which host system to choose

[Peter12]

Hello, I have notebook with 16GB RAM and Intel Core i7 4710HQ.
I would like to have as much as possible virtuals with Linux, Win 7/8/10..., Mac, etc.

Which host system would you recommend me to choose? (I think it should be lightweight on system resources so I will be able to squeeze the most of hardware for virtual boxes)

Thank you!

[loukingjr]

Well Peter, first of all unless your notebook made by Apple it violates Apple's SLA to try and run OSX on non-Apple hardware and you will get no help here doing so. For what purpose do you want to have "as much as possible virtuals"? You do know you actually have to purchase licenses for Windows 7/8.1 and 10 when it is released.

[Peter12]

thanks loukingjr. You said a lot but not to my main question. I used systems as example... I would like to now how to scale it up and squeeze maximum from my hardware.

[loukingjr]

Let's put it a different way. Your question can't be answered. Different operating systems have different requirements, have different features which you may or may not want and take up different amounts of resources. Which means whatever Host OS you decide on, the number of virtual machines you can run at once depends on what they are. If you just mean how many you can install, that's only limited by your storage. I could install 300 virtual machines with 20 GB virtual drives. I have run 4 virtual machines at one time but since I have no use to run more than one at a time I can run whichever OS I like.

If there was an answer to your question everyone would be running the same OS on their host.

[Peter12]

yes, it makes sense. I just wondered if there is some better/worse system in general for this (when I need to have variety of other virtual systems run at the same time).

[loukingjr]

Again, there is no answer to that question. obviously you can run more virtual machines that are using 1GB or RAM than you can virtual machines that are using 4GB of RAM or more. It also depends on your CPU and many, many other factors.

For example, there is a Linux OS called DSL (Damn Small Linux). It can run in 128MBs of RAM. That would allow you to run maybe one or two "extra" virtual machines but I sure wouldn't use DSL. It's too "bare bones" for me.

[Perryg]

I would ask what host are you more comfortable with? Issues with Windows security aside that would be the most important decision you can make.

[loukingjr]

Morning

[Armando]

I don't think Peter was asking for THE answer to his question, but just for some advices from other users (and maybe "better knowers") about the choice he has to make.
Which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the main reasons why people use on line forums.

If the intention is using the host system just as a platform, a background in which to actually work with VMs, then the "best" choice of a particular host OS should not be focused on comfort but maybe on other aspects instead, such as lightness, efficiency, stability, affinity (if any) with VirtualBox and so on. It seems very obvious to me that any OS CAN be better (or worse) than another for a specific task, just as happens with any other hardware of software device.

I also would be interested in some technical opinions on this matter, coming from more experienced VB users or (even better) from developers. This has NOTHING to do with the many useless "wars" between this and that.

[mpack]

He did get advice: that the host doesn't really matter, that any popular host OS will do, and he should use what he's comfortable with.

[scottgus1]

Weigh-in from another user:
The answer to this question is the same as the answer to, Which flavor of ice cream do you want in your cone? It's personal preference. Cold and to the licker's taste.

Virtualbox runs stable on lots of different OS's from all of the x86-style families. I run Windows hosts because that's what I'm familiar with, scripting-wise. I regrettably don't have the time to learn Linux, or I would consider those OS's as well - they cost less . Fortunately memory and hard disk space are cheap today, so having to pick a light-weight host OS isn't that much of a limiting situation - just upgrade to or plan a bit more spacious PC.

I do hear tell of folks running headless guests on a Linux host in text-only mode to save space, maybe that's beneficial. Others will have to relate experiences on that. Bit of Googling should help that project out.

[mpack]

Good analogy. "Which host OS to choose?" is indeed just as unanswerable as "which ice cream flavor to choose?". Modern popular OS's are in direct competition, which pretty much ensures that they are all much alike capabilities wise. The differences are really little more than philosophical.

[Armando]

Well, maybe an OS is a bit more sophisticated than an ice cream and has a bit more features and functions...
It's somehow like asking advice between diesel and petrol engines; it's obviously a matter of personal taste, BUT some technical differences ARE there and actually show themselves quite well when you try to use the engines for a certain particular task or another.

So there would be nothing wrong or... philosophical (?) in giving some technical advice like "follow your own taste but keep in mind that diesel engines have this and that and so they can be more ABC if you use them for a XYZ kind of driving".

Maybe OSes are more similar one another than engines, but kindly asking for advice is not nonsense.

[scottgus1]

It could be possible that there are subtle differences that come into play, but fortunately, testing would be rather easy. Since Microsoft is allowing test installs of their OSs for a few months before activation or removal, and Linux is completely free, the only cost is time to test one host OS over another to see which one works best on a particular PC. (As for Apple OS, well, if you don't have an Apple host, best leave that one out - you don't want the Apple men in black bursting in and erasing your memory for violating their eula... ) I don't know, after a few years' perusal of this forum, if I have ever seen someone do such a test. Who knows, you could be turned into a sticky for running the test yourself.

Just hit the download button on a few iso's, burn a couple discs, do a dual or triple boot, and use a stopwatch & pen. Let us know how it works!

[mpack]

BUT some technical differences ARE there

Give an example? I.e. something functional, not just a matter of taste.