Myth #11 - R2 is out and in production. - oh wait, it isn't, therefore MS does not have live migration yet therefore your Myth 1 that ms has live migration does not hold water
myth 12 - MS has no clustered file system - they state that MS does with their live migration - aka in R2 - therefore, they currently do NOT!
myth 13 - Hyper-V is a version 1.0 product... uh, yah, it is.. you did nothing to debunk this
myth 14 - performance review - low performance - yup! http://bit.ly/hHDG5
myth 15 - hyper-v has a larger footprint than vmware - you do nothing to smack this - you say vmware is ALMOST as big as hyper-v's, therefore I must deduce that Hyper-v's is still larger
myth 16 - vmware has broad hardware support - well, it does, and so does windows - vmware never disputed that, why is that a myth?
myth 17 - VMM vs the full systems center suite vs VirtualCenter. systems center suite is only good for windows vm's, btw.
myth 18 - vmware compares the Foundations version to MS' enterprise hyper-v - well, yah, neither has vmotion so why not?
myth 19 - that there is one LESS layer with hyper-v - no, now you have a host that you have to manage - put AV on, and all the other windows management issues that you have on a regular basis - BSOD anybody?
The layer myth was worded incorrectly, the MS argument should have centred around the fact that management of a foreign virtualisation platform (i.e. ESX) incurs additional costs at due to the additional knowledge (or staff) required for successful management. Hyper-V reduces support costs as it allows server administrators to build on the Windows Server skills they already possess. Comparisons with unreleased products I also feel is probably not the best stance MS could have taken though. The memory foot print is an issue for me, it would be nice if the core versions of 2008 (when run as the management OS) could achieve the memory foot prints seen in 2003.
"Hyper-V reduces support costs as it allows server administrators to build on the Windows Server skills they already possess."
You assume that these companies are using Microsoft servers. I work in a Linux shop where KVM is the VM tech of choice because it allows server administrators to build on the Linux Server skills they already possess.
The argument is a red herring anyway. The truth is that pure Microsoft shops are not common and MS wants people to believe and in the end, doesn't matter. Admins that are comfortable with Windows will use Hyper-V and others will use ESX, Xen or KVM.