Hyper-V Reviews

We use Hyper-V for hardware virtualization.

I have found it difficult to manage more than one virtual machine.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately seven months.

Hyper-V is not as stable as VMware and should be improved.

We have approximately 20 users using the solution.

The installation was straightforward.

We have a four-person team that consists of an administrator, network administrator, managers, and system administrator that does the maintenance and support of the solution.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

The solution serves our needs as an education entity in the UAE.

Both Hyper-V and VMware have similar features, including network utilization. 

The solution allows us to take advantage of our physical environment. We save on cost and computing. It has good performance when compared with the physical, normal, traditional way of computing. The VMs are easy to deploy and to manage from a central administration portal, in respect of managing the workloads. 

Traditional architecture, such as converged infrastructure, should be done away with. So, nowadays, we can save space, like space footprint. If one is using hyper-converged infrastructure, everything will be virtualized. So, basically, we can state that we are a completely software-defined data center once we move to the hyper-converged infrastructure. That is our target.

At present, Hyper-V can be managed by the SCVMM, but it doesn't have the portal. In VMware vSphere there is a portal, through which the VMs can be managed. Microsoft is providing Windows helping center, but it should be dedicated to a certain extent. It doesn't have full features when compared to SCVMM. So, it's better to have something similar to that.

We have been using Hyper-V for more than five years.

While every product comes with issues, the solution works for us. 

The solution is scalable.

The technical support is the best.

The initial setup was easy and pretty straightforward. 

Since the solution is compatible with Azure Cloud and uses the same format, it will make it very easy for us to load the latter in the future, should we decide to do so. 

Thanks to our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, Hyper-V is free for us. 

VMware vSphere licenses are very costly compared to Hyper-V because we have have our enterprise agreement with Microsoft, meaning that Hyper-V is free for us. We can use it without any problem.

I would recommend the solution to someone who is fully Microsoft, one who is looking to implement Microsoft environment in its entirety. I recommend the solution to someone who plans to go with a hybrid environment through Azure. 

I rate Hyper-V as a ten out of ten. 

We mostly use Microsoft Hyper-V in our production environment.

I find that most of the competition is more or less the same. However, Hyper-V is, when you compare it to the older platforms like VMware, a little bit more advanced at this stage. 

I like the System Center part of it, the System Center VMM, where you can manage all the stuff together in the orchestrator and those kinds of things. That was not really available when we looked at Proxmox and other options.

Microsoft's got the better deployment tools like MBT and conflict manager, which is not in the other platform.

For me, the initial setup was very easy.

The solution has been very stable.

The scalability on offer is good.

It's hard to compare it to other solutions. Everything has almost the same offering.

It's possible that more deployment tools might make it a bit better.

If a person has never implemented the solution before, they might find the process difficult. 

The next generation should at least include most of the tools of the next operating system.

I've been using the solution from the start. I likely started using it around 2006. It's been well over a decade. I've used it for many, many years at this point. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

The initial setup was very simple in my case. I've got a certification, so for me, it's almost like second nature. For someone with less experience, it's possible it may be a bit difficult.

I am able to handle the implementation myself. I do not need an integrator or consultant. 

We did look at Proxmox and Citrix Hypervisor, among other solutions. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I'm using the 2012 and 2016 versions of the product.

I'm more familiar with Hyper-V and with Microsoft products. I've got certification in that as well. There are some management solutions out from Microsoft, which are not just for Hyper-V, but for a lot of things. With these, it's almost like an all-in-one product, which you don't really get when you look at your Linux-based virtualizers. For example, with Proxmox, there is not really management. You have these notes that you couple up and then you have a backup server, however, you don't really have something that you can orchestrate those things with. Citrix, I can't speak to as I didn't really work with Citrix that much.

If you run any kind of network solution, I would rather recommend Hyper-V over any other hypervisor at this moment - unless you are looking at it from a cost of ownership perspective.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. There's no such thing as a perfect product, however, I'm pretty happy with this.

I like that Hyper-V is like a virtual environment. I like to use VMware because of the resource requirements. In Sri Lanka, most of the customers use the Hyper-V GUI. When installing the interface with the Windows version, we also install the Hyper-V feature on the server. This is because they require more features and memory. There are so many features that they have embedded in Hyper-V that are useful.

It would be better if it demanded less memory. Once you have allocated those memory spaces for the installed server, fewer resources are left to allocate for the Hyper-V virtual environment. That's the drawback with that. For example, once you install Windows 10, and let's say Windows 2019, Windows 2019 will take at least 10 GB of memory.

If a customer has only 16 GB of RAM on the system, they think of installing Hyper-V. Because when you have windows 2019 or something else, they give two free Hyper-V virtual licenses. But we can't because there's not enough memory.

We can, however, install this as a VMS. But this UI isn't that user-friendly for most customers. They like to have a user interface with VMI, and it's not easy when you install VMI.

It would also be better if they can improve their core Hyper-V version to be a bit more familiar and user-friendly with its interface. I think it would be much easier. We had a few issues with the VM Hyper-V virtual network. Once you have such issues, it's very difficult to find out where they came from. They had such issues, and we had to resolve the system again. But other than that, if it's useful and keeps working nicely, it will work very nicely even if something happens. But it's very hectic and challenging to find out where it's happening. 

In the next release, it would be better to control this data store part in a manageable way. This is because once we install and create a Hyper-V machine, it goes everywhere. It would be better if it had a single location and a single folder with a heartbeat and virtual machine information. 

You can just go forward, and the data store and everything are going into one place like the C drive. But something always goes fast, or everything gets lost if the customer doesn't manually change the direction of where the virtual hard drive routes, the more serious the problem.

It would be better if they could merge all that together. This includes the virtual machine and the virtual hard drive in the same folder when creating the virtual machine. I think that it would be much easier to manage and in case something happens. Technical support also could be better.

We have been using Hyper-V for more than five years.

Technical support with Microsoft is crazy because we never get it. If I'm having some issues with Microsoft, opening up a ticket is very difficult even though we have it in Sri Lanka. Even from there, we cannot get the technical support for the marketing stuff. They will give us support, but it's not easy to open up a ticket and get that technical support for the technical stuff. Right now, the best support we can get is from Google.

You can easily use Hyper-V coercion, and It's very good. Hyper-V is good when compared to VMI. It's not easy, but they have so many features, and backing up features and migrations and networking are much easier.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Hyper-V a six.

We supply Hyper-V for hardware virtualization to customers.

Hyper-V integrates well with other Microsoft solutions.

One of the network problems I face is I cannot introduce other security layers on top of Hyper-V as you can in VMware. When it comes to the network the VMware is more flexible than Hyper-V.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

We have not had any issues that we would need to contact the support.

I have previously used VMware solutions.

There is a license required to use Hyper-V and there are bundle packages you can purchase making it cheaper than other solutions, such as VMware. Additionally, if there is a lot of guest OS that requires Windows, then Microsoft becomes cheaper.

The cost of the usage is dependant on the customer's requirements and if the virtual network is flexible or not. Since VMware is more flexible it can become superior but not cheaper.

I would advise customers that are Microsoft users to use Hyper-V if they want to have more cost-efficiency. Additionally, if the customer uses a lot of Windows Server for the guest OS, I will recommend Hyper-V.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

We provide services, such as virtualization, website hosting, and some infrastructure services. We provide all the services to the public companies.

The product is a great option for enterprise-level organizations.

The solution comes in many languages. We can have it set up in Portuguese, for example. 

The interface is quite good.

The setup is pretty straightforward. 

The product can be a bit difficult to use. I find, for example, Citrix to be much less difficult. 

It's hard to calculate how long we've used this solution. It's been a while. 

I also work with Citrix. In my opinion, Citrix has the more complete online material.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. It's not a difficult process. 

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

We are a public company, a government company, and, due to legislation, most of the time, we can't simply choose a vendor. If we need to acquire a contract solution, we make a technical study where the features are evaluated and the final specifications are always based on features, not on vendors, or manufacturers.

We are service providers. We don't provide products. We are implementors. 

In this company, we work mostly with on-premise solutions, such as hypervisors. For example, the Microsoft Hypervisors, Citrix Hypervisors, et cetera. Here in the company, we don't use exactly cloud solutions, or not entirely cloud. We use many hybrid solutions. 

We didn't exactly choose this product. It was more a question of legacy. We've just kept using it over time. When I came to the company, they were using it, and we've continued to do so.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.

We use Hyper-V for virtualization.

I have found the GUI user-friendly and having the solution be a Windows application makes it familiar to users.

VMware has antivirus protection that covers the entire VM. If Microsoft could have something similar to this in Hyper-V, that would be great. Currently, in Hyper-V, we have to have a separate antivirus for each VM. If there could be umbrella coverage to the entire setup, then that would be beneficial.

I have been using Hyper-V for approximately 10 years.

The solution could be more stable as it is vulnerable to viruses, ransomware, and malware.

We have approximately 100 customers using this solution.

The support from Microsoft is good.

The installation is very easy, it takes approximately 30 minutes.

We have three supporting engineers that do the implementation of the solution.

There is a perpetual license to use the solution and there are additional fees for support.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

It is very easy to install. It can be done in a day.

Hyper-V systems need a lot of admin effort because security updates and monthly updates require rebooting after the update. For example, if you use Hyper-V, you should restart once a month. It is very hard to operate.

Also, it is very slow.

The stability and scalability could be improved. It could be more user friendly as well.

I've been using it for, maybe, three years.

It is not stable. There are problems with backup as well.

It is not scalable.

I am satisfied with technical support.

It is very easy to install, and it can be done in a day.

I installed it myself.

I don't recommend Hyper-V and would rate it at six on a scale from one to ten.

We primarily use the product for multiple servers and for Dynamics AX, for example, the routing server, the load balancer, the application server, and stuff like that.

The initial setup is very easy.

The scalability is okay.

The performance of VMware was better, which is why I've moved away from Hyper-V.

The operating system is very, very heavy. Sometimes the system is pretty slow. Basically, the iOS performance is very slow, as compared to VMware. They must make the OS as simple and as smooth as they can to make it more user-friendly and faster.

The product is quite expensive.

I've been using the solution for about one year. 

The performance isn't that great. If can be slow. 

The stability is okay. I'd describe it as between 50 to 60% stable. 

The scalability is decent. I'd say that it can scale to 60 to 70%.

We've had so many issues, however, we didn't really ask for help from Microsoft. We mostly did a lot of googling and worked to figure things out on our end. 

I've recently moved over to vSphere. 

The product is not difficult to set up. It's not overly complex. It's pretty straightforward. A company shouldn't have any problems with its implementation.

The first time I did an implementation, I needed help from Microsoft. They assisted us originally.

The solution is quite expensive when you compare it to other products. Microsoft solutions aren't cheap. 

I'm just a customer and an end-user.

I have used the Hyper-V for Dynamics AX for a while, however, recently I moved to a virtual machine, VM.

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. It's not the worst, however, it certainly is not the best either. 

I would recommend Hyper-V to users, especially if they are dealing with a Microsoft OS.

We use it for anything like production and everything we're running on right now.

I like that it's easy to use.

The backup site could be better. We used to face a lot of issues, and we are looking to solve that now. We are in the process of moving all the infrastructure to the cloud. It could also use more integration on the management part. We also need more integration on the monitoring sites.

I have been using Hyper-V for four to five years.

It could be more stable. We faced a lot of issues on the backup site.

Hyper-V is a scalable solution. We are a global center, and we use Hyper-V across 22 countries.

We also use VMware vSphere.

It is a straightforward implementation. If you want to put Hyper-V as a single load, it will take about one to two hours. If you want high availability, it will take approximately four to five hours.

We implemented this solution.

I have been using VMware and Hyper-V. Comparing the two, I love to use VMware more than Hyper-V. However, I would recommend this solution to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Hyper-V an eight.