Second, Microsoft views the hypervisor as a commodity, a view held by other vendors, too. That's why Microsoft has developed interoperability agreements with Novell, Citrix (and previously with XenSource), and Red Hat, so customers can better manage a multihypervisor environment. Although Microsoft will continue to add new features to Hyper-V, just like it does with Windows Server, the bigger impact will come from systems management. Case in point: Microsoft's System Center suite is well-established at managing Windows desktops, servers, and Microsoft applications (including SQL Server, Exchange, and SharePoint). More recently, customers now can use System Center to manage VMware ESX virtual machines and non-Windows operating systems, and they can buy one license that lets them distribute, update, monitor, and back up an unlimited number of virtual machines running on either a server or desktop.
Third, pertaining to the Burton Group scorecard, is that Microsoft customers have similar capabilities to what is ostensibly missing. For example, customers can assign priority to VMs at the host level, which today allows customers to prioritize running and memory to one workload over others. This isn't exactly what Burton Group's scorecard evaluated, but it also didn't look at the relative cost/value proposition to customers for that feature. I believe most of you are just fine with host-level VM prioritization. As far as SMP support for VMs, Hyper-V covers Windows Server 2003 and 2008, which is a huge part of the installed base. And Microsoft's recent Hyper-V IC contribution to GPL v2 will give the open source community the opportunity to develop SMP support to run non-Windows OSes.
The Microsoft reps also countered the Burton Group's knock on Hyper-V's enterprise worthiness by citing several large companies -- Ingersoll Rand, Renault Retail Group, Yahoo Japan, and of course, Microsoft.com -- that run on Hyper-V. And customers such as the University of Miami, Ingersoll Rand, Crutchfield, Group Health, and more than 100 more have switched away from VMware in the past year, according to the (hardly unbiased) folks at Microsoft.
Where do you stand in the soon-to-be-over hypervisor wars? Are you beyond the hypervisor debate and into the management infrastructure debate? Are you in agreement with the Burton Group's stand, or do you think that gap between Hyper-V and ESX is narrower than VMware (and others) would like to admit?