They've shown themselves to be at best extremely untrustworthy, and there is no doubt in my mind that they will instantly pull the same crap with VirtualBox as they have with both Java and Open Solaris should VirtualBox ever seem to reach true parity with competing VMware products.

The left side shows the created virtual machine whereas the rights details about the currently selected VM. And comes with a clear and intuitive user interface with an almost similar structure. I still tend to use VirtualBox for my Linux stuff, but I've begin to wean myself off of it as I have serious doubts about Oracle in general. VMware Player and VirtualBox can be installed with just a few clicks. VirtualBox also advertises graphics acceleration in non-Windows guests (I had it working in Ubuntu 10.04, though I've since had no luck at all getting it working in Ubuntu 10.10 after an upgrade.), while VMware only accelerates graphics within Windows guests.

Virtualbox (at least the open source version) lacks USB support, but the Oracle closed source version resolves this with useable virtual USB support. Hyper-V offers high-performance virtual machines than VirtualBox. Overall, I think the first thing you will find is that VMware's user interface is more polished (VirtualBox lacks drag-n-drop file sharing between host and guest - it uses a clumsier shared folder method). I run them both on a 4GB Q9550-based system with no problems. Click to expand.Nothing (save lack of hard disk space) prevents you from installing both VMware and VirtualBox at the same time to compare them.

Virtualbox vs vmware on ubuntu