Post

5 Reasons Why You Should Use VirtualBox Over VMware Server

Ever since I started using Ubuntu two years back, I have been an avid user of VMware server. It fascinated me to a great extent that I could actually run an OS inside an OS. Recently, I tried out VirtualBox, another virtualization software like VMware server, and I was greatly impressed by it. Even though I love VMware server, I can’t deny the fact that VirtualBox actually runs faster and smoother, with less crashes. Here is my top 5 reasons why VirtualBox is better than VMware server.

1) File size

How long do you need to download a 20MB file with a broadband connection? A snap of finger! Yes, that is how small VirtualBox is: slighly over 20MB where you can download it in a snap. VMware server? About 102MB, well…not too long either, mayber after you have finished your tea session.

2) Installation

Ubuntu users can simply install VirtualBox from the repository. Simply open the Synaptic Package Manager, check the VirtualBox and click Apply to install. For other Linux disro, there is also debian and rpm package available for download. For VMware server, only if you like to compile and build the source code from command line.

3) Speed Boost

The real advantage of VirtualBox over VMware server lies in its performance. VirtualBox apparently runs faster than VMware server. A timed experiment of an installation of Windows XP as the guest OS took 20 mins in VirtualBox and 35 mins on VMware server. A similar test on the booting time of the guest OS also shows favor to VirtualBox with a timing of 45secs compared to 1min 39 secs on VMware server.

4) Remote File Sharing

When I was using VMware server, I have to install and configure Samba on my Ubuntu host so as to access the files in my guest OS. In VirtualBox, the remote file sharing feature is built right in the package. Setting up remote file sharing is easy and you only need to do it once: point the file path to the directory that you want to share.

5) Integration with Host OS

In VirtualBox, there is this mode call ‘seamless mode‘ where you can integrate the guest OS with the host OS. With this mode on, you can access the applications from the guest OS right from the host’s desktop. There is no need for you to traverse between the guest and the host. VMware server does not have this feature, although you can find the ‘unity‘ mode that does the same thing in VMware Workstation.

My Feel…

I have not tested VirtualBox on a server setting, thus I can’t comment on its performance for corporate use. However, for personal use, I would strongly recommend VirtualBox over VMware server because of its faster speed and user-friendliness.

For more technology news, tips and tricks, subscribe to Make Tech Easier today.

Popularity: 12% [?]

 

15 Comments Received

 
July 21st, 2008 @4:12 pm  

You have hit the nail on the head with this one. I run VI3 in production, but for testing/lab and desktop usage, you can’t beat virtualbox. I love the fact that my associates who use windows and mac can have the same user experience that I do in Linux without having a difficult configuration involved. “It just works.”

July 22nd, 2008 @11:29 am  

Hi,
I also like virtualbox much much more than vmware server but what you did wrong is a comparison of two different products in two different categories because vmware server is meant to be used on server machines where virtualbox is meant to be used on desktop machines…so called workstations.

If you make a comparison download VMware Workstation and you will feel that even VMWare Workstation is faster than the server…don’t ask me why…I simply don’t know :).

But yes, I agree that virtualbox is great :).

p.cole
July 22nd, 2008 @4:22 pm  

VMware Server=free (VM workstation=non-free). Using VBox ose in SIDUX; usually to test, compare other distros & use an app at work that will only run on win-xp. Else, do not need win-xp.

July 22nd, 2008 @4:46 pm  

There are a few things that aren’t as straightforward on VirtualBox.

Networking
1) Creating the NAT rules are cumbersome.
2) VirtualBox has issues with sending files.
3) Setting up a bridged connection requires more effort.

Also if you are switching between Linux and Windows your machines aren’t as portable and will require you to edit the xml configuration file.

July 23rd, 2008 @6:36 am  

p.cole: I know that vmware server is “free” and vmware workstation is not but still you can’t compare virtualbox with vmware server because it’s a different “game”.

And I agree to Jason. Setting up the NAT rules is really a pita. The same applies to creating a bridged connection (in the linux version).

July 23rd, 2008 @8:04 am  

Well, every software sure got its pros and cons. Hopefully VirtualBox can clear up its networking issue in the next update. Despite that, I still find that VirtualBox is more user-friendly and much easier to use.

@avarus: I have tried Vmware workstation, it crashes my system every now and then and I don’t really have a good impression of it. I have to reinstall back VMware Server just to get my VM running stably.

July 24th, 2008 @3:07 am  

Regarding the installation of VMWare on Linux, I’m not sure I understand what you are trying to say.

In Synaptic, you can simply install VMWare Server by clicking on the vmware-server package and then clicking apply.

It does it in Ubuntu 7.04 at least and probably newer versions too.

July 24th, 2008 @3:15 am  

@reptileqc: It was not included in the Hardy repository.

July 28th, 2008 @10:17 pm  

A more appropriate comparison would be between VirtualBox and VMware Player, which is also free and much more similar in terms of architecture and intended use case.

August 5th, 2008 @8:50 pm  

I totally agree I’ve switched from VMware Player to VirtualBox on my desktop for virtualization. And I can’t find a reason to go back to VMware Player. I really love it. Also I agree on the five pros you mentioned. There is only one small thing from VMware I’m missing though is the ability to drag and drop a file from the host to the guest and have it copied.

Great post Damien thanks.

August 5th, 2008 @8:55 pm  

I totally agree I’ve switched from VMware Player to VirtualBox on my desktop for virtualization. And I can’t find a reason to go back to VMware Player. I really love it. Also I agree on the five pros you mentioned. There is only one small thing from VMware I’m missing though is the ability to drag and drop a file from the host to the guest and have it copied.

Great post Damien thanks.

August 5th, 2008 @9:08 pm  

I totally agree with you I’ve switched from VMware Player to VirtualBox on my desktop for virtualization. And I can’t find a reason to go back to VMware Player. I really love it. Also I agree on the five pros you mentioned. There is only one small thing from VMware I’m missing though is the ability to drag and drop a file from the host to the guest and have it copied.

Great post Damien thanks.

September 11th, 2008 @9:25 pm  

Hey Damien,

Thanks for the comparison! Very useful. I was thinking to upgrade to Intrepid in October - will definitely try Virtual Box..

For now VmWare Sever will do, although it is pretty slow to use it as a desktop..

Thx,

– Toly

Leave A Reply

Please Note: Comments maybe under moderation after you submit your comments so there is no need to resubmit your comment again