What advice do you have for others considering Hyper-V?

Using third-party software can be very effective for migration. Various replication tools are available for this purpose. I prefer other solutions like Veeam or TensorFlow for smoother migrations to the desired platform. Microsoft is heavily pushing customers toward Azure. This might not be a long-term solution if you rely on on-premises setups. It's crucial to plan carefully for VoIP deployments in Hyper-V. Migrating to another hypervisor like KVM or VMware can be challenging. Hyper-V has a unique way of handling virtual machines, which complicates migration. While it’s possible to transition, it requires significant effort and planning. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

People who want to use the product must check if it matches their requirements. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

I definitely recommend it. It's easy to use and very reliable. Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it. It is not so easy for a person to learn to use the product for the first time. In terms of handling workloads, the product is able to handle all of my work in the company. The performance of the product is good. I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

I rate Hyper-V a five out of ten.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I would definitely recommend using this solution. My advice depends on their specific needs. But for many customers, Hyper-V is already included in their Windows server environment. They don't need to purchase anything extra. They can simply start using it. It's very easy to get started.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten.

Overall, I would rate it ten out of ten.

I rate the overall solution a seven out of ten.

I rate Hyper-V an eight out of ten. I advise others to go for it if they have an interactive environment.

The product is mandatory. It's required for any organization that needs to deploy more than two servers. If any organization uses Windows Server, it is critical to use Hyper-V. I would highly recommend it. Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

If someone plans to implement Hyper-V, they should seek an agreement with Microsoft to get a better value for the product. I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I'm not sure if I'm the best person to suggest to you whether to use Hyper-V or not since I think it really depends on your situation. However, let's say we've known each other for ten years as colleagues and talking as friends, if cost is your main concern, then I would definitely recommend using Hyper-V. But if you're looking for high performance, I would recommend against it because it's not as good as other options like VMware. Considering the performance-related issues of the solution, I rate this solution a six out of ten.

I recommend this solution to others if they have a cluster of around four or less than 10 servers. However, if they want to have higher-level clusters and integrated service solutions, they will have to look at other options. I rateHyper-V a seven out of ten.

I'm a reseller. If the client is new to the solution, they likely will find the product to be complex. You need one or two engineers to handle the implementation, which is easy to manage. With some training, a company can handle it. I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We would recommend that any organization considering this solution looks at the range of software they are currently running, to ensure complete compatibility and allow for easy migration to this product. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I'd rate Hyper-V a five out of ten. I'm not a user of it, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to rate it, however, the part of it that I was most interested in was the pricing notion. Microsoft does all sorts of interesting pricing things. I'm sure they have a good reason for doing it, however, to say, "We'll give you 80% of what you need for almost nothing and if you want the last 20%, you got to give us your left kidney" seems a little unusual.

We are service integrators. We are working with the latest update. I'd advise that a potential new user should look into their requirements. It's difficult to change a product once it has been issued. You need to know what you want. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

Hyper-V is affordable, but if you have the budget, I recommend going with VMware. I'd rate Hyper-V as five out of ten.

We are currently looking to move to an HCI solution. I rate this product five out of 10.

I would rate Hyper-V an 8 out of 10.

I would recommend Hyper-V for small-scale users with one or two VMs. On a scale from one to ten, I would give Hyper-V a seven.

I rate Hyper-V six out of 10. Hyper-V is okay if customers are comfortable with it and don't require high availability.

My advice to others implementing this solution is there are no implementation management tools available, they will have to do it all themselves. I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

My advice to other thinking about implementing Hyper-V be aware of the use case that you're going to need Hyper-V for. If you're going to use it on an operational scale, for example, hundreds of Hyper-V hosts, I would recommend rather going with vSphere instead of Hyper-V because the management capabilities of vSphere are better. When you are managing several hundred hosts, it's better to manage within the vSphere environment instead of the system center. I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

I would rate Hyper-V around 8.5 compared to VMware. The ease of use is there, but VMware has more options and scalability. However, VMware has a lot more upfront and yearly costs. Hyper-V is a great solution and an excellent way to virtualize your servers and everything. It's a good fit for a small business. If you're converting from Hyper-V or vice versa, make sure you run a couple of tests of your conversion strategy. I did run into one little snag the first time. The server wouldn't boot properly, but that came down to a permissions issue. Make sure you thoroughly test any server or VM's you're converting over. Test to see that everything boots back up. Also, make sure all your virtual switches are set up correctly because you sometimes run into some networking issues within the VM if you don't configure those 100 percent correctly.

VMware virtualization is our main solution, but we use Hyper-V because of the licensing and the cost-effective solution, and on the remote offices we only have fewer than 10 servers. I would recommend this solution to others. I rate Hyper-V a nine out of ten.

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

I rate it eight out of 10. I recommend Hyper-V because it's easy to install and supports most hardware. It runs on almost everything. I'm also recommending my company go for Azure Stack because it also uses Hyper-V, so we will not have to convert our VMs. But the top management in our organization is considering Nutanix or VMware solutions. I don't know why they're doing this.

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.

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

I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

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.

Hyper-V is very popular in the market for data centers and most of my clients are using Microsoft in some form or another but it might not be their core ERP. I would recommend this solution to others. I rate Hyper-V a seven out of ten.

I do not highly recommend Hyper-V. On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Hyper-V a six. In terms of advice to people looking to implement Hyper-V, I would tell them not to rely much on the Hyper-V solution in terms of flexibility and scalability. It is a stable solution, but overall, considering the backup, the replication, and the whole range of features that VMR offers, I think that it's better if they look at VMR or other contenders, in this technology.

We are just a customer or end-user. We're using the version that is on Windows Server 2012 R2. I'd advise other companies that this solution is to be considered, compared to other solutions. That said, there are solutions that are better and it depends on the scenario. It depends on the scenario, the scale you have, the implementation, et cetera. Companies should compare it to other solutions. Maybe the cost is high and performance isn't as good for them. I would suggest companies go with the VMware solution. That said, again, it depends on the scenario. In some scenarios, where a company is heavily dependent on Microsoft and Windows, it would be a better solution for them. If most of your workloads are Windows Server, then buying a server host would give you free licensing for those workloads. The licensing would be included. Otherwise, if you buy another solution then you have to pay separately for each Windows license. The cost would be again, very high. For us, I can say maybe 70% or 80% of our workloads are Linux and other OS's, not Windows. It wouldn't make sense for us to go with Hyper-V. The cost would be too high. If you are implementing heavily into Windows Server, go for Hyper-V. If you have a different application or different type of application, then you'd be better off going with another solution. I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would advise making sure that you have the hardware that is up to the job. You should also have a clear plan of what you want to virtualize. Make sure that there is room for growth in terms of the physical hardware for the host, which is the server hosting Hyper-V. It is very robust. It doesn't consume as many resources as VMware, for instance. It is fairly slick. It is very functional and doesn't really present great challenges. I would definitely rate Hyper-V a ten out of ten.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

In summary, this product is not perfect but it works. At this point, we have not yet decided how long we will continue using it. This is something that we'll decide, moving forward. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft an eight.

We are very satisfied with Hyper-V. I would rate Hyper-V as 7 out of 10.

It's still too early to know if I would recommend it or not. I am still in the processing phase, so depending on how it goes, we may continue to use this solution. At this point, we intend to use it. With what I know so far, I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of seven. If it were a little more flexible and stable, I'd give it a higher rating.

For what we use this product for, it is pretty basic and it is good enough for our purposes. Our main complaint is about the administration interface. I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Hyper-V is a product that I recommend. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We're just Microsoft customers. We aren't partners and don't have a special relationship with the company and we don't sell Microsoft products. I focus on server virtualization. I work with both VMware and Hyper-V. We're working with the 2019 and 2017 versions on Windows. I'd recommend the solution. It's very good. I'd rate it eight out of ten overall.

I would rate it an eight out of ten.

In my opinion, read the documentation carefully. If you do not, you will have problems.

I would advise other people that this is a good solution.

Unfortunately, due to cost, we have begun to look at other products in the market.

It is definitely the toughest competitor for VMware. There is room for improvement for automation. If that was implemented, it would place Hyper-V on the same realm as VMware.

If I was going to a demo, and somebody had given me an iPhone and I had to quickly gut it, my first choice would not be Hyper-V. It is not a user-friendly solution. I would say the ability to assign more dynamically, like VM-ware does. And the SRM feature to be brought back into Hyper-V so that you're not looking at virtual box which is a cheap version, but that you're looking at enterprise, you're looking at VM-ware. But if there was one button to move everything over to the new system, if that could be put in as a feature then it would be very attractive.

My advice to someone considering this solution is to back up the whole configuration. Also, you have to have things well documented and to take into consideration the maintenance times. Furthermore, updating the operating systems, host operating systems and guest operating systems is extremely important, otherwise, it could lead to unnecessary downtime.

Make sure to do your research before you choose a solution. Be sure it fits your needs.

It is good for small installations. If you are looking to do anything fancy, this is is not a good choice.

I would like to see deduplication and compression in a future roll-out of the product.

If you want to use a solution that does the job that is required, to the best of its ability, then Hyper-V is a great solution.