Microsoft pitches Hyper-V against VMware

Microsoft has officially unveiled its new server virtualisation software which is intended to take market share away from rival VMware. Hyper-V has been launched six weeks ahead of schedule, a move which took many by surprise.

Beta versions of the software have been available for download for some time, but Microsoft had said that it would launch the final code in August. The software will be available free to Windows Server 2008 users or as a standalone download for $28. This dramatically undercuts the prices charged by market leader VMware, and Microsoft is clearly betting that the low cost and full integration with Windows will be major selling points.

View: The full story @ vnunet

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Asus pledges end to Eee PC 900 battery swap 'delay'

Next Story

Rogers Announces iPhone Plans in Canada

25 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

It would be hard to compete with VMWare, but I encorage it. Competition will cause all VM products to improve and lower prices hopefully.

Personally I want the fastest and most compatible, and least expensive VM. Whoever has it, I will get it from them.

(dmd3x said @ #8)
It would be hard to compete with VMWare, but I encorage it. Competition will cause all VM products to improve and lower prices hopefully.

There are numerous alternatives to VMWare already. Some of them are free and open-source.

I have spent some time looking at hyper-v (and server 2008 ) and positioning it against vmware is fine, but which version of vmware?

hyper-v is certainly not good stable or powerful enough to match ESX (which i think ms are targeting), but it is certainly good enough to compete against workstation. however with ms charging for the privilege i find it difficult to understand what their game is..

i also believe this will be made available for vista, but not any time soon. the cost for a version of windows 2008 with hyper-v compared to without is only about �20 more, so it will likely be pretty cheep if they do! :)

in short hyper-v is pretty good, its not good enough to compare against esx, ms should not charge for it, and to increase market penetration they need to make it free

it needs a few more iterations to be a worthy esx substitute

(BGM said @ #7)
I have spent some time looking at hyper-v (and server 2008 ) and positioning it against vmware is fine, but which version of vmware?

hyper-v is certainly not good stable or powerful enough to match ESX (which i think ms are targeting), but it is certainly good enough to compete against workstation. however with ms charging for the privilege i find it difficult to understand what their game is..

i also believe this will be made available for vista, but not any time soon. the cost for a version of windows 2008 with hyper-v compared to without is only about �20 more, so it will likely be pretty cheep if they do! :)

in short hyper-v is pretty good, its not good enough to compare against esx, ms should not charge for it, and to increase market penetration they need to make it free

it needs a few more iterations to be a worthy esx substitute

Hyper-V will allow SMBs to get in on virtualization without having to invest in ESX. Not just the cost of the software but the possibility of haivng to purchase hardware certified to run ESX.

Windows with Hyper-V can run on any hardware with Windows drivers and doesn't involve much more investment if a company is upgrading to Windows Server 2008 anyway. They can get the benefit of virtualization without the added overhead.

By all means, Hyper-V is not a replacement for ESX. VMWare will continue to be the major player in virtualization and ESX will continue to be the virtualization platform for large companies. They can afford the expensive upfront costs and ESX would be cheaper support at that level long term.


You also have to remember that this is MS' first version of Hyper-V. VMWare has been doing this how long?

The fact Hyper-V is in this good a shape at it's first release is a good sign. If anything MS can push ahead even more now to match up better with ESX and totally undercut them on price.

(BGM said @ #1)
in short hyper-v is pretty good, its not good enough to compare against esx, ms should not charge for it, and to increase market penetration they need to make it free

Microsoft are not going to be allowed to do that, it would be the browser wars all over again!

This applications should be backported to Vista. Most consumers have the hardware requirements to run it. This would give them the option of keeping their outdated software (and to a lesser degree hardware) available. The industry has matured to the point that consumers should be able to run ten year old software in the virtualized container. Virtual PC is a joke. What Microsoft really needs to do is:

1). Support for a version of Hypber-V on Vista
2). Virtual desktops... this has been the "default" in every other system for about a decade... well except for Mac which got it with 10.5
3). True free developer tools like X-code... just charge for the access to source samples. I don't think you can argue that Visual Studio Express is even in the ballpark.

(bluarash said @ #6)
This applications should be backported to Vista. Most consumers have the hardware requirements to run it. This would give them the option of keeping their outdated software (and to a lesser degree hardware) available. The industry has matured to the point that consumers should be able to run ten year old software in the virtualized container. Virtual PC is a joke. What Microsoft really needs to do is:

1). Support for a version of Hypber-V on Vista
2). Virtual desktops... this has been the "default" in every other system for about a decade... well except for Mac which got it with 10.5
3). True free developer tools like X-code... just charge for the access to source samples. I don't think you can argue that Visual Studio Express is even in the ballpark.


what? first of all, server 2008 is vista sp1 with added server services. Anyone telling you otherwise is dead wrong. And what on earth do virtual desktops have to with virtualization?

Virtual desktops have nothing to do with virtualization... I was just ranting. The Vista/Win2k8 kernel is the same, but Microsoft does not package Hypber-V as a download for Vista. I was just suggestion that they do or at least think about it for Windows 7.

Why? Hyper-V doesn't target desktop usage. If you want to use virtual machines on Vista just use Virtual PC (which IS a free download from Microsoft).

mmmm ESX is great with the v motion and HA stuff, but Hyper V is so much cheaper, and has clustering etc so it does seem to be a worthy competitior in terms of ££££
I have 2 ESX servers here and am planning to keep them but the future virtualisation projects will be on Hyper V :)

Well... I am going to use it b/c I already use Virtual Server 2005 SP2 Enterprise. It works well enough to do what I want and it is MS product. I am going to be able to get Windows 2008 DataCenter Server for Free which has unlimited virtual server's that you can run. It's the best combined solution at the moment... Personally...

(iampedro said @ #3)
Well... I am going to use it b/c I already use Virtual Server 2005 SP2 Enterprise. It works well enough to do what I want and it is MS product. I am going to be able to get Windows 2008 DataCenter Server for Free which has unlimited virtual server's that you can run. It's the best combined solution at the moment... Personally...

How in the world are you going to get the absolute most expensive version of windows for free?

(neufuse said @ #3.1)
How in the world are you going to get the absolute most expensive version of windows for free?

arrrr matey :suspicious:

(neufuse said @ #3.1)

How in the world are you going to get the absolute most expensive version of windows for free?

I guess his school is giving it to him via MSDNAA like my school did.

(Marshalus said @ #2)
It's not really "free" because you still have to buy Windows Server 2008 to run it on.

I would rather run ESX (VMWare).

In that sence VMWare on linux isn't free either as you need to purchase a PC to run it on.

(jason13524 said @ #2.1)

In that sence VMWare on linux isn't free either as you need to purchase a PC to run it on.


vmware on linux isn't free because it isn't free (you need to buy it)

^^ Do you guys even know the difference between VMware Workstation and ESX? VMware ESX is probably costlier than Windows Server 2008

(dhan said @ #2.3)
^^ Do you guys even know the difference between VMware Workstation and ESX? VMware ESX is probably costlier than Windows Server 2008

hahaha, dhan ftw.

ESX costs thousands of dollars and just an fyi, the heart of ESX is a linux kernel. now if that isn't ironic...

(Callaway said @ #2.4)

hahaha, dhan ftw.

ESX costs thousands of dollars and just an fyi, the heart of ESX is a linux kernel. now if that isn't ironic...

No it's not, vmkernel is a proprietary kernel developed by VMWare. The maintenance console is Linux. ESX 3i is an embedded version of the vmkernel that does not have the maintenance console so it can fit on a small flash drive.

Hmm...wonder how long before they start bundling it with Server 2008, and how long after that until the next lawsuit comes...?

(TCLN Ryster said @ #1)
Hmm...wonder how long before they start bundling it with Server 2008, and how long after that until the next lawsuit comes...? :)

It's already bundled BUT 2008 comes in two forms... with Hyper-V and Without Hyper-V so they avoid lawsuits right off the bat because there is an option to pay the extra $28 to get it bundled... and yes the bundled version does cost about $28 more