Virtual box 7 plus emulated Windows 11

Virtualbox finally has TPM emulation like Hyper-V.

cereberus said:

Virtualbox finally has TPM emulation like Hyper-V.

VirtualBox 7 brings TPM and Secure Boot support for Windows 11 - Pureinfotech

VirtualBox 7 now ready for download with support for TPM 1.2 and 2.0 and Secure Boot to officially run Windows 11 on a virtual machine.

pureinfotech.com

Click to expand...

Can't be bad -- especially as it's free -- but I've never really got to grips with VBOX, although for many it makes a good choice if you can handle it -- For Windows HOME users where HYPER-V isn't realistically a feasable option (although it can be done !!) this is another way of running a W11 Virtual machine.

Note if copying / moving VM's around you need to get into the config file to ensure the UUID of the VM is the same or you might get prompts to "Reactivate Windows again". VMWare users can have that done automatically at the ist boot of the Guest after creation by chosing the "I Moved it" box rather than the "I copied it" box.

Don't forget on these systems to install for VMWare - VMWare tools or on VBOX - Virtual box additions on Windows GUESTS. Install of course on the GUEST.

One advantage also is that for both these systems you can use Wireless cards for Bridged Networking rather than NAT which usually makes for easier communication between GUEST and HOST - with NAT it's a bit more tricky.

For those running LINUX Guests using a Windows HOST with these VM systems remember to install open-vm-tools on the Guest and for best efficiency of the I/O subsystem try and use "Native" I.e physical disks. I.e create a tiny boot VM disk where you load GRUB and then have the root ('/') home ('/home') and swap on the physical disk.

This is harder to do in Windows guests -should be feasable with physical vhdx drives. I suspect the boot drive needs to be on a "Virtual disk" since that is what the Host VM system boots from.

on KVM one can actually boot from an external USB so you can boot a physical REAL Windows system - This makes an interesting possibility of whether you can run 2 physical Windows systems concurrently -- assuming the hardware is capable of it.

Something to play with this weekend. - Bit worrying here -- although tiny numbers compared with Europe etc Covid seems to be rising again -- so plea to all reading this post - go and get vaccinated - if you are offered "booster" jabs. Nobody want more lockdowns etc etc surely.

cheers
jimbo

As a long-term user of VirtualBox, primarily because it provides a consistent interface across macOS, Windows and Linux Host systems, I would say the VirtualBox 7.0.0 release should probably be considered more as a Beta Plus release, i.e. most of the significant issues reported during the beta period seem to have been addressed, but some early upgraders are already reporting issues on the User Forum and/or on the Public Bugtracker. Whether these are really down to early 'bugs' in areas of the software that have been completely re-designed, regression issues, or users not fully understanding the changes they need to adjust to, will no doubt be addressed through the first few bug-fix/update releases, which usually come every 6-8 weeks. As usual, most users do tend to dive straight in without reading about any of changes covered in the User Guide!

If any existing VirtualBox users want to upgrade to Version 7, it's probably better to completely uninstall the previous version prior to install because of the extent of changes in the design of the software. This doesn't affect any existing VirtualBox VMs, but might mean that some VM settings will need to be adjusted. Meanwhile, for those that want to wait for the new version to settle down, Version 6.1 will still be supported with regular updates until late-2023, with 6.1.40 being released shortly after Version 7.0.0.

LeLibran said:

As a long-term user of VirtualBox, primarily because it provides a consistent interface across macOS, Windows and Linux Host systems, I would say the VirtualBox 7.0.0 release should probably be considered more as a Beta Plus release, i.e. most of the significant issues reported during the beta period seem to have been addressed, but some early upgraders are already reporting issues on the User Forum and/or on the Public Bugtracker. Whether these are really down to early 'bugs' in areas of the software that have been completely re-designed, regression issues, or users not fully understanding the changes they need to adjust to, will no doubt be addressed through the first few bug-fix/update releases, which usually come every 6-8 weeks. As usual, most users do tend to dive straight in without reading about any of changes covered in the User Guide!

If any existing VirtualBox users want to upgrade to Version 7, it's probably better to completely uninstall the previous version prior to install because of the extent of changes in the design of the software. This doesn't affect any existing VirtualBox VMs, but might mean that some VM settings will need to be adjusted. Meanwhile, for those that want to wait for the new version to settle down, Version 6.1 will still be supported with regular updates until late-2023, with 6.1.40 being released shortly after Version 7.0.0.

Click to expand...

I'm finding that VM snapshots won't work in v7 - they save but always give an error an abort when reloading. No problems with V6.

BrianInEngland said:

I'm finding that VM snapshots won't work in v7 - they save but always give an error an abort when reloading. No problems with V6.

Click to expand...

This is another reason I use Hyper-V as much as I can, as it is very robust (I cannot remember last time it had any even minor bugs). As Hyper-V forms a major part of MS's server business, it is well maintained. I am going to test VB7 for compatibility with Hyper-V but I do not have great expectations.

VirtualBox 6.1.40 and 7.0.2 both work with Hyper-V activated (presumably until the MS again adds to/changes the way it makes use of virtualisation-based security features), but some slowdown is still possible, depending on the use case.

I am avoiding the 7.0.x series for now, except for a single test install, as there are still a lot of early glitches to iron out with the level of rewriting and re-design that has taken place, but 6.1.40 works well for me on Windows 11 Hosts with or without Hyper-V activated.

LeLibran said:

VirtualBox 6.1.40 and 7.0.2 both work with Hyper-V activated (presumably until the MS again adds to/changes the way it makes use of virtualisation-based security features), but some slowdown is still possible, depending on the use case.

I am avoiding the 7.0.x series for now, except for a single test install, as there are still a lot of early glitches to iron out with the level of rewriting and re-design that has taken place, but 6.1.40 works well for me on Windows 11 Hosts with or without Hyper-V activated.

Click to expand...

I just ran passmark with VB7 on brand new VB7 installation with 4GB RAM assigned and 4 cores

Hyper-V VB7 in Hyper-V compatability mode



As you can see VB7 in Hyper-V mode is far inferior on all counts, but really bad on disk access.

I have yet to test VB7 in normal mode (Hyper-V Hypervisor switched off - I expect to see an improvement of course.

Edit: VB& in normal mode- improvement over Hyper-V compatible mode but still inferior to Hyper-V.




Main issue is disk access - Hyper-V shares hardware far more efficiently than VB7, and as my hard drive is nvme, Hyper-V is much faster.

Also, graphics are really poor for similar reasons,

On CPU and RAM, broadly about the same.

So, if not using disk intensive or graphics intensive apps, VB7 in native mode will perform close to Hyper-V.

However, VB7 in Hyper-V compatible mode, performance is clearly inferior.
Having said that, it was not so bad as to be painful.
TBH, this is a big improvement over initial VB6 implementation, where it was so slow as to be practically unusable.

I have not tested vmware recently, but last time I tried it, it was really poor in Hyper-V compatible mode.

I am sure results will vary depending on hardware, but I have yet to see a case where type 2 hypervisors outperform type 1 hypervisors.