From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Microsoft / Windows (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Microsoft Windows (marked as Mid-importance).

a little help[edit]

Only architecture info[edit]

Why does this article contain ONLY architecture info? No general info on supported guest OSes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Direct Hardware Access[edit]

Unfortunately, this article does not answer the questions I have at the moment. I understand that Hyper-V does not have an USB or sound support. By the look of the diagram, it looks like the Root partition has not got any more direct hardware access than the Child partitions. Does this mean that even the host Root partition OS (Windows 2008) does not have USB or sound support? If it does, does it also have direct graphics card access? ie. Can the host (Root) OS (Windows 2008) use the physical hardware graphics card directly, with 3D acceleration? Jason404 (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the root partition has full access to all of the hardware, including hardware video. The performance for video hardware is not ideal (depending on drivers and the specific cards used) because they currently tend to do operations that are expensive when running under a hypervisor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Memory requirements / usage Hyper-V Core[edit]

Now that Microsoft is giving away Win2008 Core Hyper-V, I think this article needs to focus more on this aspect - "free software".

Microsoft Hyper-V server is a freeware not a free software

Hyper-V is somewhat hyped (no pun intended!) considering it's limitations, and features. It does not have much over Windows 2003 and Virtual Server 2005, other than the fact that Microsoft now give away the whole O/S and Hypervisor for free! Few will needlessly pay for a full blown version of Windows 2008 if they wan to run virtualised servers.

Please can someone clarify the memory requirements / usage aspect, especially for the free Hyper-V Core.

  • Stating the 2 GB memory minimum completely looses the point, as the server needs loads of memory for the virtualised "guest" O/S's.
It requires minimum 1GB , recommended 2GB for the host , you have to add your memory needed for guest operating system to your requiremnts .Melnakeeb (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What is the maximum amount of memory that the free Core product can access, is there a 4 GB type limitation as the older "Standard" Windows versions.
Of course not, as it only runs on a 64 bit arch. -- (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
For Microsoft Hyper-V R2 it supports up to 1 TB . Microsoft Hyper-V server support less memory - but also a number that is very hard to reach :) , but I don't know how much exactly . Melnakeeb (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unclear english[edit]

Can someone who knows this stuff clean up the grammar/usage and clarify the first paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the poorly written information on hypervisors in general, as it does not belong in an article about a specific hypervisor. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Limitations of Hyper-V[edit]

It would be useful to detail the limitations of Hyper-V as a Virtualization platform, since Wikipedia is often used to get a "bird's-eye" view of a subject or technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph[edit]

Can the reference to beta be removed from the opening paragraph, Windows Update takes care of this, so the opening seems rather dated and may cause unnecessary confusion. Now that Hyper-V release 2 is close to fruition, now is a good time to move on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambig needed[edit]

The first para links to virtualization, but gives no clue which of the options listed there applies to Hyper-V. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

  • For some strange reason people like to link to disambiguation articles when they should directly link to the article relative to the subject. Its either lazy editing or a complete lack of knowledge of the subject at hand. (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely missing the point[edit]

From the article:

“[...] which makes it pointless to use Hyper-V on workstations.”

Um, yes. The OS is called Windows Server 2008 (R2) for a reason. Hyper-V is not intended for use on workstations. That's like complaining about Windows XP/Vista/7 only allowing one interactive session. --MushroomCloud (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says that hyper-v is intended for workstations; however, the impossibility to use it on a workstation is a major drawback, which, imho, should be mentioned in "Limitations". In common case, without WDDM drivers, with default VGA driver shipped with the OS, users are unable to use any resolution except for default 640*480, 800*600 etc or dual-monitor configurations, so it seems that hyper-v should be used only on headless servers. The OS is called Windows Server 2008, but, with hyper-v, there is nearly no possibility to use windows except for by connecting to server by Remote Desktop Protocol.
Because it is impossible to use hyper-v on workstations, it is also impossible to set up e.g. a demo laptop with hyper-v -- how can you show anybody a real live demo if just switching between windows makes system hung for 10-20 seconds? Also, if someone will try to play with hyper-v on their desktop/laptop before making a decision of using hyper-v over other hypervisors, they will face the same problem, and, of course, will immediately make a decision against hyper-v (when they will see such worse performance on the host, they will not even try guests). If you will read that thread on technet, you will see that issue in subject possibly have significantly lowered hyper-v adoption on the market.
MS gives us a technology which cannot be tested on the workstation; however, MS makes all to seem that hyper-v could be used on workstation (with all this graphic installation, common Windows interface etc -- in contrast with competitors). There is no any warnings like "Do not install Windows Server / Hyper-V on your workstation, it will result in a degraded graphic performance".
I'm sorry for such a large post with such a terrible English.
Penartur (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I've fixed some errors in the corresponding section. According to link given by, there is no solution exists for WS 2008 SP2, only for R2. Also, the issue was not solved; it is just the issue roots are not appearing on R2 if EPT is available; from what i've understood, there was no "fix" for the issue. R2 does support EPT feature of CPU and there is no loss of performance when using EPT, that's all. Also, it seems that the problem will never be resolved on older systems, as now there is no need in these. Penartur (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename article to "Microsoft Hyper-V"[edit]

May I suggest that this article be renamed to "Microsoft Hyper-V". That's what it's called in the opening sentence, and the text above the info box. --RenniePet (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to mention that I've changed my mind, having queried the rules involved and being informed that WP:COMMONNAME applies. --RenniePet (talk) 19:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


Core: Micosoft Hyper-V server installation size ==Windows server 2008 core installation size && [1]:Available disk space: Minimum: 8 GB; Recommended: 20 GB or greater (additional disk space needed for each guest operating system).

Full: Contradiction between: [2] and [3] but both higher than values mentioned in article . Melnakeeb (talk) 09:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

For Core Installation: Core installation is never 3 GB of Size for sure .

  • How much exactly ? no reference.
  • From a personal experience it was 11 GB , including memory paging file , for 4GB RAM)
  • as Microsoft Hyper-V server is a window server 2008 with hyper-v role installed and all other roles disabled , core installation size should equate with size of Microsoft hyper-v server , Microsoft in[[4]] specifies minimum requirements of Microsoft Hyper-V server R2 as 8GB hard disk and recommended as 20GB hard disk space . Microsoft removed any trace from its website for system requirements for Microsoft Hyper-V server ( noted by users as R1 as contrast to R2)

For Full installation size: Definitely not 11GB .

  • How much exactly ? no reference.
  • Microsoft specify 2 contradicting system requirements in its website : see these two links:

( both these links are for R1 , R2 has a differnt specification here : [7] Melnakeeb (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Linux support[edit]

The same information is presented in the first and last sentence of this section of the article. Please revise and edit to include the most information with the most efficacious presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techpriest (talkcontribs) 16:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


The introductory paragraph is still extremely confusing. Could someone more knowledgable scrap it and rewrite it?