I would like to move away from my triple boot setup of Linux, Windows, and Mac OS X to one where my Linux install serves as the host OS. My laptop contains the Core 2 Duo chipset, which means that I can utilize VT to do hardware virtualization. I have been looking into many different solutions, but I am confused as to which would give me the best performance.

I read an article where VMware stated that the current state of hardware virtualization could not compete with existing software solutions. Can anyone who uses both confirm this? I wanted to experiment with Xen or KVM, but because neither Windows nor OS X have been modified to run on the proper hypervisors, I must use full hardware virtualization instead of paravirtualization. However, if the VMware statements prove true, should I just stick with a software solution?

On another note, I have heard great reviews about VirtualBox. Can anyone truly notice a difference between that and VMware? Also, I have not heard of anyone successfully running OS X on it.

What would everyone recommend I use? Hardware or software virtualization? If software, VMware, VirtualBox, or something else entirely?

I assume you are running on a Mac using Boot Camp, as no other configuration is legal. In that case, you want Mac OS X to be the host, and Linux and Windows to run as guests. Parallels is your best choice.

Thank you. As for my other machine which contains just Linux and Windows, what should I use (assuming Linux as host)? The two have similar hardware, inasmuch as the Core 2 Duo.

Vmware's software solution is faster than hardware solutions. That's why they haven't moved to utilizing the VT extensions. Read up on VT and you'll find it's a very immature technology. Estimates are it'll be 2 or 3 more generations (computer, that is) before it's ready for prime time.

I've tried several, and the free VMWare Server is still the best I've found. While it is proprietary, it performs very well. The ability to start virtual machines at boot, and connect and disconnect from them (locally or remotely) is very useful.

On the topic of "hardware" vs. software... Intel's current processors are microcoded RISC engines. That is, the x86/x86_64 instructions are implemented as firmware on the chip. The same is true of the VT functionality, though it is much more complex than a typical instruction (in the old days, we called these "processor assists"). The current implementation of VT does not perform all that well (you can find various benchmarks via Google). It will improve, and Intel releases firmware updates for their CPUs (installed at boot via the microcode service in Linux). Right now, the software implementations (with a kernel module) in the best performing VM implementations beat VT, but that will change over time.