Hyper-V Reviews

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 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.

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.

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.

I have been making solutions around the Hyper-V bundles for my clients. For example, hyper-converged infrastructure, such as in vSAN and Vsphere for company data centers.

The solution is very powerful, easy to use, user-friendly, and integrates well with Windows. If you are looking for a hundred percent Microsoft environment it would be a good idea to go with Hyper-V. They work wonderfully together.

There are a lot more features and is easier to use compared to previous releases. They were using PowerCLI for the management but now it is all GUI-based which has made it a lot easier to use.

Hyper-V is not a type one hypervisor, such as vSphere. When it comes to Hyper-V, it is a role in Windows Server. Hyper-V could have been much leaner and much more powerful, but it becomes only the Hyper-V part of it. There should be some distribution or limit to Hyper-V, such as in vSphere.

The missing factor or parameter, in Hyper-V and all of the functionality, is a role it plays inside the Windows operating system. You have to enable those roles. That is something not appreciated in a data center because Windows is a general-purpose operating system, not for the sole purpose of doing these types of operations. They could skim down the version of the operating system and have it customized for virtualization, not as a general-purpose operating system.

In an upcoming release, they can improve by having better cloud integration. We are all moving towards the clouds and the integration is only through the Azure Stack, there should be tools built in to move the VMs natively to the cloud and infrastructure. Additionally, they could provide some form of multi-cloud integration.

I have been involved with Hyper-V for approximately two years.

The solution is stable in my experience.

The technical support is good because there are a lot of administrators out there in the market who are well-versed in Microsoft technologies.

The installation is straightforward. The installation time can vary depending on if you have preloaded configurations. If you were to do it from scratch then it would take approximately 20 minutes.

Hyper-V is cost-effective and is a one-time purchase. Microsoft has multiple licensing options available, such as a subscription model and an outside purchase model that customers can choose as per their requirements.

I have evaluated VMware vSphere.

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.