MicrosoftI've heard that HyperV is going to be "abandoned" by MS which is instead concentrating on Azure Local.
Well, I've worked on VMware AND Azure Local. The latter is simply the worst OS I've had the misfortune to put my hands on. Not just lacking documentation, it's totally unreliable, overcomplicated, released in what in Linux I'd call "experimental status" and TOTALLY unfit for productive environments. Out of 10 clusters (on different but certified HW), we had NONE that managed to work properly or didn't require at last 10 days to be "kind of" functional...
Don't let your management to choose it based on some Ms flyer, I'd rather go for an opensource OS than for this. Never again.
I just wanted to offer a bit of perspective, especially for others who may be evaluating Hyper-V and Azure Local.
First, it's important to clarify that Hyper-V is not being abandoned—quite the opposite. Azure Local is built on Hyper-V and represents an evolution of Microsoft’s virtualization platform, extending it with cloud-native hybrid capabilities. Hyper-V is the core hypervisor underpinning Azure, Azure Local, and Windows Server workloads alike.
That said, Hyper-V and Azure Local target different customer needs:
Hyper-V in Windows Server remains a solid, standalone hypervisor platform.
Azure Local is a hyperconverged infrastructure platform.
I’ve worked with both VMware and Azure Local in production deployments, and I understand the learning curve can be steep—especially with newer hybrid technologies. However, it's worth noting:
The Server Cluster Manager UI, PowerShell modules, and Windows Admin Center are very mature and offer excellent control and visibility—comparable to what vCenter offers in VMware environments.
Most stability issues stem from early misconfigurations, unsupported hardware nuances, or cloud integration mismatches.
I always encourage clients to evaluate solutions with POCs, demos, etc. to understand if their solution is what they understood it to be. But I do believe that with a deeper understanding of the Azure Local architecture and operational model, many of the frustrations you're describing can be addressed more easily.
I was considering Hyper-V due to the VMware price hikes, but that's now off the table. I've started to look at RedHat OpenShift to see how that compares price/feature-wise to VMware.
