VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch

feminazi writes "Jeff Boles attributes VMWare's dominance over Microsoft in the virtualization market to a combination of product depth and focus, but especially to the fact that 'VMWare is actually delivering Microsoft's product in the way that Microsoft should be delivering it.' The ease of GUI but with those enterprise-ready traits that Microsoft is still struggling with: application separation, and decent resource utilization."

Comments

I have a choice and I choose VMWare

[Wiseleo]

VMWare is easier to use.

Windows does not require reactivation when the image is opened in VMWare Server, Player, or Workstation. VPC images of demo configurations featuring pre-activated Windows that I get from Microsoft and attempt to run under Virtual Server require reactivation.

VMWare Workstation has too many useful features.

Therefore, I create my own demo environments in VMWare Server as my first choice and run VPC images in Virtual PC 2004 by necessity. Guess which environment is significantly faster? I have no incentive to use Virual Server 2005 R2.

Re: VMWare Eats Microsoft's Lunch

[wharlie]

I think one of the reasons MS is not competitive with VMWare is because VMWare actually benefits MS.
Since we introduced VMWare in our enterprise the number of MS virtual machines has skyrocketed.
Before if someone wanted a new MS server we had to purchase HW to run it on which is expensive and time consuming, where talking weeks to order and install.
Now we can provision a new MS virtual server in about 30 mins.
Once upon a time we would have tried to consolidate apps on physical servers to conserve HW, now each app gets it own VM, no more associability probs.
MS is getting paid for all these new virtual servers that would not have existed.
I'd say that VMware is not eating MS but feeding MS