Fallout from Virtual Server vs VMware

Wow.  It seems my previous post about Virtual Server vs VMware caused quite a stir.  I got gazillions of comments (which I still need to go through) regarding this topic.  A lot of the comments were the usual "Micro$oft" nonsense (putting a dollar sign in the name is so boring now, but that's another story) although some have raised some very interesting points which I would like to deal with.

Firstly, I want to point out a few things.  I am a Microsoft Consultant therefore I am not an expert like some of you will be in VMware but I am in Virtual Server.  Yes, I have used VMware plenty (especially in my pre-Microsoft days), but not to the depth of many others.  And being a Microsoft employee is bound to make me favour them slightly!

Secondly, I guess that posting a nice pretty table fresh from the marketing department was not such a wise idea as it was bound to ruffle a few feathers, especially with the anti-Microsoft group.  It would have been better to post the table and then back it up with as many real-world consulting examples as possible; lesson learnt.  The advantage I have is that I have had access to the beta and RC builds longer than the public which is why I have been able to test and comment on it.


A lot of people were telling me that they doubted that Hyper-V would ever ship.  Well, good news, because we are now one step closer to the RTM version.  Windows Server 2008 RC1 with Hyper-V Beta is publicly available here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=8F22F69E-D1AF-49F0-8236-2B742B354919&displaylang=en


In my opinion, again influenced by being an MS employee, I think Windows Server 2008 with Hyper-V absolutely rocks.  Rather than speculate further, I think I'll wait until it is in RTM and we have a few consulting stories to share.  When I do, I'll post here.  Perhaps we can then revisit this subject along with any of your personal experiences with the system in order to try and make the post a little more neutral...?