might have reached a limit in document
complexity that was taxing the application.  So, manually started truncating
the document (file) with a binary editor:  "Let me get this back to a size
that *works* and then I'll figure out how to glob the balance onto it..."

I eventually traced the problem -- not to file size but, rather, to some sort
of "font" conflict.  If I removed all references to a particular *style* of a
particular *typeface*, the entire original document was still editable.  And,
that I could re-tag text with that font AFTER the application was opened,
giving me the result desired.  *But*, attempting to reopen it with these
modifications back in place would cause the problem to repeat!  <frown>

That's the sort of effort (days to track down, in my case) that I worry about.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web