Question

I wonder if Virtual PC 2007 is about 30MB, how come VirtualBox on Windows is about 70MB (the installation file), needing to be about double the size?

Answer 1

Quite often, size is irrelevant when it comes to executables or installers. They can be packaged differently, have higher compression or just offer more things. In my opinion, VirtualBox is more fully featured than Virtual PC.

Answer 2

Virtual PC uses separate installers for 32bit and 64bit OS, and the size is about 30MB each, while VirtualBox packs both 32bit and 64bit app into one single installer.

Answer 3

Maybe Microsoft has included parts of code required for the virtualization in the Windows kernel or in system DLLs.

That would explain why VirtualBox is bigger, as they have to deliver all the code necessary for the virtualization, the GUI, the tools, ... while only a part of it is included in the VirtualPC setup.

Answer 4

Windows Virtual PC:

• 32 BIT/setup.exe = 31.7 MB
• 64 BIT/setup.exe = 31.8 MB

Total size = 63,5 MB

VirtualBox

(both 32 bit and 64 bit in one package)

Total size = 68,9 MB

Although comparing byte sizes is a very limited way to view the difference/similarity between the features of two systems. One way the size could grow faster is that Windows Virtual PC only includes guest extenions for Windows guests, while VirtualBox provides them for Windows, Linux and OS/2.

But still, comparing comparing sizes is pretty useless.

Answer 5

Becaus they're made by different companies, with different goals?

VPC is from Microsoft, while VirtualBox is from Sun.

I bet that supported hosts and hostees affects their sizes, too.

Answer 6

Inside the Vbox package of 70Mb, you will find the Guest Additions which account for 31 Mb. Would that account for the size?

Answer 7

VirtualBox is by far the better option IMO. It supports USB, and the DirectX/OpenGL acceleration passthrough.