Windows Server Reviews

We are using Windows Server for all of our servers in our organization.

Windows Server is very easy to troubleshoot which has helped our organization save time.

The most useful is the interface and the ergonomic. Windows is very simple.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 20 years.

I have found Windows Server stable.

The optimization of the scalability could improve.

The support from Microsoft is very good.

I have used Windows 10.

Windows Server is very simple to uninstall, administer, and configure.

There is a license to use this solution and the price is reasonable.

I use the solution solely for official purposes. 

I like that the solution is reliable.

Perhaps the scalability could be better. 

I have been using Windows Server for around ten years. 

I have no issues with the stability. I feel the solution to be reliable. 

For my purposes, I don't see any need to scale the solution, although this can possibly be improved. 

I do not have experience with tech support. 

I do not possess information about the technical team required for deployment and maintenance. 

I did not evaluate other operating systems for business before going with Windows Server.

I have no issues with the security features. I consider everything about the solution to be fine. 

There are more than 10,000 people using the solution in my organization.

I rate Windows Server as a nine out of ten. 

We are using Windows Server as an operating system.

The solution is easy to use and it has good performance.

Windows Server can improve in patch management and security.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately three years.

Windows Server is stable.

We have not had any issues that we would need to contact the support.

Our in-house team of two technicians and one manager do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

We have purchased a perpetual license to use the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as our general operating system.

The only thing that is extremely valuable about the solution is that most applications run on it. That's where it brings the value in as we have the server to run our applications.

The product is stable.

I can't think of any improvements off the top of my head. 

There's always room for improvement. However, I'm not in the main IT department, and therefore, I'm not as close to the product as others on my team.

The company has used the solution for quite a while. They were using it well before I arrived at the organization.

The solution seems to be quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

To my knowledge, we have not dealt directly with Microsoft support. We haven't really had a need.

For the most part, we didn't do the initial setup on it. We either buy the product with Microsoft already installed or the system integrator will install it.

We have systems administrators that can maintain the solution. We have a few people on our team that can handle any tasks. 

Occasionally, we have a systems integrator that assists in the installation or it comes pre-installed.

I don't deal with pricing or licensing. I can't speak to how much the licensing costs. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall. We've been overall very pleased with the product.

We deploy our solution in Windows Server when our customers are working in Windows. So it depends on the customer's requirements.

Windows Server could always be more secure.

I've been working with Windows Server off and on for many years. I'm not an end-user, but my company deploys our product from time to time on Windows Server when our customers are using that environment. 

In my experience, Windows Server is pretty stable. Then again, I don't have much experience administrating that environment, so I can't really say. But, so far we haven't had any significant issues with Windows Server.

I think Microsoft support is probably pretty standard, but we haven't had any issues with the operating system that would require a ticket. Most of the time we use basic stuff for the operating system, so we're not facing any significant issues on that side.

Setting up Windows Server is pretty straightforward. It takes anywhere from a few hours to a day. One person can do it if it's not a complex environment. At our organization, it would only take a couple of technical experts. We have 100 plus specialists, consultants, and some field teams as well. 

We have a partnership, so we get all of the licensing through that.

I would rate Windows Server eight out of 10, but that's not an expert opinion. I don't specialize in that operating system.

We are using Windows Server to run applications.

The solution could improve by being more secure.

I have been using Windows Server for a couple of years.

We have been using this solution for a long time and it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We are using virtualization servers, and on average we have installed approximately 200 servers.

We have not needed to contact the support.

The installation is straightforward.

We have two managers doing the maintenance of the solution and a team of five that handles the operations.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

I use the solution for all my servers, for the domain, the file server and other applications with which it is compatible. 

I consider Bixby, DNS, Active Directory, File Servers, Print Servers, Windows Defender and a host of other features to be valuable. 

It would be nice if the the Windows Defender feature would be enhanced to be similar to that of other antiviruses or endpoint features on the market that have whole and individual features and are reliable. At present, Defender cannot be relied on independently. Another endpoint must be installed. It would be better could we rely on the more compatible endpoint features that already accompany Windows.

There should be inbuilt endpoints, such as we find with Linux, Unix, Apple Macintosh and other browsers, which don't require the installation of additional endpoints. 

Patch updates should be less frequent. Instead of them being put out daily, they should be put out weekly or monthly. 

If the storage is not installed on the SSD hard disk, it affects the performance. I am not referring to the processor, RAM or GUI, just the storage. Windows 7 worked fine on the HDD. 

The security should be improved. There are many services on the Windows Server which are enabled or started by default and this is unnecessary. Xbox would be an example of this. These should be removed. Only the minimum number of services needed to get the solution up and running should be included. The existence of services means open board and this opens one up to hackers and attackers. As an IT person, it should not be my role to come up with workarounds for such occurrences. This should be in Microsoft's domain. 

We have been using Windows Server for around 12 years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have never had need for Microsoft's technical support, as the solution is simple and easy to manage and maintain. There are also many communities and a host of references that can be found on the internet. The internet is very helpful and makes finding the relevant answers easy. 

The initial setup is very simple.

The solution is easy to install and to maintain. These processes are user-friendly.

There was no need for help from the vendor. I handled the installation on my own. 

The maintenance that is required involves the patching of the operating system with the latest fixes and security fixes, in addition to the updates which are downloaded by Microsoft.

The price needs to be reduced. Users find it prohibitive. It is exorbitant for the value one gets with the solution. 

There are around 300 users making use of the solution in my organization.

I would certainly recommend the solution to others. I must, as it simplifies the administration and operation. 

I rate Windows Server as a seven out of ten. 

It's there just hosting the SQL Servers and they're not using IIS or some Microsoft-specific technology. We're just hosting some MSSQL.

The solution is very stable.

The product is scalable. 

The solution is pretty easy to install.

I can't speak to any missing features. I don't have any opinion on how to improve the product.

The solution needs container compatibility. Windows Server is not able via Docker, for example.

I've been using the solution for half a year.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution scales well. A company shouldn't have any issues if they want to scale. 

That said, I didn't choose Windows Server for that kind of purpose. It's just there for hosting the SQL Server.

There is one user for the Windows Server itself. Everyone else is using just the database and not the Windows Server.

We haven't dealt with technical support yet. I haven't been in contact with them.

We're also using Linux Servers.

The solution is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

While I didn't handle the installation myself, I would estimate deployment takes about 20 to 30 minutes. 

We have four team members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We had a team member who handled the implementation in-house. We did not need a consultant or integrator. 

I don't have any insights into the licensing. 

We use the solution both on-premises and on the cloud. 

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. I'm neutral on it. It doesn't impress me. It just does what it does. 

I'd advise those considering the solution that if they want to run some Microsoft-specific applications, then there's a lot of choices.