Windows Server Reviews

We use it for infrastructure. 

The capabilities and beta securities are important features. The IP directory is the most valuable feature. 

The user interface needs improvement. 

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years. 

The stability of the solution is improving. I rate the stability a 9 out of 10. 

Three thousand users are using the solution at present. 

The setup installation takes time and the first time to create the image. It might take you a day or so. But once you have the image, hard end, it's easy to deploy because now it's built to own. 

I rate the overall product a 9 out of 10. 

Even though there were changes in my job role or company, I continued to use Windows Server.

In recent times, improvements are required since everything is going to be very granular. If you give access to a particular group or particular user in a particular product line and if you want someone to be a part of that group which has different rights from another team, like an SME, who has more rights compared to an ordinary person, and if a new person or novice person comes in, he will have lesser rights.

Nowadays, everybody wants a user-friendly dashboard and interface. People don't want to know about complex commands and want everything to be available in just a few clicks on the dashboard, where they can see the top trends, what commands are being used, how many logins, and other such related information. The integration process should be smooth if I have Microsoft Active Directory deployed on an on-premises model and I want to connect it to a Microsoft Active Directory on the cloud. Even if you are involved in complex things on the back end, from the front end, the tool should be made easier for users to understand so that they can identify the credentials or keys they use.

If you want to integrate or connect with multiple integration points or ecosystems, then such a process should be something that is easily doable for users. Whether the tool is connected to an API, on-premises model, or cloud, it should be made a process that is easy for users.

I have experience with Windows Server. I have used Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows NT.

When it comes to volume, the performance decreases. I have seen a lot of companies claim that their tools can support a certain amount of capacity, but when we, as users, come near the prescribed capacity limit and are unable to use the product, the company claims that the capacity limit details were given to them by their engineering team. I feel that the engineering team hardly tested the product at the required level to see if the product could support it when the actual production load came to the level they figured out earlier. If a particular product claims to be able to support 1,000 units or users, I see the performance decreasing after the tool is used by 800 or 900 users. If you go for a storage tool, the company claims that its product will support one petabyte, but when users actually have that much capacity, they realize that the product doesn't offer much support.

Around seven people in my company use the product.

My company uses the solution's technical support if we are not able to solve a problem related to the product.

Since migrating to the product from another solution, my company faces challenges in using complex security support when there is a high volume.

If an architecture is complex, the setup phase takes time. If you need to integrate multiple touchpoints, then the setup process takes time.

The deployment process can be done with the help of our company's in-house team.

Speaking about how the product enhances our company's data management capabilities, I would say that based on my long experience with the product, I feel that presently, the solution is totally different. Nowadays, users get Version 21H2 (OS build 22000)​​ Windows 11, which is totally different from its past offerings. Previously, Windows Server fell under a totally different domain or technology, but currently, it's a totally different tool.

I would say that I have stopped using the product at an individual level and have started working with the team in my company that takes care of its deployment and manages the virtual environments.

The tool has been beneficial for our company's IT infrastructure since I feel that Windows is preferred by many for the domain controller and for using SSO authentication along with Active Directory services. With SSO authentication and Active Directory services, users' contact domains and everything are available. It can help users benefit from the tool while sharing authentication, user access, rollback, and other areas.

In terms of security features, users need more in areas like authentication and location.

There is no multi-vendor support to help deal with the area of integration.

I rate the product a seven out of ten.

It's very user-friendly, not like technical stuff like Linux or Unix. It is very easy to go and use. That's one reason we like it.

It's easy to manage core applications and deploy engineers. 

Windows engineers are more affordable than Linux or Unix engineers, so that's another advantage. So, the management costs are much lower for the Windows Server. 

Plus, troubleshooting is straightforward with readily available online resources, so we don't need to raise tickets or wait for help. We can easily search on Google and find the solution on the search engine. 

Windows Server is pretty mature already. They're doing a good job with it.

More security features would be great.

We've been working with Microsoft Server for about 15 years now.

It's very stable. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It's definitely scalable. We have over 9,000 users accessing it regularly. 

We use it extensively in my company. 

We raise a ticket to Microsoft. We have an enterprise agreement, and our in-house team can also solve most issues.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It really doesn't take much time. It took around one to two hours to deploy. 

We handled the deployment in-house. 

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. We start with a server administrator background check, then deploy OS, and finally deliver it to the application servers.

Our technical team has 10 to 12 people, including admins, managers, and engineers.

All my business applications run on it. We're very competitive commercially and technically because of it.

It is not expensive. We have yearly basis licensing. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I'd recommend to make sure you have security checkups before deploying Windows Server. That's the first thing. And you need to consider your licensing options.

Hybrid Cloud

At the office, the main use case for Windows Server involves different functions, for example, file server or firewall and the IIS server, Microsoft Internet Server, Internet Information Services. Basically, we use it as a file server for other applications on the server.

The best features of Windows Server include the interface. The interface is so easy and friendly. I know the Linux environment, but I think the user interface of Windows Server is the best.

Our customers use the Active Directory integration in Windows Server, and our application connects to this Active Directory.

I don't have experience with Windows Server containers and Kubernetes for deploying cloud-native applications.

I cannot provide specific improvements for Windows Server because I don't have extensive experience with Hyper-V operations. I have only completed two tests.

I have 10 to 15 years of experience with Windows Server. I have worked with versions since 2008, 2012, 2016, and the current version 2019.

I don't use or have had any contact with Microsoft support in the last few years.

Neutral

In this case, it saves money.

Regarding the amount saved, I would estimate the resource savings to be about 50 to 70%, approximately 60%.

Regarding pricing or licensing for Windows Server, there are options for CPU or core numbers. There are licensing options for on-premise and other options available in the cloud.

I think the pricing is expensive because if you know how to administer or manage Linux, a file server is cheaper to use. However, if you know how to administer Linux, then Windows Server is still the best option for its friendly interface.

I am familiar with Hyper-V technology but I tested it some years ago. I am currently using Oracle VM VirtualBox, and the other option is VMware.

I am referring to Hyper-V technology within Windows Server.

We are a Lenovo administrator and purchased a Lenovo server five or six years ago.

In the company, we have five servers with Windows Server and we are users of Microsoft 365, and we use other Microsoft Office software.

The main cloud provider for Windows Server is Nexus.

Some customers use enterprise version, while others are standard version users.

We have services for other companies in different business sectors including finance, education, and manufacturing.

We are not managing the Active Directory services; we are just users for this security. Our application connects to the customer's Active Directory and validates credentials with this service.

We have Windows Defender on laptops without needing any other tools.

We have sensitive information at our organization, and we maintain a backup on Amazon for this information.

For documentation, I find resources on the internet, YouTube, and Microsoft Docs, as there is extensive information available online.

I receive help from colleagues in the office, as some collaborators and employees manage this information and administration.

My company acts as resellers for Microsoft. For selling licenses for Windows Server or other Microsoft products, we contact Nexus, which is the big partner for Microsoft.

I would rate Windows Server eight out of ten.

On-premises

Other

It is used for day to day purposes. 

The simplicity of the solution is the most valuable aspect. 

They could make it more company-specific to some of the tools that we use.

I have experience using Windows Server. 

The stability is very high. 

Close to a thousand users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is an expensive solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Public Cloud

Windows Server serves as the foundation of our infrastructure, handling user authentication, security, and file sharing. It also supports other essential tools like SQL for database management, SharePoint for collaboration, and interfaces with communication servers for seamless integration with our landlines.

The most valuable features of Windows Server for us are scalability, hardware compatibility, and support for various hardware interfaces like communication boards. Additionally, its seamless integration with Windows mobile devices proved highly beneficial for our operations.

One area for improvement in Windows Server is the basic administration tools and scripts, which have become less reliable and functional over time. Restoring the simplicity and effectiveness of these tools would greatly enhance the user experience and efficiency of server management.

I have been working with Windows Server for over 20 years.

Windows Server has been extremely stable for us. We have experienced no blue screens or crashes and often achieved an uptime of 2,000 to 3,000 days without any issues whatsoever.

Around 5,000 users work with Windows Server in our organization.

Microsoft's technical support for Windows Server has been lacking, with rare responses even with premium support. As a result, administrators often rely on each other for assistance, sharing knowledge and troubleshooting together. I would rate the support as a one out of ten.

Negative

Setting up Windows Server is straightforward, usually taking around half an hour with just one person. No extra resources are needed for deployment.

Windows Server offers excellent value for money, particularly when compared to alternatives. Despite price increases, it remains a cost-effective choice.

The pricing for Windows Server has increased over the years and is now tied to Azure pricing. Previously, a Windows Server with two processors cost around two 154 euros annually, but now it is estimated to be around 3,000 to 4,000 euros for the same configuration.

Windows Server was crucial for our business as it offered scalability, allowing us to seamlessly upgrade servers as our company expanded rapidly. It served as the backbone for all our tools and applications, providing a unified platform for our operations.

Windows Server's security features have significantly improved our IT security posture. While occasional vulnerabilities arose, Microsoft promptly addressed them, providing clear instructions on mitigation. Consequently, we have had no security incidents in over 20 years, thanks to proactive measures and effective security management.

Managing Windows Server in a multi-server environment used to be relatively easy, but in recent years, it has become increasingly challenging due to the removal of useful tools and Microsoft's focus on cloud services. 

Integrating Windows Server with Azure was initially challenging due to limited documentation and some synchronization issues, but it became smoother over time with the help of user experiences and shared knowledge. Integration with AWS for specific tasks was less problematic.

I would recommend Windows Server to others. Overall, I would rate it as a nine out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for hosting websites. For the many roles my colleagues and I played in the organization, Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server 2019 were useful.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that every Microsoft product is scalable, flexible, secure, and available on a certain budget.

The UI of the product is an area of concern where improvements are needed to make it more user-friendly. Vulnerabilities are an area for Microsoft to look into so that improvements can be made. From a security perspective, sometimes, malware attacks and hackers take advantage of the tool's vulnerabilities. There is a need to have updates in the product to fill in the vulnerability gaps.

I have ten to eleven years of experience with Windows Server. I have been using Windows Server since 2013.

It is a stable solution.

Users can increase the hardware or virtual environment and memory, and it is scalable enough to meet the company's requirements.

Everybody in the organization uses the product. The HR department uses the solution for storage purposes and the website hosting from where the internal applications are made available for use within the company. The developers in our company also developed certain applications that can be hosted on Windows Server. In general, the solution has around 500 users in my company.

My company can increase the number of users of the product in the future, especially if we achieve the capability that can allow us to scale up.

My company did not use the support offered by the product since we have a technical expert who handles the server in our company.

The product's initial setup phase is simple.

For the product's installation phase, you just download the server on Hyper-V or any bare metal hypervisor and install the solution by clicking the next options provided.

The solution was deployed on an on-premises model. The solution can also be used on the cloud services offered by GCP or AWS. In short, the product is deployed on a hybrid cloud model.

If everything is ready and in place, meaning if the prerequisites for the deployment are met within a particular environment, then the installation process takes around an hour to be completed.

The product can be deployed with the help of our company's in-house team.

Only if I consider the fact that my company's technical team is capable enough to handle the vulnerabilities can I say that the ROI is good.

There is a need to make payments towards the licensing charges of the product since we used to purchase licenses for consumption in our company. Microsoft used to provide my company with the keys that can be directly put in to activate the server. If I look into the tasks my company does with the product, I would say that the tool is not that expensive.

There are only two or three options, like Linux or Unix, that can be considered against Windows Server.

My company did not use the support offered by the product since we have a technical expert who handles the server in our company. Every organization uses Windows Server. Most people opt for Windows when it comes to servers since no one can do any work without servers.

The tool is scalable, flexible, easy to use, user-friendly, handy, and easy to maintain, and authentication is good. The product can be integrated with any solution.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

On-premises

It's used for a variety of things, like Active Directory, DNS, cloud shares, and application hosting. We also have some third-party applications running on it and web services.

It would be nice if it was more user-friendly, especially for migrating applications.

I've been working with Microsoft for about 12 years now, since December 2004.

It's quite stable, probably an eight out of ten. It really depends on the specific business needs and applications running on it.

It can be scalable to a certain extent, but it depends on the resources you have available and the applications you're running. We have around a thousand end users using this solution.

I've worked with Unix and Linux before, but it was a long time ago.

The initial setup is quite easy for me, especially since I've been using it for so long. It usually takes just a few steps, depending on whether it's deployed in the cloud or on-premises.

We handle it in-house, no need for external help.

We've seen value in Windows Server because the systems work smoothly without any problems. And the additional benefit is the support we receive.

My main advice is to understand the business first. Then, see if the solution will work on that platform. Also, check which applications it supports. If they're using data and Microsoft, in some cases, we use applications verified by Microsoft. You can be sure they're compatible with Windows and find support from both ends. So, understand the business in terms of its goals, turnaround time, risk factors, and skill requirements. Consider if they have enough skilled people to support it, both for daily use and when issues arise. You need to know these things before making a decision.

Not every time is Microsoft the right choice. Some systems or platforms they want to run may not be supported by Microsoft. So, it's crucial to understand the business requirements first; then you know which platform or solution works best for you.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud