Well this one could not escape my comment.

Check out the story over at IT News about a company choosing Hyper-V versus VMware.

The privately-owned industrial and commercial developer engaged Thomas Duryea Consulting to perform an analysis of the suitability of its environment for virtualisation using VMware technology.

The analysis involved monitoring PacLib’s servers for a month, according to IT manager David Furey.

“They came back with a proposal of about $25,000 in installation costs and another $25,000 in software costs,” Furey told iTnews.

“You’ve got to question whether it’s worth paying $50,000 for that. I know the VMware camp go on about features like VMotion, but for $50,000 I could pay someone to move my virtual machines for me.”

Furey decided instead to look at Microsoft’s Hyper-V, then in beta.

“To us, it looked like we weren’t losing any performance or benefits of virtualisation but we were saving a lot of money,” Furey explained.

“It just didn’t make financial sense to spend all that money [on vmware], when if we want to add more Hyper-Vs, it’s $49 per server.”

Wow, they actually put that in writing. Now I have always considered the guys at Thomas Duryea worthy competiion. The people I know personally there are great people, even if we were/are competitors. It just makes me laugh that they have been named in this farse of a idea to go Hyper-V instead of VMware. If they went with VMware 3i it would be free and give them he same funtionality, well probably better.

Still don't think it will be the first fluff piece we see on the topic. I am sure there is more to the story and its just a good piece of news.