Windows Server Reviews

The solution is used both as a security measure and basically for all operating systems which are mostly for the ERP systems. They need to be installed in a Windows Server so that it has a link to the domain. It makes it a secure network.

The Windows Server is mostly to host our SAP application. It's just that basic operating system. We are using the backend as a database, a Microsoft SQL Server is there also in front of them.

Over the ten years we have used the servers, we've never had a problem. They are robust and reliable. 

The solution is quite stable.

The product can scale very well.

We could always use more security on the product.

If it had more integration capabilities, that would be ideal.

We've been using the solution for about ten years now. It's been a decade or so. We've had it for a while.

The solution is reliable and the performance is great. We literally never have any issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales quite well. If we need to expand it, it has the capacity to do so.

Windows Server acts basically as the SAP application that is being hosted on this server. We have not given access to our internal employees. Basically, we give access of SAP to several of our clients and there are more than 200 people using SAP and the backend Windows Server.

Technical support is from the provider. So they are the ones who contact the Microsoft support team if there is an issue with the server.

We also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is handled by our service providers. I do not handle the implementation process myself. Everything comes pre-installed and ready to go.

Maintenance is being done by the hosting service provider. We don't maintain the operating system; they do it from their end.

The installation is done by the hosting service providers. They provide us the servers in which they pre-install Windows Server 2019. That comes as part of the servers which we take from the internet solution providers.

We don't pay for the license. That is as part of a contract in which we pay a monthly charge for having the servers in the hosted environment.

We have several servers. The oldest are the 2012 versions. The newest servers we have are from 2019.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I cannot say enough that, over the decade of use, we have had zero issues. It's been great.

I'd definitely recommend the product to other users and companies.

We are using this solution as a server operating system.

The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running.

I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line. 

When you work on the command line you can make scripts and then use them every time you want to complete a task. You can capitalize on past experiences by using a script to simplify them, such as when you need to install something or do configurations. Making those tasks faster and simplified. You end up saving a lot of time by using the command line which is best for administrators and the graphical interface is best for the end-user.

You can not do most of the automation on Windows that you can on Linux, it is not the same thing. Windows is improving but it is not at the same level as Linux.

When using a graphical interface it tends to have more bugs, vulnerabilities and weakens the server. Normally we install Linux on big servers that do not have any graphical interfaces inside. The fewer services you run the better it with be for security. We prefer most of the time installing Windows without the graphical interface. 

Overall Windows for us is more difficult and less efficient than Linux.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 25 years.

The solution is stable. However, when you start putting in some extra layers, such as data intelligence inside, then problems tend to start happening.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server solutions for a long time. We started with Windows NT then switched to Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and all the way up to this current version. Additionally, we work with Linux and Windows 10.

It is easy to do some types of deployments with Windows dedicated networks.

We have evaluated Linux and other Windows systems.

I recently started using my Windows 10 with the Linux Subsystem for Windows, to install and administer all my Linux servers worldwide. I can run a DBM on the Linux Subsystem for Windows, Ubuntu, or Kali Linux, and can access my servers worldwide. Having Linux Subsystem running inside Windows 10, I have been enjoying using the operating system much more.

I cannot install a virtual machine inside the Subsystems which I do very easily on any Linux distribution. Additionally, after installing a virtual machine on Linux, the virtual machine will be more powerful than the Linux Subsystem for Windows. If Microsoft was able to achieve the same level of a virtual machine, then it will be very good for us to start doing many more operations inside of Windows.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We upgraded to 2019 and use this as our operating system for our domain controller, for our file server, and for running our ERP. We're also run our ERP on  Microsoft Dynamics.

Windows Server is most commonly used and practiced. It is compatible with what we are running. You can run Dynamics on Linux or other operating systems, but our clients commonly use Windows Server, Microsoft products, and Office 365.

Often, we get updates that affect productivity. It's the way they do the updates.

After an update has been done, Microsoft notifies us that there is a problem.

It is not practical to have a test environment. There should be an easier process, as currently, it's a bit tedious. They should find a way of proving or revamping this procedure. It should be very fast.

When you are running Windows and Microsoft, you will see an error message regarding ransomware and suggest the security is up-to-date, but the update always affects the operating system. Most of the issues we have are when we apply security updates or critical updates, which will affect the operating system, the production environment, and your business.

It is recommended to have a test environment, run it on the test environment to make sure that it is working well then put it in the production environment. This is a tedious process. Most of the time, people just take a risk and just apply it without doing the test.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 10 years.

We are using Windows 2019, 2016, and 2012.

It's a stable solution.

Windows Server is scalable.

We are also using Exchange version 2016, and Windows 10.

With a proper deployment, Windows Server is good.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

A couple of years ago we migrated from the 2008 to the 2012 version and we are currently in the process of trying to migrate our applications to that of 2019. We use Windows 10 for OS. We're researching z/OS, which is actually Linux based, to see how well it works with Windows applications. 

When it comes to the SQL server, we have separate application and database servers, the latter which is also on Windows Server 2012. This means that we have a couple of applications in which we hosted in IIS and Windows Server 2012. Consequently, we have quite a collection of Windows 2012 that are currently running in our data center. 

For the moment, we are not making use of the solution in our environment but looking into how we can have a license free OS that can both work with lower machines and function very well.

We like the ease of use, stability and performance of Windows Server. The reason I was skeptical when it comes to moving to Windows Server 2019, which is currently the latest version that the market has to offer, is because the solution is easy to use and stable, something typical of any OS. While we are currently inspecting the compatibility of applications that are running on Windows version 2019, we're still using the 2012 version and everything is working fine. We have encountered no problems with the OS being used to run the applications. 

What could help in improving the footprint is if Microsoft could come up with several flavors or start providing containerized solutions for server systems. 

Say, for example, that I wish to host a web server online. I would pose the question whether I would really need to have a Windows Server OS for me to be able to do that on IIS. At the moment, the use of Kubernetes or Docker present the only solution. As there is a steep learning curve for one's team to acquire the skill-set and obtain the capabilities associated with these solutions, a relevant Microsoft version would make life much easier. 

As I have already paid for a license, I should have the option of requesting the containerized functionality from the OS to reduce the Windows Server OS footprint. This will save me from having to make constant installations as a condition of running my servers on it. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years, straight from the beginning. 

We have had no issues with Windows Server that required technical support, although we did have to call the Microsoft team concerning something on which we were working and had issues around the MS Teams and certain things relating to Azure. I can connect you to my system's administrator if you wish, who may have more information. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

I can easily replicate what I want. My environment allows me to clone servers in a matter of mere minutes, as I already have a startup which contains all of my standards. 

One must pay for a license for the solution. 

The number of users utilizing the solution averages slightly north of 500, since this is the application we use in running all our key activities. Each member of our organization's staff requires access to the solution for carrying out several functions, be it in respect of the application or of the need to log into the system as a consequence of this being where the employee management system is located. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

We have an asset management system from a vendor that requires Windows Server. That's where the old content of customers is being stored.

The solution is perfect for Microsoft applications.

The stability is okay.

The solution is scalable.

The installation process is easy.

I don't like it. However, I'm forced to use it, due to the applications, or the vendor supply, that need to run on it. Many of the applications only support Windows Server.

The solution is less stable than Linux.

We've used the solution for a while. We use it constantly.

The solution is pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's pretty reliable. That said, Linux is even more reliable. 

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

We also use Linux. We're 50% Linux, 50% Windows. 

The installation process is very straightforward. It's very easy. It's not too complex. A company shouldn't have any problems handling the process.

We use various versions of the solution, including 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2019.

We're a service provider. I have colleagues who are MSP-certified. They are the consultants to our customers.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. it's okay. However, it's not my first choice. I find Linux, for example, more stable. 

I would only recommend the solution to a user if they really needed to use it for specific applications. I would not advise it if you needed to install it. I'd only advise it if your application requires Windows. If that's the case, then, of course, you should use it.

The solution is basically an operating system for business. We use it for business purposes. that's it.

The performance of the solution is good.

It's very easy and user-friendly compared to any other operating system.

The stability has been good.

The scalability could be better.

I've been using the solution for the last five years or so. It's been a while at this point.

The stability has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. Even if we ran into trouble, we know we can rely on Microsoft to help us very quickly.

The scalability is limited. They could make it easier to expand.

I'm working with a startup and I would say there are about 50 people or so on the solution at this time. We don't have a big setup.

Likely, we plan to increase it in the future. By how much, I can't say.

Technical support is responsive. We know if we run into issues, they will respond quickly in order to help us resolve the issue. We are quite satisfied with their level of attentiveness. They are helpful.

We did not use a different solution before setting up this product.

I can't speak to the installation procedures. I've never participated in an initial setup and therefore cannot speak to the process or how easy or hard it was.

I can't speak to the maintenance requirements or how many people on staff look after the solution.

I'm not involved in the licensing aspect of the solution, I can't speak to the company's arrangement with Microsoft. I'm not sure how often we pay licensing fees or how much.

We are end-users and customers. 

We use multiple deployment models, including cloud and on-premises. 

I'm using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. It's worked well for us so far.

The solution is mainly used if you have a lot of solutions that integrate with Microsoft products. The usage varies. It depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use it for integrating for web services or integrating for OS with some of your net applications, or your C-Sharp type of environments, then Windows is your go-to.

The product is very good for those that are integrating a lot of Microsoft products. It's great at integrating them.

The initial setup is pretty easy. The deployment is very fast.

The solution needs to be more stable and secure. Linux servers are much better in terms of stability and security and are better at thwarting any form of cyber attack. You stand a better chance if you're on a Linux box if you get hit. Not that they don't get attacked. However, Windows is a high-maintenance operating system. You have to keep it up to date almost all the time, and you also need to have a lab to test your updates as some of the updates could actually break the environment. There is a fine line between keeping it updated and breaking it.

I've been using the solution for what feels like forever. It's easily been seven or eight years.

The stability needs to be improved. You really need to have some sort of sandbox in order to test the updates. While it needs to be kept updated, you also run the risk of breaking your environment. It's a tricky balance. 

There are not so many users on the solution. Users are only using the applications, not so much the servers themselves, however, I would say, from our systems, we've got about five people that have to look after these servers.

The initial setup process has improved over the years. Now it's actually better than it was. I would say that at this point it's straightforward. Within 10 or 15 minutes, you can build a single Windows Server and put it on production.

You can likely handle the implementation yourself. It's easy. I did it myself. I didn't need the assistance of any outside integrator or consultant. 

You do need to pay for a license. It's reasonably priced. Of course, if you are strapped for cash, you can set up a Linux type of server basically for free. It depends on what you need.

I am aware of Linux servers. You can set up an Unbuntu server for free if you want. With Microsoft, you do have to pay. I also find Linux to be more secure. You are less likely to suffer attacks.

We use various versions of the product. Right now, for example, it's a mix between the 2015 and 2019 versions.

Users need to be aware that they need to manage the solution properly. It could be pretty unsafe if you don't manage it properly.

I wouldn't outright recommend the solution per se. It depends on what you want to achieve or if you have the knowledge of what you want to do. I would only recommend it if you have to integrate it with other Microsoft products. There are other server platform products that are much more secure and better than Windows. That said, if you are integrating into a Microsoft environment, yes, Windows is your best option.

In general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's great for Microsoft-heavy environments, however, it could be more secure. 

We are using this solution for all of our on-premise application servers. The latest version is Windows Server 2019, but we are using Windows Server 2016. We haven't felt the need to upgrade it.

It is easy to use, and its performance is good. 

When it comes to virtualization, VMware is a bit more advanced in terms of security. Hyper-V does provide facilities, but it probably has to do a bit more work in terms of encryption. People will normally go for VMware because of the features that it has as a server, particularly the virtualization feature.

I have been using this solution since 2012.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In terms of its usage, the license that we currently have is good enough for us. We will increase its usage, but we don't need to purchase anything in the foreseeable future. We have enough. 

We are also doing a PoC for moving the server that we have at each location to the cloud. After that is done, we will look at the cost and think about migrating to the cloud.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. The duration depends on how big the installation is in terms of the database and the domain you want to use. It can vary from about an hour to a couple of hours with updates, etc. It could be anywhere from 60 minutes to 3 hours.

All of our people are adept at handling its installation.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.