Look you can believe what you want. There is not that big of difference price wise between the two when all is said and done.
Err.... the entire reason the school is replacing the system is because they ran the numbers, and found that the VMware solution was more than 4x more expensive than the equivalent Microsoft solution. The price difference is somewhat exaggerated because the school receives a discount on Microsoft licensing, but nevertheless, the cost difference is very real.
Virtualization is about management. You set up two fully centralized management solutions, you need Vcenter for vmware and SCCM for Microsoft. With sccm typically only volume license shops take advantage of it because its so damn expensive separately. So while sccm is included, the typical volume license is probably around 50K per year.
I'm not sure where you're getting your prices from.
According to Microsoft's site, the retail price of SCVMM is $869 per host. For VDI implementations, Microsoft offers a client license per VM as an alternative that costs $40.
To provide some perspective, a 12-core vSphere Advanced license will set you back $2,806, and a 10-seat VMware View pack will cost you $1815, or $181.50 per seat.
Bit of a difference, isn't it :awe:
Another thing, the memory management on VMWare is better than that of Microsoft. So if you setup two identical solutions, I'll need more physical memory when using hyper-v over vmware. You checked out the price of server memory lately?
I have, actually. VMware vSphere Advanced is $1,937 more per server. According to HP's site, $1,937 will get me 32GB of PC3-10600R memory.
VMware ESXi is certainly more efficient with its memory usage, but I think it's safe to say that an additional 32GB of RAM will more than make up for that.
In addition, licensing for Microsoft RDS also covers connections to a session host, which will be far more memory-efficient than a hypervisor running a bunch of desktop VMs.
And the bullshit statement about vmware and novell is just that bullshit. Novell back in the mid to late 90s decided to stay with large infrastructures with their products. Microsoft starting with NT began to address the medium to small networks. And as we all know networks have grown everywhere. Novell missed the boat. So it wasn't just about cost. 6 years ago where I was working the consideration of switching to Microsoft was on the table. When the features and cost was all said done it was to expensive to switch to Microsoft from Novell. It was a large large bank system. Microsoft also adopted TCP/IP faster as well, which has become the standard protocol. It wasn't just because they were cheaper, there were other factors, even beyond what I mentioned that turned the tide Microsoft's way. Totally seperate scenario and situation. Nothing in common whatsoever.
VMware is in EXACTLY the same position Novell was. They both had an awesome product that is years ahead of the competition, and they both built an entire ecosystem around that product. Microsoft jumped into Novell's market by producing a much cheaper alternative that version over version gradually narrowed the functionality gap, until Novell customers simply couldn't justify the cost difference and began migrating to Microsoft's platform.
The virtualization world is going down that exact same path. Microsoft may not be able to meet the needs of a substantial portion of VMware's enterprise customer base, but they're capturing mid-market customers (who will likely stay with Microsoft as they grow), and Hyper-V is continually gaining features that previously kept customers on VMware. Unless VMware does something substantial (or substantially lowers their prices), I can see them being cornered into servicing a niche market that's not large enough to sustain the level of product development needed to compete in the greater virtualization market, just as Novell was.
Like I said I have not used Hyper-V in production yet. I know a couple of consultants, one said he liked it, the other was not that impressed. Two guys I generally trust as well. I am a Microsoft boy through and through. My old boss used to call me Mr. Gates , so I truly support them. But after two years of everyday use of virtualized servers, apart of building an infrastructure from the ground up, and a couple of VDI projects for several hundred desktops I speak from not overwhelming but solid experience. Those VMUGs also help with understanding as well when you are talking and networking with other folks who manage virtualization as well.
While this has absolutely nothing to do with the OP, as I stated earlier I don't think he can wrong with either one.
Both solutions will probably meet the OP's needs, but claiming that VMware is "going no where, ever" is, quite frankly, ignorant. Microsoft has beaten numerous competitors with superior technology by offering a less expensive product that was good enough for most of the market, and there's absolutely nothing special about VMware that prevents them from ever encountering such a fate.