Hyper-V vs. Market Leaders http://www.bitpipe.com/detail/RES/1237562441_234.html
IT expert Nelson Ruest has impecable credentials as a well-published author. Then again, I've co-authored many Osborne/McGraw-Hill technical books, and you wouldn't want me anywhere near your data center. But even I understand enough to see that this is a pretty weak attempt to show Microsoft Hyper-V as a legitimate contender to VMware. Take for instance, the only criticism of VMware from the presentation:
“Hyper-V is based on Windows Server 2008 and because of that you can run these machines on pretty well any hardware configuration, any hardware configuration that is designed to support Windows. So, that means that you have hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of configurations that you can run Hyper-V on whereas because ESX Server, VMware is more…a more limited edition…a more limited product because of that. You can only run VMware on maybe dozens or fewer number of server configurations than you can run Windows.”
Is this really relevant to anything? How many ESX host options does any organization possibly require? Furthermore, new VM hosting platforms such as Cisco's UCS will start to have a major impact in data center virtualization, and UCS is optimized for VMware.
Check out these links which do a great job of dispelling Microsoft FUD: