After playing around a little bit with Win11's Windows Subsystem for Android [WSA] I checked out its [AFAIK] main competition, BlueStacks. bluestacks[.]com
The best, easiest, most efficient way to run any Operating System is to use a device intended for that OS with that OS normally installed -- IOW the best way to run Android is with an Android phone or tablet. With WSA Microsoft built on their work with the Subsystem for Linux [WSL], enabling Windows to run a sort of embedded *partial* Virtual Machine [VM] that in turn runs a limited version of Linux. It's not as good but less hassle than running Linux in a VM, which is more convenient but not as good as booting into a full Linux install. The same holds true for WSA. Personally I also think it's worth noting that Microsoft for WSA teamed up with it's main competitor in the cloud, Amazon -- there's not much love there when Amazon cost Microsoft billions with a now canceled DOD contract. And with Android apps both Microsoft and Amazon are going against their mutual competitor, Google. What could go wrong?
BlueStacks goes full VM, though you wouldn't know it running their software -- the VM part is integrated, built into the app, so you don't have a management console like with V/Box or VMWare. And it runs a full Android Nougat install while pretending to be a cell phone. The hard part they've managed is to make Android apps work as normal Windows apps, though everything is constrained to the BlueStacks window. Perhaps the most important part is that they include Google's Play Store & related services, so most Andoid apps work.
The unavoidable problem with VMs is that they require maybe twice the hardware resources, since you're running Windows, the VM app, and the guest OS running in the VM. Give it 4 CPU cores, 4-8GB RAM, & run it from an SSD, and its fast and responsive -- even better perhaps if you've got a decent Nvidia graphics card. But the fewer hardware resources you can spare for the VM, the more performance will suffer. WSA by comparison used 1GB RAM, & no dedicated CPU cores -- when you allocate cores to BlueStacks or another brand VM, they're totally dedicated, so nothing else can use them. To broaden their target audience to include everyone that doesn't have a PC/laptop with the resources to spare, BlueStacks is working on a version called BlueStacks X, available now in beta.
BlueStacks X is mainly advertised as a way to play Android games in the cloud using your browser -- like the other cloud gaming platforms, all the processing takes place on their servers, so it's hardware agnostic as long as you've got the bandwidth for your internet connection. But you can also download & install BlueStacks X, and then download & install Android apps & games. It's a bit unclear how an installed copy of BlueStacks X suffers compared to an installed copy of their regular [old] version, so unfortunately you might have to resort to seeing if the apps or games you want to run work, and if not, consider installing the full version to try them there.
Why you would want to try BlueStacks X first is the impact of installing the software. In my 32-bit Win7 VM the full version took near 3 GB of disk space, with well over 2000 new registry entries [the 64-bit version *may* take more]. BlueStacks X still took up a lot of disk space -- approaching 1GB -- but that's 2/3 less, and only added 71 registry entries. IOW it's a lot easier to get rid of if you choose to uninstall. And BlueStacks X ran in the VM while the full version would not, so it has lower hardware requirements. The full version of BlueStacks is effected by Hyper-V -- you download & run a downloader which is supposed to check if Hyper-V is enabled, and select the proper files to download & install -- you could potentially have problems if you installed the app, then later enabled Hyper-V. BlueStacks X is a normal, ~80MB download.
And finally, on a personal note, HBOMax would install & run fine, but their DRM means just seeing a black screen instead of the video.