Frenzied Wombat
Potato del Grande
I disagree. If we were talking about 2008 Hyper-V, I'd agree, but if you compare the feature set of 2012 R2 Hyper-V to ESXi there are very few differences. In fact, the hyper-v replica feature alone is one seriously huge positive in MS's favor. We run multiple 2012 R2 Hyper-V clusters supporting over 80 VM's (including some Linux boxes) and it's rock solid. We also have one ESX host specifically to run 3 Cisco appliance VM's because the shitstains are so anti-MS, but from a day to day operations standpoint I consider both environments pretty comparable. Meanwhile, we save on thousands of dollars in VMware licensing fees per year because Hyper-V licensing is included in the core OS license.It's arguably easier to work with, yes, but only because much of the ESXi feature set is sorta-kinda spread out across Windows as well. Think Remote Desktop Services vs. VMware View, SCVMM vs. vCenter, Hyper-V Manager (part of RSAT) vs. vSphere Client, etc.
It's alright for entry level virtualization, but it doesn't compare in the high end. VMware does nothing but virtualization and they've made significant advances.
IMHO, if both products were released *today* I can't see any IT department making a logical argument for VMware over MS Hyper-v(unless it was a Linux shop), because when you compare the costs vs feature sets, there's little in terms of "features" that justify the costs.
The reason why VMWare is still so hot is because they have a huge existing client base that went VMware back when MS had shit for an offering, and the risk/cost to swap that all out for Hyper-V now doesn't make sense. But if your primarily setting up a new company that's going to be Windows based, and have Premier support, I don't see much of an argument for VMware.