VirtualBox Reviews

Hi, What is MacOS running on Mac? Please try to find out more here -
https://forums.virtualbox.org/viewforum.php?f=23

Same here - fails to install!
6.0.4. install just fine.
6.0.6 fails!

VirtualBox versions 5.2 support older versions of OS X, and will be maintained through 2020...did you even bother to check?
https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads
That is no reason to give a 3 star rating for this product because it dropped support for older versions of macOS. Apple constantly changes internal frameworks with each release of macOS/OS X, it makes it difficult to continue to support newer versions of macOS and maintain compatibility with older versions, especially something as complex as virtualization technology.....we aren't talking about a darn text editor here.

I don't want to run VirtualBox on an old OS X. I want to have a virtual machine with an old OS X on my Mac (latest macOS).

In my experience, of the three main virtualization products for Mac (Fusion, Parallels, VirtualBox), VirtualBox is the LEAST satisfactory for running Mac guests, old or new macOS or OSX. I've tried and worked with all three for personal and for work. This is not the time to get into paid vs free, etc, I'm just saying from a purely technical and usability standpoint, in my opinion I've had the most satisfaction with Fusion for running OSX/MacOS guests, Parallels for running Windows and Linux clients, and VB is somewhere in the middle, as long as the usage is light to medium. By light/medium usage I mean occasional use, running basic apps. I've run Windows Server and Exchange Server 24/7 in a Fusion and Parallels guest no issue, but I wouldn't use VB for running similar.

In fact to this very day, Oracle still lists macOS/OSX Guest support as 'experimental' (see page 300 on current manual, 'Known Limitations'. ) If you really need macOS guest support, I recommend Fusion. I currently have Fusion ver 11 running on Mojave on a MacMini 2018, and I have macOS/OSX guests of every release from Mojave all the way back to Snow Leopard (10.6) running. Graphics performance for mac guests is poor on ALL three products regardless, but Fusion is the 'least bad' of the three. Your mileage may vary, this is just my experience.
Good luck.

Have they fixed the 3-D graphics support issues?

I don't understand why, but none of the virtualization systems are able to go past DirectX 10, which is the problem. Seeing as I can do DirectX 11 via Bootcamp, huh? So Bootcamp it is.

I'm getting the same exact issue running Linux Mint on a Sierra beta host but don't get the error running XP. Not seeing these issues using a windows host.
This is for VB 5.1.2. No solutions for you other than possibly downgrading. I feel your pain.

As much as I love snow leopard myself, most things have dropped support in recent years. Sadly, if you wish to keep up with current versions of mac software you need at least lion or mountain lion. some require mavericks or newer, and some even require Yosemite or later. It just depends on the application / developer. Alternatively, you could install Virtualbox or vmware player for free on a windows or linux host., if you don't want to upgrade os x.

is the 5.0 RC a legit release? It doesn't show up on virtual box.org under downloads.

That's a lot of squawking but you offer no details or facts. I use this app everyday and it performs flawlessly with XP, 7 and is doing quite well with Windows 10 Dev. I am also running OSX Snow Leopard in VB. Maybe you should read the manual, learn how to use it and contain your comments to a specific app instead of implying that MacUpdate users globally give reviews on all apps based on price. You insult a community with comments that you can't back up. Then you double post because you don't know what you are doing. lol There goes your credability.

Perhaps you read what you wanted to out of my comment, rather than my intentions. 95% of what I said was directed to the fact that FREE apps on MacUpdate generally get a better review than paid apps. If you were to choose any current FREE five star app and suddenly make it $30, I assure you within a year it would be down to three stars.

The last sentence of my comment, which is the only part of my comment relevant to your reply, is a fact I experienced as I tried all three VM apps before shelling out $79 for Parallels. I didn't say VirtualBox would not do what it's supposed to do, I said it doesn't hold a candle to the other two. For clarity I should have stated the differences, which you may not have noticed unless you also have used Parallels.

1. VirtualBox does not support popular gestures.

2. VirtualBox does not do well with games (I'm not a gamer, so I don't care).

3. Inferior vendor support...in fact, does it even have support.

4. The biggest drawback to using VirtualBox on a Mac is the substantial amount of fiddling needed to get your virtual machine to run the way you want. I'm a retired geek and developer so I do understand these things and I could have fiddled to my heart's content, but I didn't want to. Creating a virtual hard disk, enabling switches, and configuring the driver packages — all require some intermediate or advanced computer skills. Not a great choice for the average user.

5. Another substantial downside is its limited graphics capability. There appears to be some OpenGL support, but that is not officially or fully supported yet.

6. PCMark 7 Benchmarks will also tell a performance story you may not want to hear, and I certainly didn't invent these. In seven categories Parallels was rated much higher than VirtualBox. In two of those categories VirtualBox fared a little better, but it still lost. Performance in the OS was the critical category where VirtualBox was way behind. So if performance at the speed of the actual OS is not important to you, then I guess this means nothing. To me, performance is very important.

I would agree that VirtualBox works OK for web surfing, email and very light office document work. But in my own comparison tests against Parallels, having to move in and out of Windows from Mac several times a day, have a true coherence mode in which I felt like I was actually using Windows, Parallels was much better.

I understand when someone truly loves an app there is nothing anyone can say to change their opinion, and I do respect that. I'm just saying, as I originally said, that FREE will bring more stars than $$$ on a MacUpdate review. I've been using MacUpdate for about 12 years and though I thoroughly appreciate the many comparisons and comments, I always factor in the ones regarding free apps.

@larrymcj: I agree in terms of features and performance, VMWare Fusion and Parallels both easily crush Virtual Box. Virtual Box's strength is it's value and that's something that's hard to criticize as what's value to you isn't necessarily what value to me or others. I use Parallels but they are ruthless in regards to upgrades (e.g. upgrade my host OS I need to upgrade Parallels).

@lemonb3519: Just because it works for you doesn't make it the best option. I saw no insults to the community, as you put it. Finally, if you want "credibility" you probably should either learn to spell or use spell check.

@CGC Never said it was the best option, you do read english right ? Also for larrymcj to make the statement that free apps get better ratings is an insult to the community. The majority of reviews here are legit and based on actual use and fact, not price. Finally a small mind like yours would think a typo has something to do with credibility.

For me, I've used / tried all three products as well. I've decided on fusion because it seems t have the best support for virtualizing os x, and that is what people have said is one of VMware's major strengths. I'm not a gamer by nature, but I do like to play some old games time to time. Most of the games I'd play are games like kings quest or the like, and they actually run best in DOSbox which is also free, and runs best for dos based stuff, even better then the commercial VM software packages.

Virtualbox is nice because it's cross platform and quick and easy just to slap together a test vm and be done with if, If i want to use a VM long term, I'd chose VMware, because it's also cross platform, and offers more features.

I've stated this a while back, but I'll say it again, since new people read the comments everyday. I switched to OS X from classic years ago with the soul purpose of learning unix in a mac friendly environment. I really like what OS X brought to the table as far as the best of both worlds, but with at said. Apple isn't everything anymore, and If i had to make the choice to change platforms now, I could do it much easier now be it linux, be it freeBSD, be it windows. Virtualization makes it easier to learn a new platform with a familiar platform as a host, so when the host is, or needs to be the virtualized os , the transition is much easier.

As far as Parallels vs VMware benchmarks, I haven't used PD in years, but all current Macs in the last couple years have SSDs and for me at least fusion runs very fast, and I haven't had any graphics complaints in guests with good support. (especially the MacBooks, iMacs have the fusion drive.)

For DOS programs, rather than using VirtualBox, you may want to look at DOS box emulators, such as DosBox, which supports Macs and Windows. The system resource requirements are significantly less, and the DOS compatibility IMO is much better than in VB, Parallels or VMWare. I use DOSBox to run old PC games from my youth. IT has great support for emulating floppy disk drives, DOS drive letters, everything to make these programs believe they are running on real DOS. You can even adjust relative CPU speed and timing, keyboard rates, etc, since most old programs are oblivious and can't handle modern CPU and system speeds..they actually need to be slowed down to be usable. There are numerous front ends for DosBox that provide a GUI interface for editing settings, etc. I use Boxer. http://www.dosbox.com/

@Bowlerboy_jmb I reread your message again, and I got the feeling perhaps you thought VirtualBox was only supporting old software. You are aware that VirtualBox allows you to run virtualized copies of MODERN, PRESENT-DAY operating systems as well? YOu can use it to run virtualized copies of OS X, Windows, Unix and so on. I personally use Parallels, not VirtualBox, but same idea. With Parallels, I run images of Mountain Lion, MAvericks, Windows XP, Windows 7 and 8.1 and Ubuntu.

@Mcr ... Thanks for the clarification. You are right about my mis-understanding of the range and scope of VirtualBox I did not mean to be critical or sarcastic (why would someone even rate a query like that with a frown?). I suppose I did get the impression from you that VirtualBox was sort of retrograde, so, never having used it, I couldn't see much use for it. Although I have licenses for both Parallels and VMware Fusion, I never really installed those virtual machines either. I have enough to do wandering through the world of Mac software, let alone mess my head up more than necessary by peering through Windows once again or exposing my Mac to viruses and other attacks to which I would rather not subject myself. The attraction to run Windows on my Mac is very low on my radar screen. At the same time, however, I'm glad such VM software provides Mac users with that option. It's a really clever trick to make one machine believe that it something else that it is. Very heady stuff.

@Bowlerboy_jmb If you already have licenses for Parallels and Fusion, I highly recommend you try out using virtual images of OS X, even if you don't care about Windows. It's a great way to try out software without worrying about harming your every day working system. Also useful if you are browsing suspect sites or downloading files you aren't sure of. click of a button , revert back to a saved image, and no harm done. I lock down my every day system as tight as I can (no Flash, HOST file that blocks advertising sites, VPN, browse only known/safe sites, etc). I do all my experimenting and casual browsing/downloading in a virtual machine.

@Mcr Wow! If I get you right, then you are talking about running a virtual Mac OS X inside of a real Mac OS X machine. What a cool idea! I don't think that I have ever read of anyone even suggesting something like that. If such a thing works, then one could actually "install" dangerous stuff like Flash inside that virtual Mac OS X machine and have a grand old time while it lasted, testing out iffy software, visiting sites will some real flashing goes on... I see that you did mention running images of Mountain Lion and Mavericks in a vM window, but that totally went over my head, because I had been indoctrinated with the concept that using Parallels and Fusion and Boxer, I guess, was so that people could run (ugh) Windows on their Macs. To be able to run other versions of Mac OS X as a virtual machine on a real Mac computer opens up possibilities I had not considered. Thanks for the push. I'm putting it on the list of stuff to do, once I finish my eBook and website project, which must be my highest priorities right now.

I run virtual installations of XP for the same reason I have an occasional slice of thin, round pizza (I prefer deep dish). Seriously though, there are some older scientific programs that only run in XP and occasionally I need to access those.