Hyper-V comes with Windows Server. It works well, is easy to use and administer, and does everything we need. I see no reason to purchase additional products to do what Hyper-V already does. Plus, the option to eventually use Azure without much fuss makes it a simple choice for …
Hyper-V is much less expensive than VMware, which is always a plus. It is also more friendly to new administrators trying to pick up the system for the first time. With that said I would consider VMware to be slightly more enterprise friendly when it comes to features and …
I've used VMware and Hyper-V. Due to Hyper-V being included with Windows for no extra charge, it makes it the default option for us. Why spend money for a 3rd-party solution when Microsoft provides one for free with the purchase of their server operating systems? It's also …
I have used VMware Vsphere for a few edge cases such as Mac virtualization. I found the GUI to have far more options, but also found the documentation less concise. I've also used Virtual Box and VMware Fusion for desktop virtualization. Both are good and have the advantage of …
I have mainly experience with VMWare. Though the two are making sure to follow each other's innovations and VMWare was on the market first and therefore had a big headstart, I currently prefer Hyper-V. One big reason is since most of our customers use Windows Server, Hyper-V is …
Hyper-V being 'free' was the main reason we went for it here. We gave VMware Workstation/Server a try when initially evaluating virtualisation options, but Hyper-V won out for ease of integration into our existing environment. VirtualBox was more of a 'plug in' solution which …
Hyper-V is less advanced and less stable than VMware but it is also a lot less expensive. You get a lot of features from the start with Hyper-V where with VMware you need to add quite a bit of products (vCenter, etc.) to get basic features like clustering.
As already described, my impression is that Hyper-V is lacking in features that are offered by other alternatives (albeit, at a potentially lower price point).
We are still primarily a VMware shop, but Hyper-V supports 40% of our environment. That may change over time if Hyper-V keeps getting easier to use and more third party support grows.
Hyper-V can host more memory, CPUs per host, and logical processors than can VMware's vSphere, and while it is well integrated in my opinion to the Windows OS, it has significant drawbacks that VMware does not. You can better manage and balance storage needs with VMware than …
Windows Server is more cost-effective and skills are easier to find to support the products. The deployment and management of the product can be automated with Microsoft SCCM. In my opinion, Linux seems to be more secured but takes more time and effort to learn than Windows …
Windows Server is the most Enterprise/Business server around, easy to deploy and configure and to co-exist with other servers. Most if not every other server technology is usually very good for a very specific purpose but fail in the coexistence and integration when compared …
Easy to use server operating system as compared to other operating systems (OS) which might require you to do a configuration via a terminal. Installation and managing of server - client applications are easy to use. Less load on server depending on the number of users …
HP-UX is a great product, but it has a much higher learning curve than Windows server. Even if you're familiar with Linux/Unix, HP-UX will still be very challenging if you've never used it before. HP-UX commands can be different than even other Linux/Unix commands. Whereas …
Windows vs. OS X. Windows scales so much better here. OS X in a server role is ok for one or two servers but does not have the enterprise feature set or associated complementary software products that Microsoft Windows has.
Windows vs. Linux. Both have their advantages. These …