Hyper-V or VMware?

Moderated by Jason Hiner | March 5, 2012 -- 07:00 GMT (23:00 PST)

Summary: Can Windows Server 8's Hyper-V finally make inroads against VMWare?

Jason Perlow

Jason Perlow

Hyper-V

or

VMWare

Ken Hess

Ken Hess

Best Argument: VMWare

Closing Statements

Hyper-V: Best in class and more

Jason Perlow

In grand, blustery Texas form, my opponent has relied on the classic tactics of FUD to defend the cash cow that is VMware. He offers no solid technical arguments as to vSphere's superiority as an enterprise virtualization stack as it compares to Microsoft's Hyper-V; all he can do is cast aspersions as to the product's quality and the need to maintain an IT quid pro quo.

Neither does Ken offer a truly compelling argument for vSphere 5's superior Total Cost of Ownership or the VMware platform's ability to deliver actual significant dollar reduction in operational expenses by providing an end-to-end virtual infrastructure management, multi-tenancy cloud and network operating system solution. He can't, because only Microsoft can.

Why the FUD? Because he has no defense against Hyper-V's superior value except to say that you should continue to throw millions of dollars at licensing fees at a product which is going to have a virtualization feature set that is not only going to be commoditized by significant efforts at Microsoft, but also by Open Source solutions such as KVM.

VMware has a single area of specialization -- Virtualization, for which it charges a heavy premium. And that single area of specialization is an exposure when your competitor has a complete solution across the entire stack and your entire reason for being is to provide virtual access to your competitor's operating systems.

With Hyper-V in Windows Server 8, Microsoft will offer you a best in class hypervisor along with great deal more built-in features for a heck of a lot less money, which has become scarce in today's shrinking IT budgets. These financial constraints have been pressuring CIOs to do a lot more with a lot less, and it's a trend that is not going to change anytime soon.

The bottom line is that Hyper-V has been a stable, proven, high-performance virtual infrastructure solution for at least the last two years, and it has already been gaining some traction in enterprises for its ability to consolidate high-performance Windows workloads. Environments should not throw out their existing VMware infrastructure, but if your organization is looking to grow its virtualized Windows footprint, you'd be foolhardy not to give Hyper-V a very close look.

With the feature set I have described in my arguments above, which includes superior scalability to its competitor, not to mention the bottom line -- a tremendous cost savings when applied at both a large enterprise and small/medium business scale -- the answer to the question of the debate at large "Will Hyper-V make inroads against VMware?" is without any doubt a resounding yes.

 

VMware: More soldiers than Microsoft

Ken Hess

A scene from the Movie, 300.
Daxos: I see I was wrong to expect Sparta's commitment to at least match our own.
King Leonidas: Doesn't it? [points to Arcadian soldier behind Daxos]
King Leonidas: You there, what is your profession?
Free Greek-Potter: I am a Potter, sir.
King Leonidas: [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?
Free Greek-Sculptor: Sculptor, sir.
King Leonidas: Sculptor. [turns to a third soldier]
King Leonidas: You?
Free Greek-Blacksmith: Blacksmith.
King Leonidas: [turns back shouting] Spartans! What is your profession?
Spartans: WAR! WAR! WAR!
King Leonidas: [turning to Daxos] You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did.

VMware has more soldiers than Microsoft does. Virtualization is VMware's only profession. Microsoft is a highly diversified software company that produces hundreds of different software programs including games, desktop applications, server applications, operating systems, servers and more. VMware invented x86 virtualization. Hyper-V is Microsoft's attempt to remain relevant in this cloud-oriented, virtualization-focused world.

Microsoft, like the Greeks, may share the battlefield alongside a professional virtualization company but, in the end, VMware's phalanx will better protect your investment against the Xerxesian virtual machine horde that it faces.

Tough to bet against VMware

Jason Hiner

This debate was quite a doozy. Both Perlow and Hess made a strong case, and this is a topic that has very important implications for the future of the data center.

Hess is right that VMware's installed base is a huge competitive advantage that won't be easy for Microsoft to overcome, but Perlow is on target that Microsoft has the potential to win big with the integrated software stack. Microsoft could make inroads with service providers based on features and cost, but it's likely going to have a difficult time dislodging VMware in big companies that have invested heavily VMware products in recent years.

For that reason, it's tough to bet against VMware and so I've got to give Hess the razor-thin victory on this one.

 

Talkback

103 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • IT religion vs. hard truths about strategic advantage

    IT shops that choose their "religious" idols of technology and don't consider the full ramifications of their choices (costs!), will eventually pay another high price - their jobs. You always have to be looking to do more with less (budget). Hyper-V was the choice a few years ago because it did 80+% of what you needed it to do, but the anti-MS mindset helped to keep the Vmware machine humming. Now, the writing is on the wall. Do the math. Don't be silly. If you are a manager and you are listening to your IT staff that got all their cert's in VMware and don't want to move b/c "Vmware rules!". You better start teaching your staff about being a bit more agnostic and doing what is right. If not, your company will lose strategic advantage because others will do more with less, better then you.. Now that functionality/features/performance has parity, it is about cost.
    dlarrison@...
    Reply 8 Votes I'm for Hyper-V
    • Well Said

      We started out with VMWare but moved to Hyper-V a few years ago primarily due to cost. We too found that Hyper-V did just about everything our organization needed to do when it came to virtualizing servers and a substantially lower cost.
      bobiroc
      Reply 3 Votes I'm for Hyper-V
    • Deja vu? IT religion vs. hard truths about strategic advantage

      Wow, for a pro Microsoft argument to make those points it feels like the shoe is on the other foot! Microsoft is on the thin end of the market for virtualisation, I know a lot of engineers in London working with virtualised environments and whereas Hyper-V might do well enough for consolidation with general management features, not one of them would touch Microsoft for hard core virtualisation, things like grouped and subgrouped and granular resource based prioritisation, or SAN functionality like automatic storage Vmotion.

      But it feels like the shoe is on the other foot even more because I have heard arguments such as:

      IT shops that choose their "religious" idols of technology and don't consider the full ramifications of their choices (costs!), will eventually pay another high price - their jobs. You always have to be looking to do more with less (budget). Windows was the choice a few years ago because it did 80+% of what you needed it to do, but the anti-Linux mindset helped to keep the Microsoft machine humming. Now, the writing is on the wall. Do the math. Don't be silly. If you are a manager and you are listening to your IT staff that got all their cert's in Server 2008 and don't want to move b/c "Microsoft rules!". You better start teaching your staff about being a bit more agnostic and doing what is right. If not, your company will lose strategic advantage because others will do more with less, better then you.. Now that Linux functionality/features/performance has parity, it is about cost.
      jamfuse
      Reply 4 Votes I'm for VMWare
    • MS is Huge

      NONE can COMPLETE aginst MS...DONT DARE.

      They have huge cash and they will catch up with any BLODDY innovation out there...
      Innovation starts and ends with MS...VMWARE does not even exist....
      gurjarn@...
      Reply 1 Vote I'm Undecided
  • The cost of Vmware training is extremely expensive...

    What's the cost comparison for certification Hyper-V vs. Vmware?
    jmonzon@...
    Reply 1 Vote I'm Undecided
    • MCSE

      The MCSE is your "Hyper-V" certification. And unlike VMware, which requires official courseware from a VMware educational partner, there are a lot of inexpensive training materials and study aids and courses to take for it.
      jperlow
      Reply 3 Votes I'm for Hyper-V
      • Certification = Money Racket

        For the most part, certs are just a money racket and only exist because it's pure profit and propaganda for a technology. Here is some inexpensive VMware training: http://viadmin.com/
        khess
        Reply Vote I'm for VMWare
      • Certs

        I work for a VAR and we are forced by our partners to keep certifications up to date. So yes, they may be a racket, but a necessary evil!
        Frankmjr
        Reply Vote I'm for VMWare
      • Money Racket?

        Did the VMware side of the debator just put up a link to a "braindump" site. Awesome! Does that site qualify towards VMware certification? (The answer is no.) Because you can pass the test but until you pay $3000 for a certified VMware class you arent certified. While certification isnt the end all be all for proof of knowledge, but its a minimum bar to set. Again its VMware's ploy to make as much money as they can while they can before they are relegated to a "Novell" status.
        jcornel7
        Reply 3 Votes I'm for Hyper-V
      • MCSE is not the Hyper-V certification

        Actually MCSE is not the Hyper-V certification. Microsoft offers an MCITP Virtualization Administrator certification http://www.microsoft.com/learning/en/us/certification/cert-virtualization.aspx.

        One of my main issues with Microsoft's certifications is they have produced many "paper" MCSE's and MCITP's throughout the years. Its an unfortunate fact that cheating on exams has not only persisted throughout the years but has increased despite vendors many attempts to prevent it.

        As opposed to the MCITP certification, if you hire a VMware Certified Professional, you know that the individual has gone through at least 30 hours of VMware Instructor led training and hands-on lab time with the product.
        Gr8VirtualScott
        Reply 1 Vote I'm Undecided