Microsoft calls Windows Server 2012 part of its “cloud operating system”. In a field loaded with subjective and loaded terms, Microsoft is surely adding to the confusion. Say “cloud”, and you think Amazon, Google, VMware – but Microsoft? Yet Windows Server 2012 brings changes in scalability, management and flexibility that are …
because customers are starting to switch to Hyper-V, the Windows hypervisor-based virtualisation system which comes bundled in with Windows Server 2012, rather than paying extra for VMware.
This is probably one of the most important points... I haven't tried the latest version of Hyper-V, but certainly on previous versions VMWare was markedly superior. However when it comes to a price comparison, free (convenient) and separately paid for are very different choices and while as soon as you start expanding your requirements Hyper-V prices do stack up, it's the initial hurdle that's one that can be hard to beat. MS is just front loading convenience to get users used to Hyper-V as a form of lock in for later and it's something that VMWare would find hard to counter in a similar fashion without losing a large proportion of their income.
I was at a presentation on Server 2012 a few months back and there were around maybe two-hundred people in the audience. When Hyper-V came up, the hands all started to rise and there were lots of questions along the lines of "we do this with VMWare - can this do that...?"
The answer previously has usually been no. But now the answer is 'yes'. I think there's a lot of people who were with VMWare because it was the only option. Certainly there was a very big buzz of interest at the conference. I've never costed up either solution for a big business, but technically Hyper-V is very impressive.
Hyper-V including all it's functionality like replication, software defined networking and shared nothing migration is completely free as in zero licence cost. There are no Hyper-V costs to stack up - except support - unless you want the Microsoft management tool stack - and its still an order of magnitude cheaper than VMWare.
expensive for worse
Windows server is obsolete, unless it's used for something MS specific like Exchange.
For real enterprise computing, Linux servers require less admin, they're more scalable, more robust, more secure and faster. And licence costs and management overhead is zero (no danger of confiscation of servers for suspected licence violation).
In summary a Linux box will do the same work as two windows boxes and require probably about 1/10th the system admins to run them.
Also <joke alert> Linux servers do not have the Metro interface</joke alert>
Most importantly - Linux servers are open source, you can inspect the source for back-doors and compile and build - a must-have in these days of cyber warfare and criminals stealing data.
Re: expensive for worse
Linux more scalabable - lol - maybe once they have played the usual game of copying Microsofts latest kernel innovations. Please show me a Linux file server that can compete with this then? http://storagenewsletter.com/news/connection/mellanox-ib-10gb-windows-server-2012-hyper-v
Or a Linux VM that supports 1 million IOPS? http://blogs.technet.com/b/schadinio/archive/2012/07/07/over-1-million-iops-from-a-single-vm.aspx
All the studies I have ever seen show that Linux costs more to administer, with a higher TCO, and need more staff than the equivalent Windows solution - with the previous exception of large web farms. However I suspect that Server 2012 has likely overtaken Linux here too.
If you have a large organisation or government relationship with Microsoft, you can also inspect the source code. Having it publically available means that you can be vulnerable to cyber warfare and criminals stealing data as they can inspect the source for back-doors.
Enterprise Linux distributions also have roughly 10 times the security vulnerabilities of Windows Server - e.g. compare SUSE 10 and Windows Server 2008 on Secunia.org. Even when you adjest Linux to just matching packages to Windows server (as done by Jef Jones), Linux still has more vulnerabilities that on average take longer to get ficed and are more critical. This has been the case ever year since 2003. (2002 being when Bill Gates set security as Microsoft's number 1 priority).
closed sources are never a good idea
I work in a mostly MS Windows environment and for us MS products are not bad. But if one ever will have to change things, hard- or software related - MS puts major obstacles in the way to change. And then even the proprietary "free" stuff suddenly gets very expensive, if not preventing a transition at all. I will prefer VMware and in my opinion the initial costs and TCO are not higher than with MS. And it runs many different flavors of OSes since long without giving problems when changing.
The Most Expensive Free Software On The Planet
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- VIDEO Herschel Space Observatory spots galaxies merging