The display scores are based on 7 different types on image speed tests that I combined to get the comparison. The display benchmark does not indicate anything other than a comparison score. I ran each benchmark on each VM 5 times and then averaged the results. I'm sure that these bugs will dissappear as VirtualBox matures. VirtualBox works fine with NAT networking but that doesn't let the OS see LAN shares. Also, the desktop size sometimes reverted to 640x480 when rebooting the VM. The interface would lock up sometimes when doing a custom resize of the virtual desktop. Every time I tried to create a virtual NIC that would allow bridged networking, VirtualBox would lock up. VirtualBox was the only one I couldn't get bridged networking to work on. The VM in Parallels was able to see my LAN shares just fine, Fresh Diagnose wouldn't. I was not able to test networking on Parallels or VirtualBox. I used Fresh Diagnose to benchmark the 'important' hardware components of each VM. I was able to use bridged networking on all except VirtualBox. There is 128 MB RAM 'installed' in each VM. The virtual drive files are on the same 20 GB partition and were completely defragmented before starting. I then installed PerfectDisk and Crap Cleaner to optimize the 1.5 GB virtual disk in each VM. I installed each program's Virtual Tools that help integrate the mouse, keyboard, and display nicely into the desktop. Task manager on each VM showed 12 processes using around 44 MB on boot. It takes up about 450 MB on the virtual disk without the pagefile. It installed all 4 times and detected all virtual hardware without a hiccup. But it's an even more stripped version that's still very functional for most tasks. My virtual machine OS is also Win XP Pro. (Normal boot with all things enabled is around 143 MB.) (Wasn't worried about my temporory lack of OS security, I'm behind a FreeBSD firewall box.) Task manager shows 13 processes running using around 79 MB after boot. All startup apps/programs and services not needed to run the VM's were turned off. It is completely functional for everything I need/want to use it for. My OS is Win XP Pro that has a majority of the pork stripped out of it with nLite. The versions used for this comparison are:Ĩ0 GB IBM/Hitachi Sata Drive (Fastest Drive - OS and Apps reside on it)ġ60 GB WD Sata Drive (Virtual Images reside on it) I have done some basic comparing and benchmarking of all 4 products.

Mac parallels windows task manager