Parallels vs VirtualBox

[Sandman]

I saw the Mac / Linux users wanted thread by Erel and wondered what Parallels was. A slight bit of research later and it seems to be fairly close to VirtualBox. (At least if we ignore enterprisey features, which I suspect aren't overly interesting to the majority of the users of this forum.)

I'm just curious, why would you want to use the commercial Parallels instead of free and open source VirtualBox?

• https://www.parallels.com/
• https://www.virtualbox.org/
• https://alternativeto.net/software/parallels-desktop/
• https://www.parallels.com/pd/virtualbox/

For what it's worth, I've obviously never used Parallels but I have used VirtualBox several times over the years. Windows has always installed and run without any issues.

 

[rabbitBUSH]

good question . . . the availability of disposable income? i remember there was part of a thread about clients wanting legal software hence spending money on these things. but for us here ... dunno.

these comments, in the quote, support your question and the point in the thread Title, i think, largely, the comment about virtualisation in the middle bullet being most pertinent. Seems like Boot Camp would be the way to go for most compatibility. but dual boot doesn't address the issue of "immediate" swapping between OS versions with a VM nor allow exchange of files and data between the two.

evidently, then, its VirtualBox.

Run Windows and Windows applications locally: (source : Indiana University)

• To dual-boot between macOS and Windows, use Apple's Boot Camp . This approach provides the most compatibility with Windows software and peripherals, but does not allow you to run Windows and macOS applications at the same time.
• To run Windows in a virtual machine within macOS, use Parallels Desktop , VMware Fusion , or VirtualBox . This method will allow you to run Mac and Windows applications concurrently, though the virtual machine does not support as much Windows functionality as a dual-boot configuration.
• To run Windows programs without having to install Windows itself, use a Windows compatibility layer, such as CrossOver Mac . This option typically offers good functionality for a limited set of Windows applications.

Boot Camp
there again : Boot Camp requires a Mac with an Intel processor.
there's also CrossOver and BootCamp listed on this page :

 

[aeric]

Many years ago, I tried Parallel. Not so much like it. One thing is it is not free. Now, VirtualBox has become my favorite software which must be installed on any new PC (which support virtualization). So whenever I look for new machine, I will always look for one with i7 CPU and a lot of RAM. So I bought the MacBook Pro with i7 instead of the cheaper MacBook Air.

I used to run macOS as guest OS in Windows 7/10 host (to work with B4i). From Lion until current Catalina. Haven’t tried with Big Sur. I can run iPhone simulator inside the guest.

Now, I am running a Windows 10 as guest in macOS host (to work with B4i, B4A, B4J). One thing I miss now is how I am going to run Android Emulator inside Windows guest?

 

[OliverA]

I'm just curious, why would you want to use the commercial Parallels instead of free and open source VirtualBox

At one time I was using a Mac Mini (2012 server edition, maxed out) at work. Parallels gave me seamless windows access, which I found to be really cool. In the end I went back to fully Windows. I then found how much faster the B4X IDE's were on just Windows vs Windows via Parallels on the Mac Mini. Me and Macs don't get along (it's me), so the switch back to full Windows did not produce any hardships for me. My goal was to use the Mac Mini for B4i development, but the hosted builder service provided by Anywhere Software is so simple that I never got around to setting up the Mini to compile apps locally.