zlacker

>>makebo+(OP)
Tangential question: why does it normally take so long to start traditional VMs in the first place? At least on Windows, if you start a traditional VM, it takes several seconds for it to start running anything.

Edit: when I say anything, I'm not talking user programs. I mean as in, before even the first instruction of the firmware -- before even the virtual disk file is zeroed out, in cases where it needs to be. You literally can't pause the VM during this interval because the window hasn't even popped up yet, and even when it has, you still can't for a while because it literally hasn't started running anything. So the kernel and even firmware initialization slowness are entirely irrelevant to my question.

Why is that?

>>datafl+0h
I think you need to provide more details on what VM software you’re using. On VirtualBox what you describe is very noticeable, and it didn’t have that delay in older versions. So it could be just an issue with that VM software and not a general “traditional VMs” issue.

>>orev+bq
Yup I'm asking about VirtualBox mainly, I just don't understand what the heck it's doing during that time that takes so long. Although I don't recall other VMs (like say, Hyper-V) being dramatically different either (ignoring WSL2 here).

>>datafl+Wq
Try disabling Windows Defender and trying again.