Worth the money?
Given that VirtualBox is as powerful, fast and free, why would anyone pay the $150 average price?
Server virtualization juggernaut VMware got its start on the desktop a decade ago, and it still makes a sizeable chunk of change virtualizing PCs and workstations so they can run multiple operating systems. In the wake of last week's Windows 7 blitz, VMware is kicking out its Workstation 7 hypervisor for x86 and x64 machines, as …
Fatbloke, I suggest you try VMware before you ask why people pay for it.
Virtual Box is good for a free product. However, VMware is easier to set up, faster on the same machine, on a Mac can be integrated with Bootcamp (so, if you need the extra speed boost running Windows natively can give you, you don't need to waste extra space storing both the files for dual booting and the virtual hard drive.
VMware is also more configurable, and easier to configure.
Virtualbox is good, no doubting that. However, vmware is better, and, IMO, worth the extra cost.
I use VMWare Server on my Linux server to virtualise a couple of hosts which don't need as much processing power, which also saves having extra machines sucking power and it's a great application. As is VMWare Workstation, but now Sun VirtualBox seems to be catching up with VMWare, at least on desktop virtualisation so I'm wondering is it worth stumping up the cash for VMWare Workstation/Fusion?
Heck, as far as I know Sun VirtualBox is available for Windows, Linux and MacOS X for free.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018