What is really true in is report?
http://blogs.technet.com/virtualization/archive/2008/02/23/off-to-vmworld-europe-2008-the-cost-factor.aspx
1.) Hypervisor ; VMware has with esx 3i a hypervisor without a service console. Hyper-V has a service console, is called core.
This point goes to Vmware
2.) High Availabillity : MS is using MS Cluster for HA. You need two Vm's to have HA. Vmware HA only needs one VM.
If we look 1 year ahead , is ms cluster technology not replaced by lockstep(continious HA) ?
This point goes to Vmware
3.) The price goes to MS ( 28,50 $ ) versus 5250$ for VI3 enterprise. The price for both vendors for ms windows 2008 datacenter is the same.
4.) Multi Hypervisor point goes to MS. No Info from vmware.
5.) Physical Management goes to MS. VMware only can manage their own virtual environment.
6.) How many third party tools are need for VMware or MS. That are although costs. Theire need to be a compare list.
7.) For vmware you will need more training as for ms. On the other hand vmware in a heterogen environment(linux, ms) is more accepted?
So will to vmware happen the same as to OS2, Netscape?