The "OSX Hosts" section wouldn't necessarily be a proper fit either, because according to the OP's statement:BillG wrote:Surely VirtualBox on Mac OS X Hosts would have been a better choice.
A much better section would have been "Ancient hardware and unfulfilled expectations", we may have to create one...og1 wrote:on my 2013 Mac Pro ... the Windows Server 2016 guest VM properly
VirtualBox doesn't have OS preferences for most part. There *is* one significant difference between OSX and every other supported host, and that is the lack of "raw mode" availability. But as you very well know, this does *not* affect equipment that has VT-x available, so it's a non issue on real Mac hardware, they all have VT-x, ever since the first Intel Mac came out.
We're veering off-topic, but for completion, VirtualBox on OSX *does* have a problem with nested virtualization, where you can't even run a DOS client on an OSX VM, because VT-x is not available and VT-x *is* required on an OSX build, no matter what. We are NOT dealing with such a situation here.