VMware or Microsoft? – The Complete Series

16 thoughts on “VMware or Microsoft? – The Complete Series”

1. you state this would be a "respectful discussion". Part of a respectful discussion is mention the correct URL of a vendor. While one link seems to be disappear, this page still has a URL which leads to vm-unlimited.com instead of to vmware.com . I think this is unprofessional and is a false start for a series which claims to be 'respectfull'. Come on guys, adjust the url.

   LikeLike

   Reply

2. Right you are, Marcel.  That link is put in by my blogging software whenever I put in VMware, because I set it up to do that back when we had a site called "vm-limited".  I left it because I like the comparison site we have, that it resolves to.  But if the resolution of the URL is important to you, the absolutely I will change it.

   LikeLike

   Reply

3. Hello,
   the Link "Let’s talk certifications!" is not existing.
   Kind regards,
   Rolf

   LikeLike

   Reply

4. Thanks for pointing that out, Rolf.  This morning apparently my blog editor decided to flake out a bit, and substituted some strange relative paths for what were valid links to the blogs.technet.com articles.  I've fixed them, so they should all work properly now.
   Again – THANK YOU for commenting!

   LikeLike

   Reply

5. Hello Kevin,
   perfect 🙂 thank you. Very interesting topic. Exiting if the others do the same.  
   Kind regards,
   Rolf

   LikeLike

   Reply

6. Sorry, but until I can run Hyper-V on a 64-bit Windows 7 laptop without interrupting my other activities like I can with VMWare Workstation 9, I'll stick to VMWare Workstation.
   Don't get me wrong – I'd love to use Hyper-V to build VM's, but it's Microsoft that won't let me work in my preferred way, one that is not disruptive to my other work.  
   The last time I looked, in order to use Hyper-V, I would have to "repave" my laptop with a Windows Server operating system, which would immediately be banned from hooking up to the network where I work.
   With VMWare Workstation, I spin up a few Windows Services (with a handy PowerShell script), double-click on a .vmx file on my solid state disk drive, and off I go.  Simple and easy.  No rebooting.  Between 16GB of RAM, a BIOS that supports hardware-assisted virtualization and a large SSD, VMWare Workstation runs really fast for me.

   LikeLike

   Reply

7. You are aware that you can install Hyper-V on Windows 8, aren't you?  Our answer to a "workstation" product in Windows 7 and earlier was Virtual PC.  On Windows 8 x64 (and with hardware supporting it) you can add the Hyper-V role.
   The purpose of this series is to compare server virtualization, not workstation or client virtualization.  You're welcome to stick with what works for you, of course.  If you're running Windows 7 and want virtualization on your desktop OS, VMware Workstation is just great.

   LikeLike

   Reply

8. VmWare, because he has VT-d. When in Hyper-V? Never? So the choice is simple.

   LikeLike

   Reply

9. km – I'm sorry to say, you are mistaken.  As proof, I offer you SR-IOV.  Hyper-V in 2012 and 2012 R2 does SR-IOV, which requires Intel VT -D, (technet.microsoft.com/…/hh831389).
   Here's a question back to you: When will VMware be able to do a live migration (sorry, "vMotion") of a VM that is using SR-IOV?  
   As you say, "the choice is simple"

   LikeLike

   Reply

10. This whole topic makes me laugh. MS isn't even close. Anyone running VMware knows this…particularly if they tried to PoC Hyper-V to feature compare. I say try because they often get so frustrated with the fragmented management and core functionality loss that it stalls

    LikeLike

    Reply

11. C (if that is your real name) – You really should read some of the articles in the series.  VMware still doesn't have what Microsoft has had in-market for a year now with Hyper-V in Windows Server 2012 and Hyper-V Server 2012.
    In a recent internal e-mail, Jeff Woolsey provided us a short list (with extended commentary that I've left out) of some features that Microsoft has in-market, even without considering what's added or improved in the up-coming R2 release:
    1. Proper Virtual Fibre Channel. Specifically, presenting an honest to goodness virtual fibre channel HBA in the guest.  
    2. Cluster Scale. 64 nodes and 8000 VMs.
    3. SMB 3.0 – support for SMB Multi-Channel and Continuous Availability
    4. SR-IOV _with_ Live Migration.
    5. Open, Extensible Switch. (not just replaceable)
    6. In-Box Storage Virtualization.
    7. Native 4k Disk Support.
    8. Integrated Disk Encryption. (Microsoft's BitLocker)
    9. RemoteFX – an integrated hardware accelerated GPU sharing mechanism.
    This short list above compares what Microsoft shipped LAST YEAR in Windows Server 2012 to what VMware is going to ship with vSphere 5.5.
    Sincerely, I invite you put aside what I know for many IT Pros is literally YEARS of (what were once) valid assumptions on who the leader in datacenter virtualization is, and do a fresh re-evaluation.

    LikeLike

    Reply

12. tried hyper-V in Windows 8 64bit, easy to migrate virtual machine but doesn't support usb so I reverted back to vmware worstation

    LikeLike

    Reply

13. Did you try doing remote desktop to the VM instead of the virtual machine connection?  Remote desktop supports USB redirection.

    LikeLike

    Reply

14. Pingback from SEC TECH | Pearltrees

    LikeLike

    Reply

15. Pingback from Virtual Processor Scheduling – How VMware and Microsoft Hypervisors Work at the CPU Level | virtuallycloud9.com

    LikeLike

    Reply

16. Pingback from Virtual Processor Scheduling – How VMware and Microsoft Hypervisors Work at the CPU Level | virtuallycloud9.com

    LikeLike

    Reply