Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

VirtualBox versus Parallels

J

james714

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 16, 2008
16
0
Hi guys,

I'm looking to see which virtualization software I should use. Right now, I have a 2011 Macbook Air (i5 w/ 4GB of ram). I'm looking to install Windows XP to use Microsoft Suite of applications (Access, Excel, and PowerPoint).

I did a quick search earlier, and I was unable to find anything conclusive. A lot of people recommended looking into Virtual Box as an alternative to Parallels or Fusion, but some folks also commented on how much they like Parallels/Fusion over VirtualBox.

Has anyone ran both Parallels and VirtualBox before? What's the experience like? Were there any limitations that VirtualBox was missing?

It's very tempting since it's OpenSource and free. I'm sure support will be an issue, but my primary concern is VirtualBox's stability in running Windows XP.

Insights are appreciated. Thank you.
James
 
I haven't used Virtualbox myself but have used both Fusion and Parallels and I would recommend them for running a full Windows install. I know people who use Virualbox in a commercial environment but only for running Linux/Unix.

There are probably quite a few threads discussing this topic over the past years so a search might help you out here.
 
steveza said:
I haven't used Virtualbox myself but have used both Fusion and Parallels and I would recommend them for running a full Windows install. I know people who use Virualbox in a commercial environment but only for running Linux/Unix.

There are probably quite a few threads discussing this topic over the past years so a search might help you out here.
Click to expand...


I did some search, but they were dated back in 2009 and 2010. They didn't indicate which version of VirtualBox, and nothing specific on why they would or would not recommend it.
 
I'm currently using VirtualBox, latest version, on a base 13" MB Pro, 21.5" iMac Quad i5 and a Mac Mini Quad i7.

It's free and I have had ZERO problems with it. What's not to like? Did I mention, it's FREE?!?!?!

habe
 
VirtualBox handles Linux WAY better than Parallels does. Put simply, Parallels' support for Linux is lousy, whereas VirtualBox supports new Ubuntu etc. versions shortly after they're released.

However, the reverse has been true in my experience for Windows installations. VirtualBox was only recently updated to fix a installation issue with Windows Vista / 7 and enabling 3D acceleration without booting into Safe Mode.
 
james714 said:
It's very tempting since it's OpenSource and free. I'm sure support will be an issue, but my primary concern is VirtualBox's stability in running Windows XP.

Insights are appreciated. Thank you.
James
Click to expand...

AFAIK virtual box runs win xp fine. Main limitations for some people here with virtual box are "not as good" support of graphics for people doing windows gaming if I understand correctly.

If it is just different kind of non graphics apps under win xp virtual box should be good.

You do have to put anti virus stuff etc on any windows install running in a virtual environment!
 
I've been using VirtualBox with XP on an iMac and Macbook; Snow Leopard and Lion. The Macbook has only 2 gig RAM. Zero problems, all Microsoft Office 2007 for Windows = zero problems. Now, I don't open a bunch of stuff when I'm on the Macbook. Personally, I can't imagine paying for something else when VirtualBox does what I need so well.
 
Been using VirtualBox

I have recently moved to mac products and am also a longtime VirtualBox user. I currently have Windows XP and Windows 7 VMs using virtualbox, which I mainly use for Office 2007 products. I find that VirtualBox works great. In full screen mode my Mac looks just like a Windows box. Performance is good too. I don't do any heavy gaming, but my son can play all of his cartoon network flash games just fine in the virtualbox vm, and I have watched youtube videos without any lag in the VM. My Mac has a core i5 2500k processor and 8gb ram (I allocate 2gb to each of my VMs).

I am curious about how much better Paralells or Fusion's graphic performance might be. I am running OSX Lion and using the VirtualBox 4.1.6 release.

And like others before me mentioned..........ITS FREE !!!!!
 
Last edited:
I tried the trial of Fusion. While it's a great product and works great, it also has a price tag a lot higher than Virtual Box. After trying Fusion, I tried Virtual Box. I never quit trying it as it does everything I need. Using the latest VB version, I run a Win7 VM. Works fine and I have had no problems.
 
I've used all three, and I still use VirtualBox for simple stuff. It's quick, free, and stable.

I also use Parallels, but you can't go wrong with VirtualBox in a lot of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back