- #VMWARE PLAYER VERSUS VIRTUALBOX MAC OS X#
- #VMWARE PLAYER VERSUS VIRTUALBOX MAC OS#
- #VMWARE PLAYER VERSUS VIRTUALBOX SOFTWARE#
If there is one area that sets these two products apart, it may very well be reliability.
#VMWARE PLAYER VERSUS VIRTUALBOX MAC OS#
Its portability is further enhanced by cross-platform capabilities that allow it to function seamlessly on Windows, Mac OS X, Solaris, and various Linux distributions. For example, an administrator who appreciates the user-friendliness of Microsoft products can set up their VMs in Windows, and then run them in Linux where they are likely to enjoy better performance.
One of its more useful traits is the ability to create a fleet of virtual machines in one host environment and run them in another. VirtualBox's greatest asset may be its portability. It also supports restricted virtual machines, which is useful when you want to prevent unauthorized IT personnel from tampering with configuration settings. Additionally, VMware Player provides an ideal environment for effectively testing new apps right on your desktop, essentially eliminating the need to purchase or lease a server for the same purpose. With a solid slab of up-to-date hardware, you can enjoy your legacy apps like XP never went out of style.
#VMWARE PLAYER VERSUS VIRTUALBOX SOFTWARE#
VMware touts its Player software as the most efficient way to run Windows XP in newer operating systems such as Windows 7, 8 and 10. When factoring in the dual-licensing component, I think it's safe to say we have a stalemate here. VirtualBox can also be upgraded by purchasing commercial licenses directly from Oracle, which gets you enterprise-level features and support for mission-critical usage.
#VMWARE PLAYER VERSUS VIRTUALBOX MAC OS X#
For instance, VMware Player gets a functional boost when purchasing a commercial license of VMware Fusion Professional, which runs on Mac OS X as well as Microsoft Windows, Linux and other Unix-like systems. While both applications are free, both can be upgraded to premium packages as well. VMware Player, on the other hand, is only freely available for non-commercial usage. Oracle makes its solution available under version two of the General Public License (GPL), an open-source license that allows it to be freely distributed and modified at the source code level to accommodate individual needs in functionality. VirtualBox and VMware Player are easily two of the most cost-effective options on the market of x86 processor virtualization software. These statements may have some truth to them, but the battle gets far more competitive when comparing Oracle's VirtualBox to something more similar like VMware Player. Ask them to elaborate and they'll likely tell you that VMware is the ultimate solution for server virtualization, while VirtualBox is best suited for virtualizing desktop environments. If you ask, "which is better", "which should I go with", or a similar question to knowledgeable IT professionals, most will say that it's VMware hands down. One of those competitors is IT software giant Oracle, who jumped into the virtual computing game in 2007 with the aptly named VirtualBox. VMware has been the undisputed king of this space for quite some time, but numerous competitors have emerged to challenge its comfy position upon that throne. Thanks to a handy technology called virtualization, running multiple operating systems and applications on a single host machine is now the norm in IT environments of all sizes. Möchten Sie diesen Beitrag in Deutsch zu lesen? Lesen Sie die Deutsch-Version hier.
0 kommentar(er)
