Which type 1 hypervisor is more convenient for replacing the OS on a home desktop?

Question

Xen

Which hypervisor is more convenient for a home PC as a "wrapper" for conventional operating systems - Windows, LinuxMint (Ubuntu), etc.?

Task: now I have installed, for example, Windows. I want to use the same Windows, but run it from the hypervisor GUI. There is no second computer for remote connection to the hypervisor and is not planned - a desktop machine.

Why do I need this:
1. I rush between OSes. You have to climb under Windows because it's work (and information security requirements from there). I want to switch to Linux because it's a hobby. Dual boot is, but it means I need to reboot the computer to connect to work.
2. The question is not only about me, there is also a mother who sometimes opens letters of happiness and the ability to "roll back to a snapshot" would be extremely convenient. Yes, there is a backup, no, it's not convenient - it's all the same for me to restore, booting from a USB flash drive.
3. I tried VMWare Workstation/Player on top of Windows - yes, it works, but it's not convenient: when the next update arrives from Microsoft, it can sometimes ruin the system (it happened more than once!). I would like all these updates in the form of inevitable evil to settle on the virtual machine, and not touch the hypervisor, and when using the second type of hypervisor, this cannot be obtained.

The solution I would like is to stick the main OS(s) into a hypervisor *with a GUI* so that you can take a snapshot and roll back to it.

And here I stuck: there are a million tutorials on how to install a hypervisor on a server and connect to it remotely. I don't need remote. I need one computer. But there are no such tutorials and comparisons.

There are about 5-10 different ones, which one is more convenient for the desktop - it's also not clear.
On the desktop RAM 16-32 Gb. This seems to be not enough, but even so, I would not want to give, say, 4GB to a purely hypervisor - in the case of 16 in total, 4GB to the hypervisor + 4GB of Windows inside the hypervisor - this is already minus half of the RAM. In this sense, if the hypervisor fits into 0.5-2 Gb, this is much better .... but this is just what I see as an amateur ... there is probably something else to compare these 10 hypervisors. Need your advice, really need...

Answer 1

If the main system is linux, then natively kvm.
If Windows - you can hyper-v or vmware
The hypervisor will eat as much as a regular computer. You put in it a full-fledged Windows. The hypervisor does not reduce anything, it just emulates the second system, with all the
consequences

Answer 2

but run it from the hypervisor GUI

https://www.tecmint.com/create-virtual-machines-in...

Answer 3

Check out Qubes OS.
A little confused, there are requirements for iron.
I’ve been sitting on it since spring, now I’m running away from it, I’m fed up with it. didn't live up to my expectations.

Answer 4

If you do not play games, then:
Linux is the main machine, Windows is a guest in it - on VB or KVM, but I must say, after several years of working with Windows on KVM, I want to leave it.
Why:
- if you plug in a USB device while Windows is active, the system automatically forwards it to Windows, even if it is not necessary at all.
- if you disconnect the device from the machine through the KVM menu without releasing it in Windows - at the moment the device is pulled out, the guest falls. Silently. Instantly.
- such a monstrous monster is emulated as a video card that neither games nor graphics programs will work. The video also slows down.
Although it is quite suitable for an office workplace.
And in fact, there are not a dozen hypers of the first type. I now know four of them - ESXi, Hyper-V, KVM and bhyve in FreeBSD. FreeBSD on a home car is used only by true masochists (although I must say, I myself have been like that for a long time), there is no gui in ESXi, so the choice is between KVM and Hyper-V, that is, between Windows and Linux :)