Am I the only one who explicitly does not want type 1 hyper visor on my desktop? Am I out dated?
I like workstation and virtualbox because they're controllable and minimally impactful when I'm not using them.
Installing hyper v (and historically even WSL - not sure if it's still the case but it was never sufficiently explicit) now makes my primary OS a guest, with potential impact on my gaming, multimedia, and other performance (and occasional flaky issues with drivers and whatnots).
I used to worry about this overhead too but this appears to be nothing on modern CPUs. I had minuscule differences here-and-there on Intel 9th gen (9900K) but my current Intel 13th gen (13900K) has zero performance decrease with HV enabled. (At least on any perceptible level)
Thanks - can you share your usage patterns, what kind of usage, does it include heavy gaming and media?
Note, I'm less worried about percentage performance, as some things just not working well at all, because of assumptions of direct hardware access vs reality of running under hyper v. I.e. Are ALL hardware calls and capabilities 100% absolutely completely available once your main Windows install is running as a VM? Not most, majority, should be good; but actually, seamlessly all? My understanding was No, but things may have changed for the better.
I like workstation and virtualbox because they're controllable and minimally impactful when I'm not using them.
Installing hyper v (and historically even WSL - not sure if it's still the case but it was never sufficiently explicit) now makes my primary OS a guest, with potential impact on my gaming, multimedia, and other performance (and occasional flaky issues with drivers and whatnots).
Am I the only grouchy geezer here?:-)