I still don't get it, why MS and vmware sell the management/deplyoment tool separated? I would prefer that system center 2012 to be free and pay for hyper-v host. So that way when I spend a lot of money on MS server 2012 datacenter I will get a complete product.
Even Hyper-V freebie is packed compared to VMware. I like that; M$ is forcing VM$ware to change their licensing.
Because Hyper-V Server includes Hyper-V Virtual Machine Manager (HVVMM) which is normally used to manage virtual machines. System Center 2012 is whole-network management - it runs HVVMM as a snap-in. (HVVMM is also part of the base install of Windows Server 2003R2 and later if installing the Hyper-V Server role via Server Manager - or Windows 8 if the Hyper-V full feature set is installed.) If you are only running virtual machines on a server, you don't need System Center 2012 - it would be overkill. (The same applies to vmWare's vCenter, for that matter.) In fact, what I like about HVVMM is that it's no harder to use than vmWare Player or Workstation - which certainly can't be said for ESXi, let alone vCenter.) Okay - I am currently giving Hyper-V's Linux support a thrashing - I have my first non-Windows VM (Kubuntu 12.10) running as I type this. The Windows support is (as I expected) solid - this is Windows Server, after all. The pleasant surprise is that installing Kubuntu is no different in Hyper-V than in vmWare (or VirtualBox, for that matter) except that you don't install the Integration Services software in the guest - in the case of Kubuntu, you let Software Updates handle this. Hyper-V is indeed shaping up to be a usable alternative for some users of alternate virtualization solutions - and not just vmWare, either. I can also see Hyper-V giving Oracle a major case of heartburn as well.