Hyper-V Reviews

We are using Hyper-V to host a few Linux virtual machines.

The most valuable features are ease of use, and it gets the job done in a straightforward manner.

The management interface is in need of the biggest improvement. There are a few gaps in there when I compare with VMware.

Some additional monitoring features would be helpful.

We have been using Hyper-V for the past four or five years.

We have a few support applications that run on top of this solution, so we just have a handful of people who use it. I would say that there are five or six users.

At this point, we do not have plans to increase usage.

I have not personally been in contact with technical support.

The installation was straightforward and I don't think that we had any major issues there. I think that it took approximately one day to deploy.

The implementation was done by our in-house IT people. We have one system administrator that takes care of maintenance.

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.

We are just exploring the possibilities to see if it was a better alternative to VirtualBox, for running on a Windows host.

I think the setup for the Virtual Network Manager could be improved.

I have only just started using this solution. It's been one to two weeks.

I am using the version with Windows 10 Pro.

It's too early to tell at the moment. We are still new to using Hyper-V.

We have not yet explored this area. At the moment, I am the only user.

I have not contacted technical support.

I am currently using VirtualBox and Hyper-V on different VMs.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install.

It took an hour to get the on-premises system running.

I completed the setup and implementation.

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.

We use Hyper-V for system virtualization.

The solution is easy to configure.

The management of Hyper-V could improve, there is a lot to improve in that area.

I have used Hyper-V for approximately 10 years.

The performance of Hyper-V is good.

I have used VMware vSphere, I have found it to be better than Hyper-V.

Hyper-V is easy to set up even though the management is a headache. For example, if you want to do integrations or troubleshooting on the platform it's really difficult.

Licensing needs to be a lot easier to manage with Microsoft Hyper-V, VMware is easier.

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.

The primary use case is for testing software.

The most valuable feature is being able to do checkpoints then roll back to the checkpoint because that's what we need to test the software. We test the installation and then we roll it back and retest it.

It's really just a small part of what we do, so I was looking for something that would get the job done and it met all the requirements at very little cost.

It would be nice if they had video acceleration, they got rid of that and VMware has video acceleration. It would be nice to be able to test through video part the Virtual Machine, like you can with VMware, Hyper-V does not let you do that.

I have been using Hyper-V for five years. 

It's very stable and very scalable. We're a very small operation, so we really just require one person for maintenance and deployment.

The initial setup is very easy, you just check a couple of checkmarks.

It's included in the windows, so not it's very expensive.

I would rate it an eight 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.

I'd like to see better predictive diagnostics, so I know what's going on with the machines. 

I've been using Hyper-V since about 2012.

Hyper-V has been pretty good. I have no complaints about the stability. 

It scales well so far, but I think we're nearing the edge of that. We have somewhere in the region of about 200 users.

The support could be better.

I can't say setting up Hyper-V was particularly complicated. The deployment was about two months with the help of some integrators.

I think I'm okay with the cost. There are no monthly or yearly costs or additional costs.

I rate Hyper-V seven out of 10. It's good for what it does. If you have a small or medium-scale acclimatization, it's an excellent solution. But in terms of scaling larger, you might want to consider something else.

We use Hyper-V for production, testing, and development.

It's a core infrastructure solution, so it's not a user-solution. It's for server virtualization. It's actually deployed virtually for other services that need to deploy virtual machines using it.

We plan to keep using this solution in the future.

I have been using this solution since 2008.

Hyper-V is both stable and scalable; however, I also use VMware which I find to be more scalable and stable overall.

The support with Microsoft is great.

We use VMware, but Hyper-V is much cheaper; however, VMware is more robust, more scalable, more agile for us. It was a mix of both because we wanted to be able to see our way through technology skills.

The initial setup was quite easy.

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.

We are mainly using Hyper-V in the financial sector.

The ease of use of Hyper-V is the most valuable feature.

Hyper-V could improve the management tools.

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

All the newer versions of Hyper-V are stable.

The solution could improve scalability.

The support from Microsoft is very slow.

The initial implementation was difficult because there are not enough management tools. The time it took was approximately three days.

We installed the Hyper-V on bare-metal hardware, created the VMs, and attached the storage, et cetera.

We have four to five staff members for the implementation of Hyper-V. The maintenance includes server management, creating VMs, and backups.

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.