Might this be for the reason that under the current Microsoft licensing terms the use of these products to shift server resources is not allowed. Probably just under the heading "we can't do it, so were not going to allow anyone else to"

Many years ago Punch magazine published one of Rowland Emett's wonderful cartoons. Depicting a train (pulled by the ever present Nellie) arriving at a station, the deeply philosophical questions was asked. "If the 9:30 from Paddington is ten minutes earlier than its customary half an hour lateness, does this make it more or less punctual?" *

* As well as I can remember it anyway.

Actually, your comparision between ESX Server and VMWare's management offerings to Microsoft's forthcoming stuff is pretty off the mark.

The Hypervisor is $28. The management software is System Centre Virtual Machine Manager and is a seperate product.

Let's face it, Hyper-V will be what everyone has when they migrate to Windows Server 2008 anyway. Give it a couple of years and it'll be standard. All MS have to charge for will be $500 for the "workgroup" edition of the management software - which covers 5 physical hosts. The enterprise edition is part of the MS System Centre Suite, which has backup software, management and operations software and auditing tools plus the VM management stuff for $1,290.

As per usual, the software probably won't be as good as VMWare or other companies - but it'll probably be cheaper and easier to use.

M$ translation: we've saved 4 months by foregoing on the testing phase and we're just gonna dump the stuff on you and let you tell us what needs improving. Then we'll take the easiest bits and release another spin spin spin to tell you how MANY improvements there have been.

Every time those guys put their hands between their arse cheeks, they find - surprise surprise- their buttholes

Well we ran and evaluated the CTP which was released a while ago. It seemed okay but had limited hardware support so we've temporarily reverted to VS2005. However, I am looking forward to the formal release of the Hyper-V. Whilst it may not currently have management tools, it is easy to deploy and the virtual disks are interchangable between VPC and VS easily enough. Also, MS releases loads of beta and CTP stuff as VHDs which are definately useful.

As a former Citrix guy who got tired of being lectured that "In a couple of years time Citrix will be dead - because MS offering will be as good, cheaper, free". I would treate MS virtualization offering with a large dose of salt. You see they were saying that in 1997 about Citrix - and guess what Citrix is still here - and still the superior product. I have a feeling the Microserf's will be trying to generate the same Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt (FUD) around VMware for another ten years.

VMware isn't the bleeding-edge start-up people seem to think it is. It's the fast growing software company is history - and now the 4th/5th largest software company after its recent IPO. One day soon it will be bigger than its parent EMC. It's time for Microsoft, in fact everyone to wake up and smell bacon.......

Mike Laverick

RTFM Education

http://www.rtfm-ed.co.uk

If you look at the main x86 vendors, they all have developing management suites which already tie-in with virtualised servers. From what I have heard, the lead three have already spoken about putting more capability into their tools, which leaves M$ with less ground to make up on VMWare. Whilst VMWare may remain dominant in the really high-requirement end of the virtualised server space for a while, M$ will start with a simpler and cheaper product that fits say 50% of the market, and then grow from there.

I think MS should stick to what it does best, which is ..... never mind..

This thing may ship early, but I doubt if any IT manager would chance their production servers on this, if you think Kaspersky crash is bad, may be this H-V can do even better.

... (G) for Globally subjugate

... (E) for Everyone

making... FUDGE. mmmmm