Windows Server Reviews

We use this solution for common management and group policy management. Within our organization, there are between 300 to 400 people using this solution and we intend to expand and continue using Windows Server in the future.

The user interface could be simplified. Sometimes I feel like there are too many things going on at once. It should be easier to navigate and find the functions that I am trying to implement. 

I have been using this solution for roughly 20 years.

Windows Server is reasonably stable.

The technical support is okay. Sometimes Microsoft cannot answer our questions quickly or precisely. There are times when we need to trouble-shoot on our own.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had it fully installed within one or two hours.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

I primarily use Windows Server as a hypervisor, running Hyper-V.

I would like to see the security features improved in the future.

I have been using Windows Server for about 15 years.

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

There are more than 10,000 users for the services that we have running.

I have not needed to contact technical support for Windows Server.

We only use Microsoft products, so we did not use another product before this one.

The initial setup with Microsoft products is always straightforward. The length of time for deployment depends on the services that are being implemented.

In some cases, I use a consultant to assist with deployment. However, this is not always the case because our in-house team can also do it.

We have about five people in our team for deployment.

We did not evaluate options by other vendors. Microsoft is a well-known brand and the only company to use for some services.

This is a good product and one that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use Windows Server for Citrix desktops and domain controllers.

The domain controller features are useful.

The price should be reduced.

I have been using Windows Server for 10 years.

Windows server is a stable product and we will continue to use it.

Scalability has not been a problem. In one of the jobs I was doing, there were 700 users.

I have never had to log a case with Microsoft so I don't have any experience with technical support.

I have always used just only Windows.

The installation is straightforward and it takes about 20 minutes to deploy.

It is a manual installation and I handle the deployment myself.

The licensing fees are expensive.

This is a product that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Windows Server is very easy to use.

The command-line interface should be improved. Using the command line is less-resource intensive so we use it sometimes. The additional RAM and CPU usage needed by the GUI is something that we were not used to after using Linux. When I switched to the command line, I found it more difficult than Linux.

I have been working with Windows Server for several years, since 2013.

Windows Server is a stable operating system and I haven't had any problems with it in that regard. For example, I had ransomware on my computer and even when I was logged in as an administrator, it did not affect the server.

I have not needed to contact the Microsoft technical support team.

I am currently learning about different Linux servers and I am finding it very difficult compared to Windows Server.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for the deployment of virtual machines on Hyper-V.

We moved from having more than twelve physical servers to only five, reducing costs and improving the infrastructure during the process.

The most valuable feature of this solution is Hyper-V Live Migration for Critical applications.

It would be great to have support for direct USB recognition for the virtual machines. This will allow us to easily move files from a USB drive connected to our host to one of our VM's without having to mount and share a drive trough the network to move the files.

We started virtualizing servers to reduce the number of physical servers and to optimize the data center. We started with standalone installations of the Hyper-V server and synchronized with our virtual machine. After that, we built a cluster and all of the VMs were hosted in that environment.

The organization spent a lot of money buying a large number of physical machines, which made up the workspace. With a physical machine, it is easy to incur damage with hardware faults, such as the loss of a disk or another component. With a cluster environment, we obtain an HA solution.

We like all of the features connected with sharing resources, typical of a Hyper-V cluster manager. Several of these further stand out, including:

• The ability to Hot Add resources to the VM.
• The ability to work on the physical server without disconnecting services.
  
• Provides workspaces for the entire organization with fewer resources.

One area that needs improvement is the management console. It seems very easy to use but it is not as powerful as those of other vendors, such as VMware. Their solution allows for operation in a more granular and simpler way. For example, there is a wizard to migrate a VM from one node to another, or from one datastore to another.

Hyper-V and the updated PowerShell are among the best features that I have taken advantage of.

I have been able to support more VMs on Windows 2016 than on 2012 R2, using the same hardware. Additionally, the improvements in live migrations have been a plus in availability.

We plan to take advantage of the improved storage replication functionality in Q1 2018.

Some of the elements of the Windows Server UI from 2012 R2 are better than what is found in 2016, especially the patch management. While it is nice to have the configuration options more centralized than in earlier versions of Windows, the patch/update options in Windows Server 2016 are less flexible than those of earlier versions Windows, and downloads (from Microsoft Update or WSUS) can be more finicky.

One year.

None.

No. The stability has been stellar.

So far, scalability has not been a problem.

Customer Service:

We have not needed to use Microsoft support, but have utilized online forums for support. (We do have Microsoft support available.)

Technical Support:

We have not needed to use Microsoft support, but have utilized online forums for support. (We do have Microsoft support available.)

Not applicable.

Very straightforward deployment.

In-house.

ROI was not calculated for this project.

Pay close attention to the licensing, as there is a focus on core licensing under Windows 2016.

None.

Windows 2016 continues the trend of solid, stable, high-performing Windows Server products from Microsoft.

Speed and ease with integrating into Microsoft Azure AD environment, security, being able to log in the 'Hello' service.

In my small development environment, speed and security are important, we actually make use of the Microsoft's Edge browser -- which is getting better with each update. Simplified management of Windows 10 machines is also nice.

Intrusive 'You have updates' notification can be annoying -- as it blocks the middle of the screen, but this can be turned off.

When setting a new machine up, users should be given a bit more of information in regards to creating a Microsoft account vs a local account, as being unaware of this can cause a user some confusion down the track if they install an application that needs 'local' user credentials to function.

Since it was released.

No, Windows 10 has deployed onto legacy systems fine.

Very stable, Haven't had any issues with instability whatsoever.

Being a Desktop operating system, scalability is really a function of the resources of the desktop or VM it's running in.

I'm on a 16GB system with a 500GB SSD and I can run multiple VM's on VirtualBox, client sessions, multiple displays and so forth without any issues at all.

Very good, Microsoft makes it easy to get most things set up fairly easily.

Very high, I had the need to contact Microsoft customer support on a matter, and their engineer was able to remotely assume control of the screen (with my permission and after following instructions) and in a few minutes had resolved the problem.

Windows 7, which had become old, bloated with patches and security updates, and was generally just getting slow.

Very straightforward. So far, the installer has identified all of our hardware and everything is running.

In-house.

Difficult to calculate, improved efficiency, less time to get things done, less downtime...can't put an exact dollar amount on it, but our environment is more efficient with Windows 10 installed.

I can't see any reason why anyone would want to downgrade a new machine (if that's even possible now) to Windows 7...

We looked at Remaining on Windows 7, but decided we would make the move to Windows 10.

TEST your applications, especially legacy applications. Most things work just fine on Windows 10, but very old applications that may have just worked under windows 7 may encounter problems.

If that's the case and there's an application you absolutely must have, then consider setting up a dedicated VM with Windows 7 on it just for that application or look at replacing the ancient software.

We only had one old 90's era application that wouldn't run on Windows 10, so we just replaced it and dealt with the change.

The benefits of moving to Windows 10 far outweigh the costs of replacing some old applications (that are probably no longer supported and may have serious security issues).