01-19-2012, 03:30 PM
Forrest wrote:
MacWorld did VirtualBox a disservice by mentioning it was geeky to setup and didn't discuss it any further. I've setup VirtualBox on a number of machines and it was definitely NOT geeky. In fact, it was very easy to setup, runs very fast and is very stable.
I'd like to agree but the fact of the matter is that you have to be quite a bit of a geek when it comes to troubleshooting VirtualBox. I presume that VMWare and Parallels each have support numbers to call if some issue arises and someone to talk you through solutions. I've installed VBox many times including for some non-geeky users. These users inevitably come back to me when they get error messages, perhaps when they upgrade or inadvertently chance some aspect of their VM configuration.
If you're computer savvy, then VBox is manageable and in some situations beneficial; I use it to particular advantage on VMs I want to be able to run cross-platform on a Mac or PC.
However, it's a disservice to suggest to your average user that VirtualBox is easy. The initial setup wizards are good enough, but once you want to make changes or move something it gets complicated. Of course, the other virtualizes may not fare that much better in that regard either, and I can't say that Parallels has been all that stable for me.
Ars Technica frequently reviews these when there are parity updates and the last several times Parallels has won resoundingly - much to my chagrin as I prefer VMWare's discrete VM strategy as opposed to the Parallels "integrated into the host OS as much as possible" ploy. But for virtualization it truly depends on your purposes. Parallels is more beneficial for those who need to integrate Windows into their OS X based workflow; VMWare and VirtualBox are better for running virtual machines esp. when you need to modify configurations for software testing and the like.
g=