Microsoft to run VMware on Azure, on bare metal. Repeat. Microsoft to run VMware on Azure. Microsoft is to offer "the full VMware stack on Azure hardware" with the help of an as-yet-unnamed VMware partner. Redmond's announcement stated that the company has commenced a preview of "a bare-metal solution … co-located with other Azure services" and "in partnership with premier VMware-certified partners". Sources tell …
Rather the reverse, I'm afraid. Microsoft keeps creating products {Hyper-V Server, System Center, PowerShell, Docker, bash, Linux on Windows, ...} that each of which is supposed to be a VMware killer and hasn't yet succeeded with any. My experience with both companies start when VMware was tiny, heck in first betas. Also, during this period, Microsoft iterated through VirtualPC, Virtual Server, and Hyper-V Server/Server 2008+, also doing all the betas. Advantage VMware each time.
Now add in containers and Kubernettes to the VMware equation, I know who I'd put my money on for the forseeable future. It isn't Microsoft.
"Microsoft keeps creating products {Hyper-V Server, System Center, PowerShell, Docker, bash, Linux on Windows, ...} that each of which is supposed to be a VMware killer and hasn't yet succeeded with any."
Last time I saw figures, Hyper-v had a 30% market share of on premises and growing, and Microsoft's cloud revenue run rate overtook AWS two quarters ago, so I think it's safe to say that it is a Vmware killer. There is little reason to use Vmware in greenfield. Hyper-v has similar features and performance but is completely free!
Almost every enterprise that has Windows uses system centre.
Even vmware moved from a bash type shell to the more secure and powerful option of Powershell
Docker, bash and Linux are not Microsoft product creations, but now you can run them on a modern hybrid micro kernel...
And you obviously haven't seen Microsoft's share price!
"Now add in containers and Kubernettes to the VMware equation, I know who I'd put my money on for the forseeable future. It isn't Microsoft."
I think you and OP are both right. I agree with you in reference to your point that Microsoft is irrelevant to this conversation. Yeah, VMs are not cloud, but why would you want MSFT's best efforts when you can use AWS or Google. Still though, if you are using Kubernetes on say GCP, who cares if the underlying VM is VMware or KVM or whatever as long as the cluster doesn't go down... which is not your problem with IaaS. Cloud provider has the SLA, then I would want whatever the lowest cost option is for VM.
Here's the rub. This is a one way move. A company take their onsite vmware environment and move it to azure.
There is literally only one winner here. and it's not vmware simply because that company are migrating away from vmware. Oh, and whilst they're there they will use Azure, realise it's power and continue to use it more and more. That's just more money for microsoft.
KVM has been blessed with great performance improvements, lately ... besides, when it comes to supported guest OS', HyperV is a nightmare. Besides, support, how should I put it ... hm, MS support sucks. Their HyperV partners do not really cut it. Anytime you come and try to have a problem understood, you have to start teaching basics computing concepts to an utter n00b, because, well, when you have a problem that is not referenced on Google it certainly is not on the support bloke's checklist. Second line knows a subset of the checklists by heart ... and third line is reserved for enterprise customers ... imho.
Oh, I never managed to get anybody knowledgeable on their end ... and i have tried ...
All brilliant, until your Internet connection goes down and the diverse route backup connection isn't as diverse as you thought it was.
All we need now is AI to do the work of your company in the cloud and you can do away with employees entirely so it won't matter. Heck it could be an improvement for some!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
