Windows Server Reviews

The most valuable feature is its stability. We have had no problems with Windows Server and we plan to continue using it in the future.

This product has very good features.

I would like to see better integration with other operating systems. For example, when I migrate from services from Linux or Unix to Windows Server, it's hard to do. I expect it to be easier.

We began using Windows Server between 10 and 12 years ago.

This is a scalable product. We have more than 150 people in 20 different groups who use it. In my personal group, we have four people.

We have not faced any problems that we couldn't solve, so we have not needed to contact technical support.

I have worked with other operating systems such as Linux and Unix, and I find that they are more complicated.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes between two and four hours to deploy, depending on the type of service.

We installed it ourselves and we have an IT staff of about six people that use it regularly.

We have a corporate deal with Microsoft and pay licensing fees annually. It is an expensive product.

Overall, this is a good product that is easy to use, it has very good features, and I can recommend it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our use cases are usually data and analytics. We are building platforms for our clients to exploit their data. We are building the data curation. 

Also, the analytics for the front end, and the presentation of the data for the end-user.

The features that I like the most are that it's easy to use and the integration.

In terms of support, it's pretty complicated when you have to study the documentation.

It would definitely be helpful if the documentation could be more straightforward.

I have been working with Windows Server for eight years.

We are usually working with the latest version.

Windows Server is stable.

It's a scalable product. The number of users depends on our customers. Some customers have as many as 50 users while some others have 15 users. It really depends on the clients, but we're not in the thousands of end-users.

The technical support is pretty good. We have a good relationship with our vendor's specialists. We mostly work with Microsoft and some other vendors.

Overall, they are supportive.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It took approximately a month to deploy, but it depends on the number of installations we have. Some are larger and some smaller.

We need two or three staff members to deploy it. They are PDAs, they are infrastructure people who have the tech knowledge. 

We have a team in our organization that we call specialists to configure the server. They are tech-savvy, and they know all about the backend.

We are integrators.

There are licensing costs for this solution, although it's not expensive. Microsoft is relatively inexpensive compared to other database platforms.

I would recommend this solution to others who want to use Windows Server.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our different applications.

We appreciate how many different applications can be on the server at any given time.

The solution is easy to learn. It doesn't take much training.

The implementation is simple.

The graphic interface is very nice.

The technical updates need to be improved upon. How they are delivered isn't ideal.

Technical support in and of itself needs to be better. The experience we have isn't very good. It's hard to get timely answers to our questions.

The system needs to offer better integration capabilities.

The solution's availability could be better in future releases.

We've subscribed to Windows for many years now. It's been at least over two, but probably longer.

The solution is stable. We don't have problems with reliability. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. We don't experience bugs either.

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

Currently, our organization has 3,000 users.

We may not continue with Windows. We're moving towards graduating to Linux instead.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and I can say that we are not satisfied with their level of service. They are slow to respond. They need to act faster to get us the help we need.

We have always used some form of Windows products before we began implementing Windows Server. We originally decided to implement the server as we felt it was simple and easy to use. It also had a good graphic interface.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It was rather simple. In terms of people getting trained on the system, it shouldn't take up too much time so a company can get up and running quickly. That said, the time it takes to deploy is directly linked to the training. However long it takes to get your team comfortable with it, that's how long it will take to deploy.

We had an IT staff of around ten people that assisted with the implementation. We also has a team that handles any maintenance as necessary.

As the implementation process was pretty straightforward, we handled it internally ourselves. We didn't need an external consultant or integrator to help us.

We've looked into Linux. We may move over to that in the future.

We're just a Windows customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

Overall, from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine.

I'm an ICT system engineer and we are customers of Microsoft. 

The most valuable part about nowadays Windows is PowerShell. They got serious and implemented a real console which was always lacking in Windows. 

Compared to Linux, Windows requires a lot of restarts. If you get a CU update every month, you have to restart. Linux is better in that regard. Sometimes the PowerShell has an overly complicated syntax. 

I'd like to see some more features in the Windows administration kit - the WAC. It's this new product you got on the server and if you have a website you can manage your entire machine. It's a pretty good product, but it's still lacking some features like reporting because it's always a problem to have a dashboard for all your Windows machines, because Microsoft wants you to buy SCCM and all their monitoring services. The WAC is pretty nice but it still lacks some features. It would be great if they would develop it further.

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

It's pretty stable compared to the old Windows version, except sometimes there are problems with the CU updates. Maybe they should consider not employing so many updates and instead focus on the quality of the updates. 

From the numbers of CPU you can pop into your machine, it's really scalable, but you need to be aware that Windows still has problems with a lot of CPUs. Managing CPUs would likely be better in Windows compared to Linux. 

The initial setup is really straightforward, especially nowadays if you're using a WSUS server together with Microsoft deployment, you'll get it just perfect. It's faster than setting up the Linux box. 

I would recommend this solution but it depends on the software you are going to use it on.  When it's about a high performance web server, I would prefer Linux because you would choose to stick to engines as a web server and this product does not run very well on Windows, so you'd end up with Linux anyway.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We use Windows Server to host all of our Windows-specific applications, such as Active Directory. We also use it for our systems that are running Microsoft SQL Server, since it used to be dependent on Windows. That is no longer necessary because we have an option to run it on Linux, as well.

Our infrastructure includes systems from Microsoft, Linux, and IBM.

Windows Server is well-integrated into what we do. It even integrates well with remote working tools like Teams.

The most valuable feature is Active Directory.

Microsoft Exchange is very valuable for us.

I am quite satisfied with the user interface.

Recently, they added a new terminal window where you can SSH into Linux machines easily. The Linux packages that are now installed with the Microsoft Store can support a miniature version of Ubuntu and Linux integration tools. When installed, it can easily connect remotely to other operating systems.

Better integration with more platforms would be useful.

I have been using Windows Server for perhaps 15 years.

It is easy to scale up and scale down Microsoft products. Expanding can be done by adding more servers, or just adding resources to a single server. For example, if I want more processing power then I can add RAM or upgrade the CPU. Then if the load on a single server becomes overwhelming then more nodes can be added.

Another case where adding more nodes is done is to have replication between data centers for Exchange or Active Directory.

We have approximately 2,000 users that access their email and we plan to continue using it in the future.

Once in a while, we contact Microsoft for support on the product and they have responded well. There have been cases where the problem is too complicated to easily correct over the phone, so they sent a local technical from their support team to assist us in troubleshooting.

Overall, I would say that the support is quite good.

We have always used Windows Server, although, with respect to email and Exchange, we switched to Windows from another product.

Setting up Windows Server is quite straightforward and easy to follow, compared to other operating systems. The GUI makes it very easy to install both the operating system and applications.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the applications that are running. In most cases, we're deploying a single application and it will take perhaps a day or two. If we are deploying infrastructure like Exchange then it may take a week or two weeks to set up the whole Exchange infrastructure.

We used a local Microsoft certified consultant to assist us in setting up our servers. We had internal skills as well, so it was quite easy to follow.

We have a team of ten system administrators who handle maintenance, although they are not specific to Windows Server. Rather, they take care of all of the products in our data center. Given that we also have Linux and IBM infrastructure, I would say that we have three personnel who take care of our Microsoft systems.

This is quite a good product and one that I recommend. I wouldn't recommend anything that does not integrate well with remote working tools, as most people are now working remotely. We are able to manage our systems from home.

Overall, deployment is quite straightforward, the technical support is quite good, and we are happy with the product. That said, nothing is perfect.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The main features that we are using are active directory, domain, and DNS. 

They can simplify the utilization and control of the system when you have a lot of setups. They provided something called Windows Center or Control Center in version 2019. It's a free tool that comes with the Windows Server. You can install it on your desktop and use it. 

This tool simplifies the control and monitoring of all servers. If I have 200 servers, I don't need to log in to each one to configure it. I can manage them from this tool. However, this tool needs quite a lot of improvements. It's difficult to use, and they need to improve it. 

I have been using this solution since 1990. Currently, we are using the latest version. We have the cloud and on-premises deployments. 

It is good.

We never contacted them.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took around 15 minutes. Usually, on the server, we don't do the physical installation. When we install initially, we install an image. You just create an image, and that's it. After that, we don't need to do an installation.

There are only two options in the market: Windows and Linux. It depends on your application. If you have an application that requires Windows, you go with Windows Server. Otherwise, you go for Linux. There are not enough choices to choose from and decide. 

They had an issue in version 2016 related to the slowness of update management, but they already solved it in version 2019. It was impacting batch management. The time that Windows required was a lot, but it was fixed in version 2019. That was the only issue we faced in Windows Server. Other than that, it's fine.

I would advise on the version, not on the solution itself, that is, whether to use Windows Server or not. If Windows Server is a required solution, you have to take it. It's not an option. However, I would advise to not use version 2016. 

I would rate Windows Server a ten out of ten. If your application is required on Windows, it's not comparable to any other solution. If an application can work with Windows or Linux, for sure, I'm going with Linux.

We have our applications on the servers.

I like the fact that Windows Server is user friendly.

With Microsoft, there are always bugs, and the stability could be improved.

We have been using Windows Server for a long time. We have different versions: 2016, 2012, and 2008 as well.

It's more or less stable. Sometimes, there are problems with bugs.

It is a scalable solution.

The initial setup is easy. It took about an hour without including configuration. One person handled the deployment. 

We used an in-house team.

I would recommend this solution and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We are using Windows Server to run our business application.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

The stability of the Windows Server is good.

The scalability of Windows Server is okay, but it could be better.

The initial setup of Windows Server is simple, and the process took less than half an hour.

We did the implementation of Windows Server internally. We have one person that does the maintenance and support of this solution.

Windows Server needs to be more flexible with the minimum requirements with the license and options. We are on an annual subscription to use the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

We use Windows Server for endpoint security because there is an application we have working on it called Trend Micro.

Windows Server performance is very good for backups.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately six months.

Windows Server is a stable solution.

The scalability of Windows Server is very good.

We have five people in my organization using this solution. We plan to increase the usage in the future.

The support we have received from Microsoft has been quick.

The initial setup is simple for some but difficult for others.

We have two technicians that do the maintenance and deployment of the Windows Server.

I paid for a license to use Windows Server. It is a subscription-based license and it is purchased annually.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We are using Windows Server as a cloud server.

I have found Windows Server to be easy to use and the performance to be good.

I have been using Windows Server for many years.

The stability of the Windows Server has been good.

We have been using the same Windows Server release for years, we haven't needed to buy another one.

We use Windows Server primarily as a file server and as a mail server and has been working well with 20 users.

We do our own technical support within the company.

The implementation process for Windows Server was fine, we did not have any problems. It took us less than a day to complete the implementation.

We have a team that handles the implementation.

The price of the solution should be less expensive. There is an annual subscription to use the solution.

The solution has fulfilled its requirements.

There are many operating systems that people can use, such as Linux and Windows Server. They all work well for their purpose.

I rate Windows Server a six out of ten.