3 ms·
VirtualBox on XP would still be sharing the XP kernel. If you're concerned about bugs and age of code then Supermium would actually be better than VirtualBox:
by hnlmorg 3y ago
VirtualBox on XP would still be sharing the XP kernel.
If you're concerned about bugs and age of code then Supermium would actually be better than VirtualBox:
1. VirtualBox doesn't support XP hosts, so you'd have to use an older version.
2. Whereas Supermium is current Chromium. So you will get the latest patches.
3. Chromium also has more maintainers than VirtualBox. Google and Microsoft invest far more resources into Chromium than Oracle does into VirtualBox. And that's without factoring in all the other contributors outside of G&M. VirtualBox just isn't nearly as cool. The fact that there still isn't a stable VBox release for Apple Silicon speaks volumes for just how stark the contrast is with regards to developer resources.
- saagarjha 3y agoDoes VirtualBox not use virtualization extensions on XP?
- hnlmorg 3y agoWhat virtualisation extensions in XP? There’s extensions on the intel and AMD COUs. And Windows Server has a product called hyper-v. But there’s nothing provided by Microsoft to support XP being a virt host. VirtualBox manages that itself. Plus, like with Chrome, VBox still needs to write to the display, and hook into the hosts TCP/IP stack. And like with Chrome, a zero day in the hypervisor could allow sandboxed code to escape the confines of the virtual machine.