Best free virt software. I pick virtualbox, it has more features than vmware and microsoft virtual pc. With the planned features it will be better than payware ones too. Comparison: http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/VBox_vs_Others Virtualbox http://www.virtualbox.org/ Vmware http://www.vmware.com/products/player/ Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/default.mspx
I've tried them all (including Parallels, which isn't listed) and prefer VirtualBox. It's being actively developed, light, free, includes snapshots, and works well. VMware installs too much in the way of services, network drivers, etc.
I voted "Other", because I don't use such softwares, I don't need them. I only test legitimate and final versions of softwares, if these softwares corrupt my system partition and that happened a few times, I restore my system partition image. I wouldn't even use them if I was a beta tester. Legitimate softwares don't hurt you, they just corrupt your system due to bad programming. I would certainly use them, if I was a malware expert or running softwares from an unknown source, but I don't consider myself as qualified to test malware or such softwares. I don't even recognize malware and I don't need to, because I remove them anyway as a "change".
@Erik, The advantages of virtual machines are: - Testing of OSes (Linux, xBSD, nLite builds) - "Complete" disk rollback. You can corrupt the MBR and rollback to a previous state as if nothing happened.
#1 isn't really for me, because I don't need other OSes than WinXPproSP2, I can't do much with an OS, that's why I need good applications. #2 isn't a problem either, SP restores also the MBR. The only advantage I see is that you can do these tests without hurting your actual system, while I have to restore my system, when something goes wrong.
Virtual machines are a waste of time and files/resources for me. Don't need them, plus i find the challenges in an authentic and genuine environment more true to real world risks.
I think virtualization is a huge benefit on modern cpu's that can do it in hardware. In the server world running all apps under a hypervisor is fast becoming the norm and its only a matter of time before desktop OS's have all this support built in and run different sandboxes for apps, like IE7 protected mode.
Hi Defcon In that light then you're quite accurate with that assessment. I posted only as concerns locally testing malware and it's associates. It's the only way to overview and gather real-time activity results to run them on a non-VM environment although VM's have really come of age as of late. When you think about the implications that'll be enjoyed on desktops with from that feature, there will remain little if no room left for exploits or malware as we come to know them. I think thats an agenda which fast bcoming reality since sandboxes & virtualizing apps already go a long way in rendering malicious forced intrusions of no effect. Thanks EASTER
I voted for virtual pc as thats what i have used mainly and its always worked well. These days i'm not using vm's as much, i'm more in favour of using virtualized apps.
Voted other but have used VMware. I just think too speendy for me. I do like Microsofts Shared Computer Toolkit though. I think this is dedicated more to System admins but works great for home users also and is free. I also think the hardware hypervisor might be the way to go. It appears Joanna R. is working with Phoenix BIOS to develop a safe hypervisor BIOS for the future. controler
Intel's latest platform (vPro) already has virtualization features built into hardware. This is a really good article on it - http://arstechnica.com/articles/pae...eps-forward-for-x86-and-for-DRM-andor-P2P.ars Today we make the distinction between a VM like vmware and a virtualized app which works by virtualizing file and registry access. However I would like to see a solution where every app on your computer is run in a completely separate OS, along with a shared OS which you control. Unfortunately I think this technology will be used more for DRM than allowing legitimate users to effectively manage their computers.
I voted other. I have VMware server but use Altiris for almost everything that it will run. For security type programs that Altiris won't run, I use VMware. I like Altiris because I can have a number of programs and not have them cluttering up my hard drive, registry, etc. Considering all the things I download, play with, don't like and get rid of, Altiris just makes good sense.
Fully agree, my opinion. Virtual Machines are a great benefit! They may be able to catch unknown rootkits. I opened a new topic related to the advantages of ring1 vs ring0
Agreed. I use Virtualbox on my Linux host with Windows running as guest. While I had problems with previous versions, the new 1.5.2 is rock-solid.