What those companies may not realize is that once they virtualize anything, they're on the way to being committed to virtualization. To make one virtual host work, they have to build or buy much of the same expertise it takes to make a dozen work, though they wouldn't need the kinds of automated management tools whose absence is currently a screaming need among large-scale virtualization users.

And, as commenters on recent blogs attest, virtualization skills are a tad scarce these days. It's a grow-your-own virtual world, and the companies that can barely afford free virtualization may find themselves in a position of relying on a technology they can't afford to support.

Interesting conundrum. Try virtualization because it's free and will save money? Or don't try it because it's free but costs a ton to learn how to support?

Money's not going to be the deciding factor in most companies' decisions about whether to go with Microsoft or VMware (or Citrix or Red Hat or HP or Marathon or anyone else) for virtualization.

But it will play a big part in the initial decision, and a bigger one in what happens after the implementation.

Microsoft is likely to scoop up a huge chunk of the small and medium-sized company market just because the cost of Hyper-V is so low compared to Hyper-V.

It will certainly land its share of larger companies as well, if only because it is devoting so much effort to handhold those companies.

But it will be interesting to see, during the next six months or so, how many companies get themselves into trouble underestimating the cost of "free." It worked out well (eventually) with open-source products in many companies. It probably will with virtualization as well.

But the cost of free will certainly make the next big wave of adoption interesting to watch.