I personally wouldn't use a VM. With my experience using VM, I'd like to disagree. I'm not saying that everyone is going to have the same issues and experience that I had dealing with VMs. But I am saying that it's unnecessary in my point of view because if you just want to run a Vagrant box. Why not just do it on a regular partition?
By far if you were to compare using a regular partition with a VM, regular partitions are so much faster because you aren't running it in a VM. What I mean by "regular partitions" is you carve a piece of storage size from your actual HD or SSD. Say all you really want to do is develop and not anything else on that partition. Then you can carve your actual HD or SSD to say 100GB. You install any OS that fits your needs. If you want to install Vagrant on it, fine. Go a head. If you want to install XAMPP on it. Fine, go a head. If you want to install it manually, that's not a problem. The point I am getting at is using a VM when you could just partition your HD or SSD to use a chunk of storage space for development makes no sense. From my experience; VMs are slow, the double key stroke with no permission granted to stop it, and so much more. The slowness and performance is what gets on my nerves a lot.
I'd rather partition my HD to create the same exact effect that the VM does, but with better performance and better speed. Now you may say that you don't want to do that because it might screw up your PC. But it really doesn't. You're just carving a piece of the whole HD or SSD. So a 1 TB HD or SSD should be far then enough to carve say 200GB and still be ok.
I don't mean to say that VMs don't have their use. I am saying that with what I am experiencing, I'd say that performance wise and speed of a VM makes me not want to use it at all. But I am also saying that not everyone's experience here is going to be the same using VMs.