Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows [EOL] Reviews

The solution is useful for taking backups for end-user laptops and end-user workstations where data is involved. An example would be that of my CEO's laptop, which contains political business. We simply take a backup of it and store it in an external drive. 

The support could be improved and made faster. There is zero support. The reporting part and customization for backup policy can also be improved.

I have been using the solution for two years. 

When it comes to scalability, I have no choice but to continue using the solution, as I have already paid for it. 

The support could be improved a lot, as it is currently non-existent. 

Installation is very easy and takes around ten minutes.

The licensing costs are a standard annual fee of one thousand dollars.

The price is fine. The solution is inexpensive, more so than other products.

As mentioned, the support is our primary issue.

I rate Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows as an eight out of ten.

I would recommend this solution to other users.

We primarily use the solution for backup purposes. 

The solution is very easy to use. It's simple to navigate and it isn't over technical. It also has a very nice user interface with is very simple, especially if you compare it to other products.

The solution is extremely stable so far. 

The product is free to use. We don't have to pay for a license. 

Technical support has been very helpful and quick to respond.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

It would be ideal with we could move the data to a physical server. Right now, we can only make it move to the standby server, however, it must be the virtualization, must be the Veeam servers. I'm speaking of replication. If they could let you can do replication to physical servers - a backup from physical servers and a replication to physical servers - that will be better.

Other than that, the solution really isn't missing any functionality or features. We're quite happy with it.

We've used the solution for the past five years or so. It's been a while. I have a lot of experience with it.

The solution has proven itself to be very stable. Its performance is good and it's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so rather easily.

We have about 20 customers that are using the solution currently.

We've been in touch with technical support in the past and they have been very quick to respond to us. They are knowledgeable and helpful. We're quite happy with their level of support.

The solution is very easy to implement. It's not overly complex or difficult. 

The deployment times vary. It depends on how many servers you have to deploy. For reference, one server typically takes between ten to 20 minutes to set up.

We are capable of implementing the solution to our clients if they need us to.

The solution is free. It doesn't cost us anything to use it. We don't pay any licensing fees. 

We are both using the solution and implementing it for our customers.

We are using the latest version of the solution at this time.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. We've been very happy with it so far.

I would definitely recommend the product to other users, companies, and organizations.

We are using it to back up the physical servers of our customers who are working on-prem. It is deployed in the environment of our customers. We are using its latest version.

It is good and easy to use for backing up physical servers. It is working fine, and it is stable and scalable.

It fulfills our needs in terms of features. In terms of improvements, they can maybe improve its documentation.

I have been using this solution for six years.

It is stable.

It is scalable. We can install it on all servers or whichever server we want. 

We have 20 users in our organization. We are using this product, but I don't think that we will increase its usage because there are not many physical servers. There are more virtual servers, and we use this product mostly for the physical servers. 

I never had to create a support ticket for this solution.

I used IBM Tivoli when I was working with IBM.

It is a cloud solution. There is no installation.

We have a cloud provider agreement with Veeam. We are also paying for the agent.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows a nine out of ten. It is a good solution.

We are customers of Veeam Agent and I'm the VP of technology. 

I think the solution is reasonably priced. Veeam also has good security. 

Some users might think the interface could be improved. It's a subjective thing, I'm fine with it. 

We've been using this solution for six months. 

Stability is not an issue, it has been working pretty nicely. They have on the wire encryption and that's good enough for us.

The integrator takes care of any technical issues. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. We have a few Microsoft 2016 servers we are using, so it's basically installed on that. We used an integrator for the deployment. We have four people from my IT department using this solution. Most are involved with the main database segment and backup recovery. We may increase usage in the future but not right now. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We are resellers for Veeam Agent and more people are buying it for Microsoft Windows. They are buying Veeam Agent for Windows as a solution for allowing and maximizing the performance of Veeam for Windows and they are also buying Veeam as a product. These agents are very popular. We sell Veeam Agent to 50% of the Windows customers looking for a backup and recovery system and we sell other products to the other 50%.  

The most valuable part of Veeam from my perspective is the product's ease-of-use.  

I do not think that I can be specific about certain things that Veeam needs to do to improve. They just need to continue the development to follow trends in the industry, the development of the Microsoft operating system, and incorporate new functionalities into the Veeam Agent to keep the product competitive in the market.  

The situation with the Veeam Agent for Windows is pretty much the same as for the Veeam Agent for Linux. Agents use the functionality of the operating systems to keep a record of the platform in a stable state. They make a snapshot of the operating system and then can release or replace the state of the operating system to a stable state from the snapshot if it becomes unstable.  

The difference in the products is just the need to follow the requirements of the OS version where it is deployed.  

We have been selling Veeam for a long time so I do not know exactly, but it is about seven or eight years.  

The product has to be stable to be functional and useful. It is functional and useful so it is stable.  

The initial setup of Veeam Agent for Windows is as straightforward as with Veeam Agent for Linux. Both are fairly easy to set up and it does not take a long time. The deployment engine is essentially the same with both Linux and Windows.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate the Veeam Agent for Microsoft Windows as either a zero or a ten. The product is either working or it is not working. When it is not working, it is not doing its job and it is a zero. All the other times when it is working, it is a ten.  

It is black or white. It is very simple to rate. It is a ten virtually all of the time because it is working.  

We use this solution for backing up the machines in our company. It is an on-premises deployment.

I love Veeam because it is very easy to work with. Prior to using the Veeam agents, we had problems with our backups.

It is not always easy to update this solution to the newer version, so the update process needs to be improved. It can be a pain.

In the network discovery, we still have to use the agents for some machines.

With respect to stability, we have never had a problem with it.

We have had no problems with scalability. It is very easy.

I am responsible for the backups, and we are currently backing up about fifty machines.

Technical support for this solution is very good.

The initial setup of this solution was straightforward.

We purchased a three-year license, and I think that the prices are ok.

This solution has got all of the functionality that I need in order to work with it. It is easy to create backups and it is always successful.

We still have to use the agents for some machines. This could be solved by not installing agents and having the network discovery done by the solution.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for backups and VR.

The solution has a replication feature that allows us to do the VR. It's very good.

The user interface is good. It provides a lot of information.

The solution needs continuous data protection; something that allows for continuity. If one site is failing, the other site can come up so everything keeps going. The data protection should be continuous rather than schedule-based.

The predictability of the solution needs improvement. Sometimes, if it's doing something at the back end, it may go slow. Today, the backup completion took four hours, but sometimes it can do the backup in 30 minutes or an hour. With solutions like NetBackup, I can predict to a much higher degree of certainty how long something will take to complete.

The user interface is good, but occasionally the change rate of the visible information is a bit slow and provides the wrong guidance. For example, the visible bandwidth might refresh only after five minutes, so sometimes you're looking at incorrect details because the refresh hasn't happened yet. 

The stability of the solution is good. I would give it a rating of eight out of ten. I've seen some products, like NetBackup, that were a bit more reliable in terms of stability.

In terms of the solution's scalability, I haven't scaled it up to a hyper scaled solution yet, so I cannot really comment, but I would rate it nine out of ten.

I don't usually use technical support, so I don't have much experience with them.

The initial setup is complex.

I handled the implementation on my own. I'm an integrator.

Due to the unpredictable nature of how long a backup will take on the system, I can't really commit to Veeam. For an SMB, I might suggest Backup Exec as an alternative to Veeam. For an enterprise-level company, I would recommend NetBackup. I'd still recommend Veeam, but it would be based on specific customer requirements.

I would rate the solution nine out of ten.

The solution generally, is very sound. It's also free. We use a community edition. It saves a lot of costs for us.

I've found a lot of difficulties on the initial setup and especially in terms of credentials. We really need a Window OS and local admin account. It doesn't like the domain admin account. it's a primary permission issue. 

For the most part, the solution is very stable.

Scalability is good. We're in the process of scaling across our organization currently.

Technical support is good. They're very responsive. It depends on the timezone responding, but I usually get a response within three-four hours of creating a ticket.

The initial setup wasn't too complex. We just had issues around permissions. We're almost done the implementation. 

We handled the implementation ourselves.

We're saving a lot of money on costs right now since we've implemented the solution and we're using the community version.

We did evaluate other solutions but nothing is comparable to Veeam Community Edition in terms of license and limitation of Sockets and the number of VMs to be backup.

We are using the on-premises deployment model.

In terms of migration, it's a pretty good tool. It is pretty good at accepting data from legacy applications.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.