If you need 3D acceleration MS have deprecated the RemoteFX adapter, so if this is a requirement you may be back to VirtualBox or (not in your list) VMware Workstation Pro. Reliability and performance Microsoft Hyper-V is certainly more efficient. A user starts the hypervisor application (VirtualBox in this case) and then starts the needed virtual machines. I have used both, with Hyper-V hosting a 'work' VM that might have possibly instrusive software and sandbox if I am testing a once off. Things are very different when comparing VMware and VirtualBox with Microsoft Hyper-V. If persistence is required then Hyper-V is the way to go. Not only does this mean you cannot forget to (for instance) rollback a checkpoint after installing a bad package, it also means you will reduce any environment conflicts or misconfigurations when testing the software. The reason is that Sandbox by its very nature is a fresh image at each activation which is deleted upon closure. However (and the reason for my answer) is that I wouldn't suggest looking at Windows Sandbox and Hyper-V as mutually exclusive. They also offer Hyper-V Server for free so you could make a dedicated hypervisor which uses minimal resources (no GUI for instance). Taking a look at the performance impact of enabling WSL2 / Hyper-V in Windows 10 on popular virtualization suites such as VMWare workstation and Virtualbox. ![]() ![]() Like others have said, I would pick Hyper-V out of the options as it is a Type 1 hyperviser with alot of support from Microsoft. Attribute Ratings Hyper-V is rated higher in 2 areas: Likelihood to Recommend, Usability VMware Workstation Player is rated higher in 3 areas: Support Rating.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |