Hyper-V Server 2022

Frequent Contributor

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 found anything official.



247 Replies

First, any mini pc consum 200w all time.
Same for normal pc.

Second, you NEVER keep on the management pc.
You open, you do your job, and you close the management pc.

The only management interface keep on, is the hypervisor, and the management VM if exist.


Last, it was not an order, it's a typical way to manage :

Never do administration on the main... Only for loud maintenance

I use docker for temp VMs. ;)

@SpenceFoxtrot We looked into XCP-NG and Proxmox to replace our Hyper-V Server usage, and found the following two missing features at this point in time:

If you don't care about future-proofing support for nested virtualisation / Docker and/or encryption, you may find that XCP-NG/Proxmox are perfect for your needs.


@DavidYorkshire Today, I just realized that there is no cost using azure stack HCI when I activate hybrid benefits! This is sweet! No more complaining for not having hyper-v version of server 2022!


i was wrong :expressionless_face:. Why do i have to buy windows server license… while windows server 2019 hyper-v is free. 🤷‍:male_sign:

You forgot the 10€/thread/month

Actually hybrid benefits make it 0/thread/month as long as you purchase windows server license D:
All I want is VMM for local use from Azure Stack HCI. At least I can install that windows-feature to use it!
Perhaps... I could just install Hyper-v feature in Azure Stack HCI.. and use it...



Azure Stack HCI is effectively a server core installation with Hyper-V installed. The point is that it has to be tied to an Azure tenant; it's not standalone like Hyper-V Server (or Windows Server).

You can use Azure Stack HCI as local hyper-v server.
I tested.
These commands are what I used to enable hyper-v in Azure Stack HCI

DISM /online /enable-feature /featurename:Microsoft-Hyper-V -All
Enable-WSManCredSSP -Role server

I had to setup extra setting to test for nested hyper-v
In my PC with admin powershell:
Set-VMProcessor -VMName <VMName> -ExposeVirtualizationExtensions $true
Get-VMNetworkAdapter -VMName <VMName> | Set-VMNetworkAdapter -MacAddressSpoofing On
New-VMSwitch -Name VmNAT -SwitchType Internal
New-NetNat –Name LocalNAT –InternalIPInterfaceAddressPrefix “”
Get-NetAdapter "vEthernet (VmNat)" | New-NetIPAddress -IPAddress -AddressFamily IPv4 -PrefixLength 24
Setup my Group Policy wsman..

Oh I see haha I guess I am in the wrong discussion.
I was looking for the standalone solution...

@Elden Christensen


I understand that I am coming to this discussion late, but I think it's useful to add another voice to the concern here.


There is ONE very clear thing that AzS HCI does NOT offer or provide that Hyper-V Server does/did provide:


A FREE bare-metal hypervisor.


Microsoft's decision to provide a Hyper-V Server product for free was a GREAT decision and was a great choice for any org running mixed-platform guests that include Windows, especially when running Windows Server guests. VMWare, Oracle, Linux Foundation, FreeBSD, Citrix, and more, provide FREE bare-metal hypervisor solutions, each with different appeals. Whomever decided that Hyper-V Server should no longer exist, or at least, that Microsoft should not continue offering a free bare-metal hypervisor, is out of touch with the vast majority of administrators, corporations, etc, and their IT infrastructure needs, as well as being out of touch with the global landscape of IT infrastructure. Replacing Hyper-V Server with AzS HCI is NOT going to push ANYONE toward adopting Azure over their current cloud infrastructure, and putting it behind a paywall is only further discouraging. Despite the delusions of your Azure team, MANY corporations, organizations, and others have a NEED, not just a want, for on-premises virtualization. There is also a substantial market share that does not and would not benefit from moving infrastructure to the cloud. Frankly, anyone working on or running the Azure or Windows Server programs at Microsoft who is unaware or doesn't understand this, is ignorant. That's putting it politely. I'm curious what the profit projections were/are for AzS HCI. Microsoft's business models with Windows Server and Azure surely aren't expecting quantifiable increases in profits with AzS HCI.


To put it into a better perspective, this is similar to making a decision to turn Edge into a "hybrid browser" "built for Azure" and charging a monthly fee for all Edge customers. And honestly, after abandoning the original Edge engine and replacing it with Chromium, made Edge irrelevant. Just another Chromium-based browser. Sure, it's included with Windows. As a long-time IT and Information Security professional with a wide range of experience, from home lab to casinos to global corporations, I would bet that a vast majority of Edge's userbase is convenience, not choice. It browses the web and doesn't require an additional installation. Similarly, I'd place the same wager on Bing's userbase. Edge users who don't feel like changing the default search engine.


Windows Server and (unfortunately) Azure are not going anywhere. That's a given. But while I'm sure there are some Hyper-V Server administrators who were/are excited to move their infrastructure from Hyper-V Server to AzS HCI, my guess is that they are a small minority. I'm not suggesting that AzS HCI doesn't serve a purpose and won't sell; I'm sure there's a customer base for it. But I doubt you received many AzS HCI customers who use or used Hyper-V Server and opted to move to AzS HCI for the sole purpose of Hyper-V Server progression. I've never met an administrator who loves Hyper-V Server enough to pay a subscription for it. Sure, it's a convenient solution and a logical one for admins planning to run a virtualized Windows Server cluster. I see there being a VERY SMALL (less than 5%) amount of AzS HCI subscriptions being customers moving from other hypervisor hosts to AzS HCI. I would imagine a good amount of its customers being ones who previously used Windows Server Standard or Datacenter Core with Hyper-V as the virtualization host, followed by customers running Hyper-V Server with existing hybrid infrastructure (with Azure) that sees a benefit to replacing Hyper-V Server with the new hybrid solution.


I may not be explaining this part properly, but hopefully you understand the message I'm trying to convey.


Charge a fee for the Azure integrations. That makes sense. Deprecating an entire product line to replace it with a forced hybrid product, doesn't. 


I know that my opinions expressed here aren't going to influence any decisions or changes, but I think I speak for a much larger percentage of the market share than you might think. Its just that there's only a small percentage of administrators who would bother to take the time to share a detailed opinion on the topic. Most will make their decisions and act on them without sharing their opinion. I can be hopeful though, right? At least there's plenty of time to look for an alternate solution. Customers, especially administrators responsible for large infrastructures, don't like replacing core solutions, especially when its caused by a company's decision to deprecate a product line, and a virtualization host is a critical part of infrastructure that requires a not-insignificant dedication of time and resources to migrate.




@technotic, while I agree with everything you said, I think your time might be better spent evaluating free alternatives to Hyper-V from other vendors.

M$FT has made it clear that they are abandoning free Hyper-V and (free) bare-metal Hyper-V Server.

You will likely be told that you can purchase Windows Server which includes the Hyper-V role which you can enable to the same effect, without paying a "subscription fee" (unless you count software EOL which eventually require mandatory upgrades).

You could always choose to continue to use Hyper-V Server 2019 (which is still available free at, but like I said, you'll need to find an alternative in about six years if you care about security updates.


"Microsoft Hyper-V Server 2019 is that product's last version and will continue to be supported under its lifecycle policy until January 2029."



@technotic Agreed that it's disappointing to hear about the end of the Hyper-V Server line (looking for a Hyper-V Server 2022 was how I landed on this post), especially as it closes the door to individuals looking for an official low-cost entry point to the ecosystem. However, when it comes to companies, I won't lose much sleep over them having to stump up the cash for a hypervisor. Microsoft has enough cash to go around, that's for sure, but I think one company demanding that another put their development resources into a free product, and therefore make less profit, so another company can make more profit, is a bit of a tall ask.


And like you said, there are multiple other free hypervisors out there. However, the most adopted ones that are closed source prohibit commercial use without a paid licence. So a company can either pay for Windows Server, pay for an alternative, or use an OSS solution for free. If they don't like the hassle of moving, then they should pay for the services they use.

I recognize that taking away anything is unpopular, especially when it's free... and there is nothing I can say that will change that. Just be mindful that Microsoft Hyper-V Server costs millions of dollars in testing, shipping, certifications, security servicing, bug fixing, etc... and generates zero revenue in return. That's a difficult business model to justify, for any business. There is a broad portfolio of hypervisor options in both Azure Stack HCI or Windows Server.

But surely most of that is shared with all editions of Windows Server? (i.e. Hyper-V Server 2016 with Server 2016 Standard / Datacentre / etc)

To put it another way, how much does Microsoft actually save by not supporing this SKU in the 2022 edition?

@Elden Christensen 

I understand that it cost more to test. I invested a lot in M$FT almost all of my retirement fund. But there are many replacements(opensources,vmware) for hyper-v in the current market. I just hope that ms makes sustainable profits out of hyper-v by attracting more users like me. 

Also... the same could be said about other vendors, such as VMWare's free ESXi hypervisor which (although limited) can be used commercially and was free both before and after Microsoft's Hyper-V free offering was made available.

There are myriad other examples of companies offering free, however limited, tiers of their product or service that hasn't seemed to cause them to all go out of business.

Microsoft also does it elsewhere themselves too - e.g. SQL Server has for a long time had a free 'express' edition with database size limitations.