Originally posted by: heymrdj
Now if they could get their free VMWare right lol. A 1.x.x series that doesn't have a signed driver and thus can't be installed on 64bit Vista OS's. And a 2.x.x beta that feels like it should be back at alpha it has so many issues.
Originally posted by: Genx87
It is really their only option if they want to remain on top of the market. Everybody can see the cost differences and the ease of use of Hyper V. This is a good proactive approach by VMWare.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, they lost this round. HyperV ate their cake.
VMWare is still my favorite all-around VM but there's so many alternatives now.
Originally posted by: Crusty
How difficult is the migration from Server 1.6.0 to ESXi? Is it even worth it?
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, they lost this round. HyperV ate their cake.
VMWare is still my favorite all-around VM but there's so many alternatives now.
Ate their cake in what way?
By releasing a hypervisor with no management suite, no live migration, and bad support for enterprise storage devices?
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, they lost this round. HyperV ate their cake.
VMWare is still my favorite all-around VM but there's so many alternatives now.
Ate their cake in what way?
By releasing a hypervisor with no management suite, no live migration, and bad support for enterprise storage devices?
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, they lost this round. HyperV ate their cake.
VMWare is still my favorite all-around VM but there's so many alternatives now.
Ate their cake in what way?
By releasing a hypervisor with no management suite, no live migration, and bad support for enterprise storage devices?
Elaborate on bad support for enterprise storage devices. What does that mean exactly? Is there something that Windows supports that isn't supported on Hyper-V?
Originally posted by: tfinch2
By releasing a hypervisor with no management suite, no live migration, and bad support for enterprise storage devices?
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: Smilin
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: Pabster
Yeah, they lost this round. HyperV ate their cake.
VMWare is still my favorite all-around VM but there's so many alternatives now.
Ate their cake in what way?
By releasing a hypervisor with no management suite, no live migration, and bad support for enterprise storage devices?
Elaborate on bad support for enterprise storage devices. What does that mean exactly? Is there something that Windows supports that isn't supported on Hyper-V?
http://www.enterprisestoragefo...om/article.php/3758461
Hyper-V will also be available as a stand-alone offering, separate from Windows Server, as Microsoft Hyper-V Server.[1]
Originally posted by: tfinch2
Originally posted by: heymrdj
Now if they could get their free VMWare right lol. A 1.x.x series that doesn't have a signed driver and thus can't be installed on 64bit Vista OS's. And a 2.x.x beta that feels like it should be back at alpha it has so many issues.
ESX is our flagship product. It will be just fine.
Vista is not supported as a host, which is why drivers are not signed for it. You can disable driver signing in Vista by pressing F8 on boot.
Server Beta 2 is slow because we leave asserts on for beta products.
That's pretty impetuous of a company to say that. Sure Vista has it's shortcomings, but man... Vista support should be a must as a host.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
That's pretty impetuous of a company to say that. Sure Vista has it's shortcomings, but man... Vista support should be a must as a host.
For VMWare Workstation sure, but not really VMWare Server.
Well, lots of people use Server on their desktops simply because it's free compared to Workstation.