Forum Discussion
Hyper-V Server 2022
Anyone know whether there will be a Hyper-V Server 2022? i.e. the free version which is just for running VMs and has no GUI? I've seen mentions on forums that this SKU is being dropped, but not ...
Free 'Microsoft Hyper-V Server' product update
Since its introduction over a decade ago in Windows Server 2008, Hyper-V technology has been, and continues to be, the foundation of Microsoft’s hypervisor platform. Hyper-V is a strategic technology for Microsoft. Microsoft continues to invest heavily in Hyper-V for a variety of scenarios such as virtualization, security, containers, gaming, and more. Hyper-V is used in Azure, Azure Local, Windows Server, Windows Client, and Xbox among others.
Starting with Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2019, the free ‘Microsoft Hyper-V Server’ product has been deprecated and is the final version of that product. Hyper-V Server 2019 is a free product available for download from the Microsoft Evaluation Center: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/evaluate-hyper-v-server-2019
Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2019 will continue to be supported under its lifecycle policy until January 2029, see this link for additional information: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/lifecycle/products/hyperv-server-2019.
While Microsoft has made a business decision to no longer offer the free 'Microsoft Hyper-V Server' product, this has no impact to the many other products which include the Hyper-V feature and capabilities. This change has no impact to any customers who use Windows Server or Azure Local.
For customers looking to do test or evaluation of the Hyper-V feature, Azure Local includes a 60-day free trial and can be downloaded here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-local/ . Windows Server offers a free 180-day evaluation which can be downloaded from the Evaluation Center here: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter
Microsoft remains committed to meeting customers where they are and delivering innovation for on-premises virtualization and bringing unique hybrid capabilities like no other can combined with the power of Azure Arc. We are announcing that Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2019 was the last version of the free download product and that customers begin transitioning to one of the several other products which include Hyper-V or consider Azure.
Thank you,
Elden Christensen
Principal Group PM Manager
Windows Server Development Team
Aside from licensing... also the footprint of Azure Stack HCI is twice that of Hyper-V Server.
More now that we can't uninstall .NET/PowerShell because new sconfig will stop working.
More now that we can't uninstall .NET/PowerShell because new sconfig will stop working.
Elden_Christensen
Microsoft
MicrosoftWe innovated sconfig, and it is true that it now has dependencies on PowerShell. The new sconfig is in AzS HCI, Windows Server 2022 core, and if we had shipped a Hyper-V Server 2022 it would have been in there as well. So it wouldn't have been a differentiator per se.
I'm curious why you want to remove PowerShell, as that obviously has some major management trade-off's?? I'm assuming your goal is more about .NET'less? Would love to better understand the scenario / goals. Are your feelings different about .NET Core with PowerShell7?
Can you elaborate on your footprint feedback? Disk drives for the boot device are plenty big these days... which value is important to you? We have lots of room to further optimize the composition of AzS HCI... but I want to understand what's most important to you.
One of our very intentional goals with AzS HCI was for it to be familiar and love current Hyper-V admin's. That's why it uses the same tools and management experience... such as PowerShell, Windows Admin Center, and all the existing MMC tools work as well (Failover Cluster Manager, Hyper-V Manager, etc...). For a customer that doesn't desire Azure, they can use AzS HCI as they are using Hyper-V today (in WS or Hyper-V Server). The only difference is that it's a subscription model. For those looking to augment on-prem with hybrid capabilities, we provide the Azure integration to enhance AzS HCI... and with a goal that it's just incremental on top of a Hyper-V admin's existing skillset. But it's your choice if you want hybrid capabilities or not.
The 60-day free trail with AzS HCI is a little different than an Evaluation with a perpetual license. Eval is a special product that is time-bombed and can only be used for a period of time before you must move to a licensed product. The free trial gives the first 60-days as free for all subscriptions, so that's a value you can take advantage of for production deployments as well. So some trade-off's. AzS HCI also charges based on core usage to scale down for SMB customers.
Hyper-V Server and Windows Server Datacenter are the licensing inverses of each other, where Hyper-V Server provided a free host OS and required the guest OS's be independently licensed. Where Datacenter is a purchased license and the guest OS's are free. With that said, I'm curious how you were licensing the guest OS's on Hyper-V Server? Windows Server Standard is also an option for SMB customers (with VM limits).
Thanks!
Elden
- From the perspective of the topic of this thread: Every single one of our business partners, who was running Hyper-V Server 2019, is either still running that, moved the machine to Server 202X Core (where the license terms allowed), or is moving to other hypervisors.
AFAIK only single one was seriously considering "upgrading" from Hyper-V Server 2019 to Azure Stack HCI, and, from what I'm told, the Microsoft reseller representative was laughed out of the building after presenting the quote.
But we are very small ISV so don't consider our experiences to be a representative sample. - Almost found a role for it, but costs/performance ended up on a standard converged solution. It’s an awesome solution on paper and the future concepts but I haven’t found the golden egg yet. Keeping in mind that when spec’ing for HCI you need to over-spec. the servers to account for the CPU and RAM the SAN would provide for the cluster. Storage optimization does not always correlate with something like SQL server compute optimization. So you have to balance, which can mean either, not always, or even often, compromise.
TBH, after rearranging the hardware/software lifecycle, (which I’ve spent the last several years doing), the lack of Hyper-V server vs core+role has diminished to nothing. So over it by now… This (years old) product change from MS should no longer be a factor in any solution design by this point. How is anyone finding Azure Stack HCI? Am aware that it’s the recommended alternative - but the reviews are awful (and for me, credible as anyone who’s tried to use a new Microsoft product since they moved to Azure first and early releases can testify) - released too early, updates break basic functionality due to a lack of testing, slow, ignorant, terrible support).
https://www.reddit.com/r/AZURE/comments/1cu3mtl/has_anyone_migrated_from_vmware_to_azure_stack_hci/https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1auuzmj/azure_stack_hci/
If it wasn’t for the Azure Hybrid Benefit, there’s no reason to move from Windows Server + Hyper-V role for me. Anyone happy with it?
- I am quite familiar with XCP-NG and it was my next choice but there are DR reasons holding us back at the moment. Veeam recently announced support for Proxmox is coming, so that's likely what we'll be moving to after validating it etc.
bmartindcs Great - glad you’re aware of that. In terms of your security concerns, I’m sure you’re aware that having roles and features ‘available to install’, is not the same as having them ‘installed by default’. To compare with other alternatives that you’ve suggested, Proxmox is also based on and uses the ‘standard’ Debian repositories for security updates - it is therefore similarly ‘vulnerable’ to additional feature installs as Windows Server Core + Hyper-V role, assuming that the hypervisor has access to those repos (which is necessary to keep patched)
https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Package_Repositories#_repositories_in_proxmox_ve
XCP-NG is better - it appears it uses dedicated repos with only the relevant packages enabled - but they still allow you to install packages from other repositories using the enablerepo switch in yum - so again, if you’re looking for a hypervisor which is ‘unable’ to have an increased attack surface, rather than having a reduced surface ‘by default’, that may not entirely fit the bill either.
- Yes, we can "just deploy Server Core". Not looking for free licensing necessarily, everyone is licensed. As I stated, using Core is not the same though as it has additional features and roles in full Server OS (even in Core) vs HVS. As I also stated, we can probably through a combination of a bunch of GPO and local sec policy, restrict those roles/features but that seems to be cobbling together a way to get small attack surface like HVS had. My idea/solution was just an option like Core is during installation, for "HyperVisor" only, in that it strips all that out for us out of the box - eliminating the need to make it entirely custom to get that small attack surface that HVS had.
Hi bmartindcs thank your extending on your point and use case it is very important to learn about that and I believe that thread is not only read by us admins and consultants.
Certainly see that those that just host Linux or VDI and nothing else feel unhappy with the change of dropping the SKU. If this relates into Azure Stack HCI, I doubt this. Windows Server is technically as good as for these use cases, when you are not looking into cloud hybrid / #adaptivecloud and AVD.
Frankly have to disagree on Azure Stack HCI being the target for your use case provided.
And my strong feeling is founded by the massive change we have with Azure Stack HCI.
Without proper licensing, skilling, and / or externalization - Azure Stack HCI - today - is not that same Windows Server+ added by Azure billing and some good stuff, anymore. It needs more careful considerations.
Feel invited to read on: https://multicloud.is/tags/azure-stack-hci
Second to feel your pain that licensing Windows Server for the use of Hyper-V feels wrong when just hosting Linux or Windows Client (VDI).
ChrisAtMaf brought up a good point though.
Cheapest is Windows Server 2022 Standard OEM, until you reach the Datacenter Break Even.
In EU licenses are transferable when hardware dies or decomissioned. This is EU only, due to regulations.
Pro Tip: With Windows Server 2022 through OEM you could also license just active cores opposed to the default licensing rules. Check the OEM terms when installing they are not on Product Terms.
If this applies to your OEM license, what prevents you to license just 8 pCPUs and disable more CPUs in BIOS if these pCores are good enough for VDI hosting Windows Clients? Make notes or fetch logs for licensing compliance when you enable or disable CPUs.
As soon you have volume licensing or CSP, this is a different game.
Default licensing rules apply so usual 16 cores min. per box. And again, why not Windows Server 2022 Standard OEM in Core install mode?
It is a smaller extra fee for support via OEM. Gives a bit peace of mind of you require support, you obtain through the OEM.
Grand game could be Windows Server Standard CSP Subscription, which includes SA, or any other Volume Licensing programme your are eligible to.
Datacenter when required.
Unfortunately after reading the Licensing terms linked by Chris, there is no WS Standard allowed to run any number of VMs with Windows Client OS. As each VM is a VOSE or at least running instance by definition. Thank you Chris, because often one hears it is one or two Windows Server VMs per licensed stack. It is clear now this spans to any OS running. Bad luck.
If you have Windows Server licensed through EA or similar volume licensing programs, please mind your commitment obligations before buying CSP or OEM.bmartindcs You’re saying that you wish Microsoft would just offer Windows Server Core w/ Hyper-V role as a ‘free’ license - but for the clients you mentioned, aren’t they licensed for this anyway?
Earlier you said: ‘These users all own licenses of Windows Server’.
So can’t you just deploy Server Core for them?
https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/terms/productoffering/WindowsServerStandardDatacenterEssentials/OL#LicenseModel
'Standard edition permits use of one Running Instance of the server software in the Physical OSE on the Licensed Server (in addition to two Virtual OSEs), if the Physical OSE is used solely to host and manage the Virtual OSEs.'We virtualize all client servers as we onboard them. The reason being for portability ease when changing hardware, for ease of backups/restores, and for ease of DR. We keep loaner servers that we can spit a restored VM onto and have clients up in no time in the event of a significant DR situation.
We could run the VM's on a Pro machine. I am aware we can use GPO's etc to harden it, but it's overall just a stupid step backwards. MS goal is to push us all to Stack or Azure. MS has not considered the fact that the former is not an option for most of the SMB space, and the later is cost prohibited for many and also not practical for others if you have any kind of data/throughput/latency heavy LOB app. That seems to imply that MS position is that if Azure or Stack are not a fit, then you should run bare metal and/or buy Server all over again just to run the hypervisor - all of which is a step backwards.
They could have converted HV Server into Server Core with HV as a Role, without licensing required, and they can block the other features from being installed to avoid gaming the system. That would collapse the sku chain from a code standpoint.
Just seems to be another poke in the eye. I'm still bitter about NCE, so this is another fun change.
DavidYorkshire thanks for sharing your usecases.
Linux only.
Agreed Windows Server makes no sense. Windows Client is a good option.
It is not less stable or needs more updates. Same core OS, same Hyper-V. Eventually some special features missing like GPU pooling, now with Windows Server 2025.
VDI
Windows Client as a host might work if there is nothing in licensing terms that does not allow it.
Testing
Both Windows Client and Windows Server are best fit with github mslab which offer easy and near automated lab deployments. Try this with Proxmox. You cannot due lack of PowerShell Host to VM communication.
Hardware
Windows Client OS will work with Server hardware. You can put your RAID Controller into Bypass Mode and use Storage Spaces instead. Best with Windows Enterprise (needs Qualified OS + Enterprise addon or M365) With Windows 11 Enterprise you can leverage ReFS which is superb with storage Spaces and performance. The the only thing missing compared to Server is dedup and compression.
If you used Windows Server 2019 Hyper-V SKU with SAN, well not that good with Windows Client. It can use iSCSI though.
I don't want to appear stubborn, but seriously changing platform, I see no benefits, except higher complexity. Am I happy about Hyper-V SKU gone? Nope.
As soon you are hosting Windows Server VM this change does not affect anyone. It's an unfortunate side effect.
- The Statement about number of reboots is not true. It's one LCU and one dotnet Update. The dotnet can now be installed with the LCU and often do no longer require seperate reboot. This got addressed back in time.
If reboots are forced or not is a matter of your settings, local GPO or Domain GPO. Extremely controlable for Windows Server and Clients.
I am not disagreeing about to fuss, it's your decision to change to a not that good hpervisor and ecosystem at costs of security, Performance and handling in case things break. And the Proxmox underlying OS Breaks easily esp for driver updates. - I don't know precise details, but one of our customers (small margin-operating factory floor) has one single expensive beefy server, running Hyper-V Server 2019, onto which they migrate workload VMs for whose they need immediate compute capacity (or network throughput), and then later migrate them off to more efficient HW. Those VMs are running various versions of Windows Server, older, newer, some even Client OSs.
I'm told that having Hyper-V Server on that machine saves them tons of money on licenses, and headache figuring out how to have that legally. The alternative is having properly licensed Datacenter Server, and upgrading all the workload VMs to be EULA compliant. - I'm not sure aout that.
But I know windows server needs more than 1 reboot per month usually. "You can consider Windows 11 and Hyper-V if you do not need much VM."
This would only apply if only you would need access, you had a sufficiently powerful local machine, and you weren't running on server hardware. In many cases, using a client version of Windows as the host really isn't suitable.
"The point is that's only for Linux workloads. For Windows Server licensing apply and so could favour Windows Server or Azure Stack HCI as a platform depending your licensing and needs. "
Plus manage with WAC your comment assumes your VMs are Linux only otherwise you have had to license Windows Server on Hardware anyway."
Not necessarily. I can think of three scenarios where Hyper-V server was useful:
- Linux (as you say) - and the same would apply to any other non-Microsoft OSs
- Client versions of Windows, either standalone or as part of a VDI setup. M365 E3 and above subscriptions allow running of W10/11 Enterprise in a VM
- Testing - Windows Server has a grace period before activation, and this is useful for short-term, non-production testing. E.g. you might want to create a VM to test some new GPOs before applying them to live systems, and the test VM could be created, the testing done and the VM deleted again within a few days and without it ever being activated
But we are where we are, and Microsoft is clearly not going to back down on this. VMWare is also not an option now. I've been doing some testing with Proxmox, as I'm sure others have too.
Hyper-V server had monthly patches requiring a reboot, so in that sense it's little different from any other version of Windows Server.
I'm not interessed by large os like windows 10/11. Too high, too many updates etc.
Same for windows server ; too many forced reboot, where HyperV server not needed.
I'm going on proxmox finaly.
bmartindcs I would love to hear more about details of your usencase.
Is there any licensing term that forbids "hosting" VMs for own use on Windows 11 Pro using Hyper-V? You can even leverage ReFS and Storage Spaces on Windows 11 Enterprise.
Just asking if you need nothing more than Hyper-V Plus running Windows Client VMs. Technically it is the same core OS and Hyper-V. Licensing Windows host and VMs plus access apply. If you need more than just the ability to run VMs then Windows Server is viable.
SpenceFoxtrot yes the footprint and attack surface was minimal with Windows Server Hyper-V SKU compared to Windows 11 / Enterprise. You can still harden it easily like security baseline GPOs and good notes from the field about this. The OS will use more RAM compared to Hyper-V SKU. You can find which Servicesw are not used deactivate all features and optional features not needed. Eventually you have licensing for Windows 11 LTSC with lesser bells and whistles like Microsoft Store which I do not see as threat.
Just trying to think outside the box for you. Check licensing terms could imagine that this is possible with Windows Pro / Enterprise as parent OS.
If it just run Linux give.Windows 11 23H2 /24H2 preview a chance. If it runs Windows Server you need to license these anyway and at any time. There's no change, when ist Hyper-V Server 2019 is gone. Let me know if this is helpful or anything is unclear. Happy to help.
Karl-WE
1 only runs linux (and a freebsd)
1 other linux and a win11the others, mainly windows server
SpenceFoxtrot with yours and other similar comments on licensing:
Could you please outline what is running on Windows Server Hyper-V SKU. Only Linux VMs?
Microsoft appears to have withdrawn it in an effort to drive subscription revenue to Azure / Azure Stack HCI.You can consider Windows 11 and Hyper-V if you do not need much VM.
The point is that's only for Linux workloads. For Windows Server licensing apply and so could favour Windows Server or Azure Stack HCI as a platform depending your licensing and needs.
Plus manage with WAC your comment assumes your VMs are Linux only otherwise you have had to license Windows Server on Hardware anyway.
RichardP63 i have Benchmarked it in 2017 and raised an issue. The problem was the same on Windows Client 1607. Fixed in 1703, so a release later but MSFT couldn't backport due reasons.
Windows Server 2019 has this fixed. Please configure Delivery Optimization for Windows Server 2019 or later.
Windows Server 2022 and 2025 inherit the same Servicing improvements as Windows 10/11.
Update packages are extremely small now and also incremental in Windows 11 23H2 and later as well as in upcoming Windows Server 2025. Does this help you?
As it's offtopic please do not Mark best answer in any case. Like is ok to show your agreement.
The problem is, that download of updates takes a lot of time even if you have a very fast internet connection and that the restart takes a lot of time. Something was broken there in Server 2016 - there were 40+ minutes blue update screen with no kind of activity on cpu/disk/network.Interesting video, some nice features coming.
Hot patching of course will be fine - but:
At least our problem here is not the fact, that after patching a server has to be restartet.
The problem is, that download of updates takes a lot of time even if you have a very fast internet connection and that the restart takes a lot of time.
Something was broken there in Server 2016 - there were 40+ minutes blue update screen with no kind of activity on cpu/disk/network.
It's got better with Server 2019 but not good, installation of updates mostly takes more time then a complete server installation.
So our requirement is not hot patching - fast "normal" updating will do it (means: A repair of the broken update process).
If I understood the video right, for hot patching it's needed (again!) to connect servers to the Azure cloud even, if this is not wanted.
This is a problem especially here in Europe for data protection reasons.The main problem of Azure Stack HCI for me is not, that this is not a free Hyper-V Server, it's the connection to the cloud.
Time will come when MS requires a cloud connection (and monthly license fee) for the computers mouse to function, I think.
(Maybe also for mousepads?)You're hung up on thinking I am bitching it isn't free anymore. That isn't the core problem (unless compared to Stack as being the replacement, more on that later). I am not a home user, or home labber. I run an MSP and serve clients in the SMB space. Standard practice is everyone is a VM for portability and ease of recovery/migration and currently we use HV Server as said hypervisor. The new options don't meet the needs of the SMB markets we service - it's a step backwards to run full Windows server, just to get the hypervisor and just feels like a Lab vs production environment. SO, the only other alternative per MS is to use Stack. That is out of the question for SMB due to costs, special hardware requirements, and cluster size minimums - all are not realistic for SMB.
These users all own licenses of Windows Server, SQL etc; it's the architecture of the network that I have beef with in increasing the attack surface and complexity and arguably license costs to do "the new way". These are not users looking to get something for nothing, they pay for Windows - it's just the new way is either a step backwards or a giant cost increase.
There are other reasons I don't like it, like for getting newbies into the system to learn etc (assuming stack is the other option), but I'll leave the "not listening" topic where it lies and that we disagree there.
I just can't help but think some kind of "Stack Light" would be the path forward that addresses the needs of SMB as outlined, and still funnels everyone in the direction MS obviously wants everyone to go and eliminates this "putting dev into HV Server" problem being cited as a reason in killing HV Server since people would be using Stack. The upside too would be that people are already then using the "new" platform - making the knowledge base current and upgrade path to Stack "full/premium" or straight up Azure an easy option.
without forgetting that the real problem we were pointing out was not the price, but the exhibition space; hyperv server had no unnecessary services, unlike windows servers.
Paying a hundred euros for hyperv server for the license is acceptable.
Low resource usage,
Low penetration surface,
No cloud...All that we want...
Not to mention that there were no dedicated devs, since we had to ping them here to tell them that there was an update error that had been going on for 3 months...
Support until 2024? my eye...
They already forgot that hyperv server existed xD- I think you've rather missed the point!
"but it is not a charity in the sense that it can continue to devote employee time to a free product that literally generates no revenue for them. It has done this for a long time, and we've liked it, but I can't help but wonder what the opportunity cost was. What else might they have done with those person-hours had they been shifted elsewhere?"
Hyper-V Server was basically Windows Server core with only the Hyper-V role available. As such, the development effort required, over and above that which would be required anyway for the paid products, will not have been significant in the scale of this sort of work.
It was basically a loss-leader as it encouraged people building datacentres to use Hyper-V, even if the workloads were a mix of Linux and Windows - they could use Hyper-V Server for hosting the Linux VMs. It was also useful for testing. All of this is likely to have led to further purchase of the paid versions. Without it, other hypervisors may have looked more attractive.
Microsoft appears to have withdrawn it in an effort to drive subscription revenue to Azure / Azure Stack HCI. I don't know to what extent that's working, but anecdotally I've been told by a number of consultants that they've done POCs for customers interesdted in Azure Stack HCI, but most haven't led to actual orders as they decide it's too expensive for what it offers.
A fair bit of the market may therefore have moved to VMWare, Proxmox, etc, and this may well have had a knock-on effect on sales of paid licenses. No doubt Microsoft will be monitoring this, but their main aim these days seems to be to push everyone into hosted subscription services of one type or another. - I'm not trying to be an apologetic for Microsoft here, but as I read back over this thread I've seen a lot of people assert that Microsoft "does not care." I think that it's inaccurate to make that claim. The very presence of Elden_Christensen - who is a significant part of the Hyper-V effort at Microsoft - in this thread shows that Microsoft does care, is engaging and is listening.
Like many who have posted in this thread over the many months it's been here, I have experienced sadness and frustration at many changes Microsoft has made, on many fronts. I use Windows Server, Hyper-V, and Windows 11. I use Outlook, New Outlook, and Teams. I use Azure, Entra, and many 365 products. And I, too, am a Microsoft Partner, with (now legacy) Silver status. Microsoft has made a lot of changes in all of these areas over time that have saddened me personally. But the reason I've been sad and upset is really because the changes Microsoft has made have inconvenienced me personally or destabilized my world in some way, not because I've been attacked, mistreated, or experienced something significant at Microsoft's "hands."
I put "hands" in quotes because Microsoft isn't a "person", it does not "care" or "not care." It is not some individual out there maliciously taking things away from us and laughing evilly at the result. Nor, we must remember, is Microsoft a charity. Microsoft DOES do many charitable things, but it is not a charity in the sense that it can continue to devote employee time to a free product that literally generates no revenue for them. It has done this for a long time, and we've liked it, but I can't help but wonder what the opportunity cost was. What else might they have done with those person-hours had they been shifted elsewhere? Microsoft has now asked itself that question, and made changes in response. We don't like this change, but that's not because we've been hurt. This thread has made exhaustively clear that we have choices. We can move to the new Microsoft HCI product, we can pay for a Windows Server license. We can use Hyper-V on Windows 11 for free. We can use XCP-NG. I've done them all, I use them all, they all work, they're all good options. We lose nothing here, we're not being cast adrift. We're upset here not because there is any real impact to us, we're upset primarily because our unjustified sense of entitlement is offended.
Instead, we have to remember that Microsoft is a corporation. It is one of the largest corporations in the world, and it's got many different pressures, both internally and externally, that shape and inform its direction. Microsoft's primary job is to grow as a company, to take care of its employees, sell products to its customers, and make money for its shareholders. I'm not an employee, but I am a shareholder, and I want Microsoft to make decisions that will grow the business and the value of my fractional ownership therein. I am a partner, and as a partner, I want the same thing. I'm also a customer, and as a customer I want good products that I can use... and because we live in a global culture, I understand and expect that I will need to pay for those products if I expect them to be good and usable. Only in my role as a smaller business, and/or an individual who likes to tinker with free stuff do I want Microsoft to keep giving us a free Hyper-V.
But just because I want a thing doesn't mean Microsoft can or even should pivot just to give me those things. Microsoft is making decisions based on many factors, and what we in this thread want IS one of them. But what we in this thread want simply isn't a large enough factor to override all the other factors that went into this decision. If Microsoft makes bad decisions, customers will vote with their wallets, and Microsoft will see that, and adjust. They've done so many times in the past, and will do so in the future as well. Their current size and success speaks to the correctness of many decisions they've made, decisions which often seemed wrong or problematic at first.
Here's a fun little example to illustrate this. Most of us here will be familiar with Microsoft 365, and the recently-added "New Outlook for Windows." Did you know that, in a stunning reversal of precedent and in seeming violation of their own policies, someone at Microsoft made the decision that New Outlook for Windows would no longer support Business Basic users? That's right: If you have a Microsoft 365 Business Basic account (or E1, or F1, or EXO P1, or EXO P2, or any of the "small" yet PAID accounts), you cannot use New Outlook for Windows? The program literally and actively blocks you, with a message making clear that the blocking is because of your license. Someone at Microsoft made that decision. You can see the details here, if you like:
https://feedbackportal.microsoft.com/feedback/idea/2f7925cb-3a80-ee11-a81c-000d3ae46fcb
Imagine the thinking there! Someone actually said, "Let's support free Outlook, let's support our competitors like GMail and Yahoo, let's even support iCloud. But our paying Business Basic users, who give us money each month? Naah." People are going to leave Microsoft 365 over that (as you'll see in the comments in that post) and it's going to hurt MIcrosoft's bottom line. I objected to that change and started that thread because I believe the choice is wrong, and will cause Microsoft losses, and I want to prevent those losses. But Microsoft didn't make that choice to be malicious or because they don't care. They made that choice for a reason, and if they're right, they'll prosper and grow, and if they're wrong, they'll figure it out and adjust.
With Free Hyper-V, the value is less clear. Elden has already explained - several times - that there is a new product out there and, yes, it's not free, but the paying workloads are going to be taken care of. We who are used to getting stuff for free don't like that, but ultimately, if the choice Microsoft has made to stop giving Hyper-V away for free turns out to impact their bottom line, they will figure it out and adjust.
Meanwhile what we have here is a situation where a free product, to which Microsoft has committed countless person-hours in the past, yet which has clearly generated zero direct revenue for them, ever, is being withdrawn, impacting only people who weren't paying for it anyway.
And yet, despite that, we have one of the leaders of the Windows Server team at Microsoft patiently sitting in this thread, month after month, responding to our messages, being present, and engaging. Which is more, I think, than ANY other large corporation would do, under these circumstances.
So while I understand and even to some degree share in the frustration over changes (Don't move MY cheese! Not in MY backyard!), I think that in all of our interactions with Microsoft we should remember the context and the larger picture. The PEOPLE at Microsoft absolutely DO care about what's happening in every part of their company, and DO care about people, including us. But, just as we often have to in our own jobs and lives, they have to sort their priorities and make hard decisions that not everyone is going to like. Reducing that to "they don't care" just doesn't track, and it's not an accurate summation. We need to stay focused on the big picture here. We've provided our opinions about the impact of this decision on us and on Microsoft, to Microsoft, and they have listened and personally acknowledged us, in this thread! Given how many companies don't do that, we should be grateful that Microsoft does! Now we need to move ahead, and trust the process, and adapt if necessary as things continue to change and grow.
Glen
