virtualbox.org

I was just curious if Oracle is ever going to change the default settings for guests. It's been quite awhile since the defaults are sufficient for most modern OS's and from what I've seen in the forum, there are a number of people trying to install guests with the defaults which won't work.

just curious.

Well it all depends which approach you take on this... To me, anyone using virtualization tools actually underrstand that it is to emulate hardware.
And AFAIK hardware is something the person actually choose. So why would it be a problem here? The person should still be able to evaluate the requirements in regards of the needs he/she has.
I don't think Virtualization is a place where people should be handled by the hand and spoonfed everything.

Now on the other hand if you have precise and reproductible issues with default settings, you are free to open a ticket on the BugTracker or directly involve the devs on their mailing list.

noteirak wrote:Well it all depends which approach you take on this... To me, anyone using virtualization tools actually underrstand that it is to emulate hardware.
And AFAIK hardware is something the person actually choose. So why would it be a problem here? The person should still be able to evaluate the requirements in regards of the needs he/she has.
I don't think Virtualization is a place where people should be handled by the hand and spoonfed everything.

Now on the other hand if you have precise and reproductible issues with default settings, you are free to open a ticket on the BugTracker or directly involve the devs on their mailing list.

Well for example, someone just posted in Linux Guests he was trying to install Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS as a guest using the default 12MB of video ram. The recommended minimum on hardware is 128MB so I don't see how 12MB is a good default. I think you are right in general that one would assume someone trying to use virtualization would be somewhat knowledgeable but it seems that's not always the case. I can't remember how far back one would have to go with Ubuntu versions where 12MB of video would suffice. I think even knowlegeable users might assume 'default' settings would mean the minimum required to run.

But hey, that's just my view. Luckily I know better.

I agree with your idea, not with the implementation
But if a default setting is actually effectively preventing an OS to run (and remember you also have Ubuntu SERVER per example, where 12MB is more than enough) then yes, you should report it on the BugTracker. But you would need to give a precise set of information for that, including the OS version and type, architecture, a guest config output, etc.

Right now, this is only a mere discussion without hard and written facts and configuration samples.

To be honest I've never even tried to install a guest with the default settings so I have no information per se to post. I thought I would add although many users of Virtualization software know what they are doing more or less, there are a number of end users that have probably been told to try it because they may want to try Linux, or they may have changed platforms and want to run their old OS, or they moved from Windows XP to 7 or 8 and still want to run software they used in XP etc. I think some hand holding for them wouldn't be uncalled for. It does seem there is somewhat of a "if you aren't a geek, don't use it" or "if you have to ask a question don't use it", or "don't ask us, look it up" mentality around here.

However, I will download some .isos and see if I can install any guests with the defaults.

Well, I stand corrected. I just installed Ubuntu 13.04 64bit as a guest with nothing but the defaults, i.e. 512MB RAM, 16MB Video Ram and an 8GB HD. And the darn thing runs. Quite the surprise to be honest.

edit: of course it's not running all that well, swapping like crazy etc. but it does run.

loukingjr wrote:"if you aren't a geek, don't use it" or "if you have to ask a question don't use it", or "don't ask us, look it up" mentality around here.

Well I wouldn't go that far - the very fact that volunteers moderators on this precise forum, aimed to end-users, means that we actually do care about people and want to help them.
But I will never accept to help a person who doesn't take the time to at least read the user manual or google basic information.

noteirak wrote:

loukingjr wrote:"if you aren't a geek, don't use it" or "if you have to ask a question don't use it", or "don't ask us, look it up" mentality around here.

Well I wouldn't go that far - the very fact that volunteers moderators on this precise forum, aimed to end-users, means that we actually do care about people and want to help them.
But I will never accept to help a person who doesn't take the time to at least read the user manual or google basic information.

I understand how frustrating it can be to be a moderator at times, hence I am no longer a moderator anywhere. But I have to say, sometimes people don't have the background, knowledge to even understand the manual or understand enough to know what to look up.

loukingjr wrote:sometimes people don't have the background, knowledge to even understand the manual

In that case, they should actually seek professional (paying) support
But this is a very different debate and not in scope of this forum.

noteirak wrote:

loukingjr wrote:sometimes people don't have the background, knowledge to even understand the manual

In that case, they should actually seek professional (paying) support
But this is a very different debate and not in scope of this forum.

LOL okay