Microsoft Azure Reviews

It could be used for overall migration from on-premises systems for data ingestion to data processing, data modeling, advanced analytics, and high-end reporting. Microsoft Azure can be used to move from conventional, on-premises relational and traditional data systems and big data systems to the cloud.

I have found cost advantage and faster execution to be valuable features. Overall, Microsoft products are budget-friendly. 

The cycle development time is pretty fast, and there's very good coupling within the whole set of Microsoft tools, from the database to the ETL engine, ingestion through Azure Data Factory, then modeling with Synapse Analytics, and reporting through Power BI.

You also have the ability to integrate with external tools if required. For instance, if you don't want to model on Synapse Analytics, which is a Microsoft product, you can use Snowflake. So, it allows customers to adopt a hybrid approach of mix and match when needed.

As for improvement, I think better accelerators and better tools that can be used to migrate and leverage the existing models and data schemas are needed. 

Also, on the ETL side, we can convert data pipelines that are already setup on-premises and business tools that already exist. If we can migrate and automate these into Azure faster, it would be great. I think a faster migration path will help. There is a lot of scope for improvement in this area.

Better reporting capabilities would be good also, because as of now, Microsoft Azure has its own path with Power BI. However, better integration with other enterprise reporting platforms would help.

I've been using Microsoft Azure for two to three years.

Technical support is good for all cloud platforms since it is at a global level. So, it is very professional.

Installation is very fast and can take a few minutes to an hour. A lot of documentation is available, so it could be done in-house.

Microsoft Azure comes with a long-term license and trial licenses as well.

I would rate this solution at nine on a scale from one to ten.

The strategy we are employing is to adopt a hybrid approach rather than switching all at once. We are moving in small bits and having both environments for business continuity. Then, once we and the users are feeling more confident, we will totally switch to the cloud.

Right now we're designing our desktop solutions. I need, for example, to use a virtual desktop and I need to use infrastructure as a service. I am looking for other infrastructure as a service solutions as well,

We really like the infrastructure as a service and the data center as a service solution functionality. 

The backup data center and the business compute solutions for Azure are good. There are a lot of good hybrid solutions with onsite and cloud solutions.

The solution is very easy to set up.

The solution is very stable for Windows setups.

The technical support on offer has been very good.

The pricing needs to be a bit lower. It's an expensive solution right now.

In future releases, I would like to see Microsoft offer personal desktop environments in a virtual solution. Citrix, for example, now offers this as an option.

I only have some limited experience with the product. I've only been using it for about six months or so. It hasn't been that long.

For the most part, the solution is stable. It's great with the Windows solution, however, with Linux and other operating systems, I hope that it's okay. I don't know for certain. I've never tried it with others. For Windows, it is very good. When the customer has all-Windows solutions everything is okay. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

The companies we usually sell to are typically medium-sized. When it comes to scaling, the cloud solution is an elastic solution. I can scale it well. The customer can go up however high they want to go. The solution allows for that flexibility. It's easy to expand with the solution.

I've reached out to technical support in the past. I understand that if I need them I can easily reach them. They are available and responsive. I'd say we are satisfied with our solution.

The initial setup is not difficult or complex. It's pretty straightforward. It's easy. A company shouldn't have any issue with the process.

We sell the solution to our clients and it takes six months to one year to deploy it.

We would like to see Microsoft lower its prices a bit for their customers. It's a costly solution.

I'm a Microsoft reseller.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

While we are currently using the on-premises deployment model, we are considering moving to the cloud.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. I'm already recommending it to various clients as a potential solution for them.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're quite satisfied with the solution.

I'm currently trying to build a new product for my company using Microsoft Azure. Prior to that, I was using Microsoft Azure on the cloud to deploy microservices using specific Azure services to host the microservices. But the most common Azure services that we're using is the App Service and relational databases. In terms of the application, the first one was just the Microsoft Azure application and the second one was an integration with Elastic Stack. I'm a software architect.

The user interface offers a good experience, it's better than Azure itself. The portal is great. Microsoft Azure has very good documentation for any kind of technical person.

Sometimes the Azure Calculator doesn't have a good way to do a higher estimate, because for any organization there are sometimes issues with the application sites, but I know that the logs are not the real time and there are issues with login synchronization. It cam sometimes take more than five minutes for that information to reach the Azure application side. I'd like to see integration with other lifecycle managing rules because with Azure DevOps, it's straightforward, but the system is painful sometimes. 

I've been using this solution for nearly five years, the last 12 months in this new company. 

In general, stability is good, but in the past month I had some issues with the connection to Azure resources, not just Microsoft Azure, but with Azure in general. Microsoft has an issue with its authentication system which has proved painful, because my applications were up and running, but I can't log in to make changes or see metrics. It's a lot better now, we've had the application down three or four times but it hasn't been critical. 

Scalability is good, I haven't had any issues with their configuration. I think we have around 600 concurrent users. 

I haven't used Azure support. They have good documentation, although I sometimes think that the examples on GitHub aren't updated. On the whole, documentation is good. 

We previously used AWS but we knew there was already a lot of experience with Microsoft Azure and their technologies and we wanted to use all the features for each service. Given that this is with government and the integration is with Microsoft Azure, we can use all the features and benefits of each service. Another issue is that they were using AWS with infrastructure as a service, but they redesigned this application to use software as a service and platform as a service. We dropped the use of infrastructure as a service and using the platform as a service, and it was estimated that it would cost less than with AWS.

I think the initial setup is straightforward. I have around 20 microservices, so deployment took probably two weeks. It took longer than a previous implementation which took several hours.

We did a quick check with cloud computing, but we didn't find anything really efficient outside of the Google Kubernetes Engine that was better than the Azure Kubernetes Service or the Kubernetes service in AWS. But it was just a quick check and it was documented.

I can sometimes see that Microsoft has poor training, but to be honest the whole training thing isn't good at a technical level. They are designed to be the entrance point and show the way you can create a web portal and database. But if they could offer an in-depth technical solution of Azure services that would be good. It's possible that Google has something about it and they can offer better learning than Microsoft sometimes does. Reading through their documentation can take some time. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We have a project with a company that needs support for their IoT devices. We're setting up some databases for them. That's all I can say about it because it's confidential. But we're using the HSM and the Key Vault for security purposes. A wider area or a wider group can connect to this public cloud for security and storage. We also have our own application implemented on that cloud.

It's easy to use, and it's scalable. If we want to grow our product more, we can do it. Because of the availability of different geographic zones, we can also have many places and regions.

Security could be better. Once there was an attack, and we couldn't get to the cloud to see the reports for about five hours. If we want to back up the application in storage, we can't have a firewall. For now, it's secure. I think the main problem was the configuration.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for three or four months.

Access to the virtual machine on Azure wasn't always available, but the application was always up and running.

The product is super scalable.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

The pricing is better than AWS.

I would recommend this cloud computing solution. When configured and planned well, I think it's a very good product. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Azure an eight.

We have been using it to modernize customers' environments. We propose that the customers consider moving a number of things into the public cloud instead of building and maintaining everything on-premise. 

The organization can focus more on real business problems instead of IT problems. It can also reduce the time spent setting up the infrastructure. This then makes the organization more agile and, in a lot of cases, more reliable. With the public cloud, if your design is okay, the chance of running into a serious outage is, in most cases, lower than that when relying on your own on-premise IT infrastructure, particularly in the case of companies with 50 to 500 people that typically don't have very big IT budgets.

I think the most useful feature has been the remote desktop. It has been very helpful when customers have old applications that are not architected to run remotely.

In my opinion, what could be improved is making the actual costs more predictable. It is very difficult to estimate the cost or the budget you are going to need to run your environment in Azure Cloud. You have to be a specialist to understand how you will be charged, which constantly changes.

As for additional features, it would be great if the pricing could be cheaper for those trying to study and use the cloud. Having a discounted pricing scheme or even a free usage scheme, like a sandbox that is free to use on a continuous basis, for those who are studying would help them to actually generate more business later on. The more people learn to use the clouds, the more business they will actually attract.

They will start pushing solutions into the cloud, but if they have no time or opportunity to learn to use it, they will not be confident in proposing cloud solutions. So until they have been able to validate it in a test environment or a learning environment, they won't take the risk and propose a cloud solution.

I've been involved with this solution for one year.

I think Microsoft Azure is fairly stable. It also depends on how you set up your design.

As advertised, the scalability should never be an issue. The only thing that would stop you from scaling would be that your application has an architecture that is not scalable.

For public clouds, customer service/technical support is okay. In general, the documentation is very good.

For those who are familiar with Azure, the initial setup is not that complex. However, for those who are using Azure for the first time, it's probably a bit more involved because they may need to create their own virtual data centers in the cloud with the necessary security measures. I think that often this is a bit underestimated mostly because of a lack of knowledge on the part of the new customer.

Software licensing models can be expensive depending on what you need compared to open source solutions, for example. However, if you don't have the technical skills, you may be better off paying for a license and support instead of trying to use open source solutions.

I would rate Microsoft Azure at eight on a scale from one to ten. 

I would advice others to take the time to study it carefully because there's a lot to understand and a lot to know before putting a solution in the clouds. Don't underestimate the complexity.

I primarily used the solution for hypothetical cases. I used the solution to look at the 2019 active directory environment, some remote SQL storage, and storage access from on-premises to the cloud.

There's a feature for automated tasks. As an administrator, handling administrative-type tasks, it's quite useful. For example, I was spending lots of money when I would spin things up. I'd spin up a SQL server. I'd spin up different types of things. They cost a lot of money. I would get distracted, walk away, and go to bed. I'd get up in the morning, and I'd see I'd have a bill. Therefore, I spun up an automated task and wrote a PowerShell script, put it in an automated task, and it would run at seven o'clock every night, and delete all my resources. It saved me money.

You can build an environment in minutes. It's very good in terms of being an infrastructure as a service, and I found that really fascinating.

All the devices they have up there that replace existing devices in the real world like load balancers or F5 are helpful. I'm not sure how they relate or how they form compared to F5, or the firewalls compare to the ones that are in data centers, however, they looked all right to me.

The solution is mostly stable.

The product scales extremely well.

It's a bit of a mystery how the storage is going to perform. For example, when you've got a storage device like Hitachi or NetApp, you can run reports on that storage and you can do all this good stuff. I'm not sure if that's the case with Azure. A lot of the stuff is kind of proprietary, at the moment.

The cost is quite high.

You can't control the data as much as you would like to. When it's theirs, it's theirs. With Hitachi, Hitachi has its own policies. You can move data around based on how much it's used into lower-cost discs and whatnot. You might be able to do that with Azure. However, I can't verify that.

The initial setup is complex.

They need to make storage easy and offer more interconnectivity between solutions.

I've used the solution for about a year or so. Maybe a year and a half at most. It hasn't been that long.

In terms of stability, I've seen it go down twice now. They've had two problems with the active directory. That said, I would describe it as stable. They have different sites, regions, and whatnot, where you can move your data around in case you lose a data center or you lose a region. However, if you lose the active directory, that can take everything down.

It's not any more stable than an enterprise environment, to be honest. Maybe a little bit, however, if you lose a network connection to it, that's not stable.

I worked in a bank, a huge 50,000 employee enterprise. I saw their infrastructure go up and down about the same, once or twice a year. That's about the same as Azure, therefore, it's not anything different than an enterprise. You can make an enterprise resilient if you have lots of domain controllers and you do lots of redundant paths. 

The solution is very scalable. It's one of its great selling points. If a company needs to scale, it can do so with ease.

I've never been in touch with technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

For a layperson or someone who is not trained, it wasn't an easy initial setup. It had some complexities.

I've personally gotten used to the process. The deployment, for example, wouldn't take that long now. While in the beginning, a deployment might take a month, now that I am more comfortable with the solution and more familiar, I can likely do it in a few days. 

That said, it depends on a company's plans and its own unique environment and complexities. It can vary. Most people seem to struggle with all of the connections they had before.

The number of people you need to deploy or maintain the solution really depends on the size of the environment. After implementation, you could probably scale back your employees from 10% to 50% with Azure.

I can handle an implementation myself. I'm getting better and faster at it.

I've found the cost to be a bit high. You also get dinged for extra things along the way.

The charges are also unpredictable. Even if you think something is a relatively static item, they'll charge you for it and it will change your expectation of the cost.

I've looked at other solutions, such as Hitachi and Netapp.

The biggest struggle a person would have these days, as an architect, is to determine what the cost-benefit of going to Azure would be rather than going to a storage device such as a Hitachi or a NetApp. Which has better value? What's going to be better in the next couple of years? You can really get screwed if you're going to be pulling data down from the cloud. If you pull a lot of data from the cloud, it's going to cost you. You don't get charged for putting it up. You get charged for pulling it down.

I basically used the solution to study.

I used a few different deployment models. I made an on-prem environment, Hyper-V environment, on my laptop and I connected it to the cloud.

I'd advise those considering the solution to not put all of their eggs in one basket. By that, I mean, it's a good idea to go hybrid and not full cloud. Going hybrid covers that network loss that you could suffer if you lose the network. If you lost a data center or a region, you could still have your on-prem server running an image of the cloud onsite.

I'd give the solution an eight out of ten. I haven't had a chance to study AWS or Google, however, I like this solution very much.

We just use it as a virtual environment.

It has been good financially because no CapEx investment is required for any of the on-prem infrastructures. It is an OPEX model, so it is easy for budgeting.

Its resiliency is most valuable. It is also a very scalable solution, so you can spend the resources on demand.

The interface for configuring the environment is not very intuitive. Certain things are at different places, and it is not easy to navigate.

They should have a more transparent licensing model. Currently, Microsoft's licensing is a bit clunky, and it keeps changing depending on the type of subscription you have. Different features are included, and sometimes, it is very hard to figure out the right licensing. So, the commercial aspect of the licensing can be improved, and they can make it easier to understand all the features that are included.

I have been using this solution for about a year and a half.

I can't complain.

It is a very scalable solution.

Thankfully, I didn't have to use support. We have a CSP, and we are dealing with our partner who deals with Microsoft on our behalf.

I am not sure, but I think this is the first cloud infrastructure that we have used.

It has a pretty straightforward deployment. There are just a couple of clicks. The deployment takes about a day.

We used the reseller.

Price-wise, it is comparable to other solutions for the features that we are using.

It is pretty straightforward. I would advise others to just make sure that you have an architecture that you want to implement. You need to understand what you want to achieve in order to build or configure the platform correctly. The infrastructure, architecture, and design are very important to fully understand what resource groups do you want to use because you're building around the resource groups. That's pretty much it. 

We are thinking of increasing the usage of the cloud, and I'm looking at alternatives. After all the research is done, we will see if it is going to be Azure or something else.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten because it is doing everything I want it to do, and I don't really have a comparison with other similar products.

We are using Active Directory in Azure, so it's for all of the Office 365 services.

This product is quite easy to use and is available on-demand.

There are so many services available that the interface is a little bit messy, and when you're looking for a specific service, you have to know exactly where to search. Having better visibility in the interface would be an improvement.

We have been using Microsoft Azure for a couple of years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it.

Azure is a scalable solution. We have approximately 150 users.

We have used technical support and it is very good.

As a cloud-based product, there is no installation.

This is an expensive product.

In summary, this is a good solution, and other than some improvements to the user interface, I cannot think of any features that are missing.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.