I saw that too but since I have not had the pleasure of working on VMware ESX I did not know if that was normal or not. I just took it an ran with it. I still like Hyper-V better than Virtual server or VMware GSX. I know it is not as mature as the VMware line but hey I don't need all of their features nor do I want to pay for all of them.
Jon On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Carl Houseman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was asking about standalone Hyper-V some time ago and looks like it's > almost here. > > > > > http://windowsitpro.com/mobile/pda/Article.cfm?ArticleID=100238&DepartmentID=723 > > > > Meanwhile, I installed Server 2008 for testing and installed the Hyper-V > features and much to my newbie surprise, my 2008 server was not converted to > a virtual instance of itself. I understand the reason for that now. > > > > The question boils down to, wouldn't I want all instances of servers on a > hardware platform to be running on the "bare metal" hypervisor if possible? > One of the goals of virtualizing is easy portability to run on > alternate/standby hardware, and the 2008 Hyper-V host server isn't > portable. That means not using the host server for anything but a host > server, and that's a waste of a license. > > > > Am I missing anything? Why would I NOT prefer to use standalone Hyper-V > for all virtualized servers including 2008? > > > > Carl > > > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
