OH DEAR. A hard hitting report on the state of the virtualisation market turns out to have as much substance as a vegetarian's lunchbox and to have missed its target by an area approximately the size of Montana.

The report compared Vmware to General Custer facing annihilation at the hands of Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and their warriors is available to read on Microsoft’s web site.

This is despite Vmware saying it requested, and got, it pulled from the web site of its authors, analysts Yankee Group after claiming it is full of inaccuracies.

The intro page of “Virtualisation Price War: Vmware’s little big horn?” Is rather flowery:

“In VMware’s case, it’s surrounded by rival vendors lusting for its business. Just as Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Gall and their warriors besieged Custer and the 7th Cavalry at the Little Big Horn, VMware’s competitors led by Microsoft, Citrix (which purchased virtualization vendor XenSource in August 2007), Novell and Red Hat are on the war path. They are ready to count coups and lure VMware customers, touting the fact that their products are significantly less expensive.

"For example, Microsoft Virtual Server offerings are from 40 per cent to 75 per cent less than comparable VMware offerings, depending on specific configuration, volume and licensing factors. Similarly, Citrix’s retail pricing is 66 per cent lower than Vmware solutions.

"Or to use another more specific metric, in the past year, all the virtualization vendors charged between $700 and $800 per socket for their commercial server products while VMware’s product retailed for a whopping $3,000 per socket, a 75 per cent premium.”

The reports claims to “Elucidate the pricing differences among the top virtualization offerings, including Microsoft, Novell, Oracle, XenSource and VMware, with apples-to-apples comparisons. Highlight the performance and feature differences of the virtualization products. Provide existing and prospective corporate virtualization customers with practical, tactical recommendations to assist with their purchasing decisions.”

It is full of quotes from Microsoft and Citrix and not too many, if any from Vmware. Though it does have a couple from a Vmware reseller, which it promptly dismisses. Like the battle of Little Big Horn, it is a bit one sided. Or at least that’s what Vmware says.

Vmware said the report didn’t compare “apples with apples.” Among a list of inaccuracies Vmware said the report “double counts the cost of Vmware…double counts the OS costs for Vmware” uses “Wrong VMware product for a “single server configuration” comparison” and omits “key features in VMware VI3 Enterprise Edition.”

Vmware said the report was “misleading readers” and that it wasn't offered the chance to contribute to it prior to publication. It said it didn’t “send the mob guys” around to Yankee Group but that it was important the “influencers keep an honest hat on.” A cowboy hat, presumably.

Vmware said many of the comparisons don’t amount to a hill of beans as it is doesn‘t compare similar products and that the prices are quoted incorrectly. It said Yankee Group pulled the report but so far it hadn’t heard back from Microsoft after it requested that it do the same.

Vmware can fight its own battles but Yankee Group VP Zeus Kerravala ignored several interview requests and emailed questions including: “Who paid for the report? Have you requested that Microsoft remove the report from its web site? Is a corrected version being prepared which addresses Vmware's concerns? Will a corrected version of the report be published? When?”

For the moment, the report can be found here.

Vmware’s response can be found here