Microsoft Mythbusters: Top 10 VMWare Myths

Comments

Anonymous
April 05, 2009
The comment has been removed
Anonymous
April 06, 2009
The layer myth was worded incorrectly, the MS argument should have centred around the fact that management of a foreign virtualisation platform (i.e. ESX) incurs additional costs at due to the additional knowledge (or staff) required for successful management. Hyper-V reduces support costs as it allows server administrators to build on the Windows Server skills they already possess. Comparisons with unreleased products I also feel is probably not the best stance MS could have taken though. The memory foot print is an issue for me, it would be nice if the core versions of 2008 (when run as the management OS) could achieve the memory foot prints seen in 2003.
Anonymous
April 07, 2009
"Hyper-V reduces support costs as it allows server administrators to build on the Windows Server skills they already possess." You assume that these companies are using Microsoft servers. I work in a Linux shop where KVM is the VM tech of choice because it allows server administrators to build on the Linux Server skills they already possess. The argument is a red herring anyway. The truth is that pure Microsoft shops are not common and MS wants people to believe and in the end, doesn't matter. Admins that are comfortable with Windows will use Hyper-V and others will use ESX, Xen or KVM.