Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Jun 2008 21:22 UTC, submitted by snydeq
InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy reviews Hyper-V RC1, and though he finds the Windows Server hypervisor lacking the sophistication of VI3, the company's try and try-again attitude might help the company in gain an advantage over VMware. "For many shops, Hyper-V will prove to be plenty good enough, allowing Microsoft to begin eating away at VMware's market share while preparing the next-generation product for the final assault that topples the leader."
Permalink for comment 319639
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-20
I really think it's about what kind of virtualisation you want to do. People willing to run few virtual machines on Linux will use something based on kvm or VMWare's free server. On the other hand, people wanting to do small-scale Windows virtualisation will use Hyper-V. Yet this leaves us to people who want to do some serious stuff with tens of thousands of machines who will want something more centrally manageable. These people are willing to buy commercial stuff from VMWare or from Microsoft when they'll have their tools ready for this this kind of stuff.
Ps. Don't get me wrong. I left out Xen and friends mainly because I wanted this comparison be free v. paid in some abstract level. So in real world there are more options.