Oh dear. Oh very dear.
As someone who had to deal with the fallout of a boneheaded corporate-level decision of implementing the full MS stack, I call the bluff.
No, Hyper-V is bad, and it even manages to b0rk the virtual network interfaces, even if the guest OS is another Windows Server instance. Our Failover cluster would er... fail to switch over to the failover instance when we actually needed to do that. The SQL Server cluster also had its hiccups and it seems that it eventually got broken up into two separate servers as the failover cluster wouldn't work as advertised. AD would barf with few users (3000?) and the schema is horribly pedant on what you can/can't do vs. a regular LDAPv3 server.
No dude, the company that did that boneheaded decision is now migrating away from the MS stack because everything the MSFT dudes told them was a load of bull.
VMware is still king on the virtualization stuff. UNIX (and Linux/BSD variants) is still the best choice for "cloudy" stuff. Hell, most banks don't do Windows except on desktop systems and ATMs. (They do use WinServer for AD and managing the desktop PCs though.)
Please, few people will ever dare to say MS has the best solution ... not if they've seen the alternatives faring much better. Which they do!