servodude wrote:Have you ever compared the behaviour between Hyper-V and VirtualBox?
I'm quite invested in using VirtualBox for development as I found their integration with the likes of USB pass through from the windows host to be pretty seamless; and I use that a lot.
But in the office there's a push to use Hyper-V for a because of some aspect of hardware that's about (or licensing - I confess I'm not sure really)
- and I'm hoping that it isn't really something I need to worry about
Short of maybe having to set up a new VM as a build server if it needs to run in that location rather than trying to clone/port an existing VM.
I use Hyper-V for almost all my VM's, the host machine has 32GB RAM, an nvme SSD and a 10th gen i7, so it works well for the dozen or so VM's I have. The one exception is another machine where I have VirtualBox installed, and a Windows 95 VM running in it. Hyper-V does not support installing a W95 guest.
What you need to know is that Hyper-V is a Type 1 hypervisor, and VirtualBox is Type 2. Each type has it's pro's and con's. For development work in a business environment Hyper-V is usually the more suitable choice, for home use VituallBox can be more useful, offering more direct access to the host hardware. More here:
https://www.tenforums.com/virtualizatio ... e-2-a.htmlThere are pluses and minuses with each type:
In the domestic consumer market, the three main players are type 1 - Hyper-V (not for Home users), and type 2 (work with Home) - virtualbox (free version), VMware workstation (free version)
Hyper-V is really more geared to Windows virtual machines but will run alternative OSs but sound is typically not available. Biggest minus is it is not available to Home users.
VirtualBox and VMWare have more flexibility, but require more maintenance, particularly when a build upgrade = occasionally a build upgrade "breaks" the type 2 hypervisor.