Jack September 06, 2013 7:05 pm

I thought that you were going to do an honset comparison but this sounds more like marketing for VM Ware. I have been in IT for 15 years and had worked on Novell and MS server and desktop OS. I have also worked with VM ware desktops for 8 years and played with esx for several years. I can say that vm ware was much better than virtual desktop and server but haven't yet used hyper-v. Your praise for esx management console reflects your bias. It is not so great. I have had the console for guests blanking out and than unable to reboot the vm many times.And your cost analysis does not show at what point it is cheaper to get hyper v and at what point it gets more expensive. For instance MS allows using multiple virtuals on a single licensed host and VM licenses per CPU core. You can do the maths.Hyper V is based on Windows 2008 and so certainly vulnerable to hacks and viruses and would have to be updated. But ESX is also based on Linux although stripped version and so to an extent susceptible to security vulnerabilities.I certainly like the the memory over commitment technique used in ESX but do not get over zealous with it. If you happen to boot several guests with over commit at the same time, you will see the slowness in performance.Lastly, I heard that Hypervisor had a built in GUI based management console, so I can switch between several VM's at the system's console. That is great. sI am going to install vista ultimate to test some extreme graphic and sound functions with full driver support with hyper v. I think that is something that cannot be done on ESX. Virtualization is not for server consolidation but is fast becoming a disaster recovery solution for desktops also.