Windows Server Reviews

Windows Server has been idle for a while, but it is quite stable for running your application, specifically web-based applications, databases, or any front-end applications. And it's in the industry you are used to, along with Flex. Newer and enhanced versions are being introduced because Windows has recently started to design as per the cloud environment so that it can integrate well with Azure Cloud. If you are running the Windows Server and SQL on Azure, you will get the benefits of saving costs and licenses. Also, it can be tightly integrated with cloud services so that it can manage the patching, backup, and everything end to end if you talk about the life cycle of an operating system.

If Windows could make the OS part lighter, especially starting and restarting the Windows Server, which needs to be quick, then it would be great since this is an area where the tool lacks a bit. The tool should also offer more security.

I have experience with Windows Server for more than ten years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Windows has had a long journey since it started off in 1998 and now it has been almost 22 years. From the last decade, the tool has improved a lot, and offers good stability. There are no errors, and problems coming up in the tool like how it used to come up in the initial days.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The product's initial setup phase is pretty straightforward and simple without any challenges.

For the on-prem version, you need to go for a perpetual license. An organization can buy licenses in a bundle. If I am planning to run ten operating systems, I will buy a pack of ten licenses, which will be cost-effective for me. If one goes bad, I can get another one by just putting it to use the same license, meaning I can reuse the license if something goes bad on any of the PCs. When it goes to the cloud, I can purchase the monthly licenses from Windows.

In terms of the product's abilities associated with virtualization, I would say that it is actually the biggest leap in technologies when, earlier, whatever applications you needed to run, you had to spin up a physical server. When the virtualization started happening, you could run multiple servers on one physical server. Multiple VMs can have different applications and tiers. Virtualization is the best thing that happened, and a lot of people and organizations use it.

The best part of the security feature in the tool is the firewall because it is the first line of defense for the operating system since you can lock down your OS to a certain level and only allow one or two ports for whatever communication you want, and the rest can all be blocked for safety purposes. You keep getting security updates every month or every second Tuesday so that you can keep your environment up to date and safe from outside malicious activities. Microsoft is always on top of security updates, and the tool is very careful to keep the environment safe.

Speaking about the benefits of AD in Windows Server, I would say that AD is actually the backbone of any organization. AD was, in fact, my first love. When I started working with technologies, I was baffled to see how strong and amazing the technology AD had, how it would let me spin up users, groups, and objects, and how you manage those objects because those are very important areas. In any organization, the most important thing is the security of your identity. For any user who is trying to access any of the computers in the organization, it is very important for the company to authenticate and authorize the user to ensure the identity of the person. He or she has to move with the proper way of writing a username and the right password. There are a lot of security features in the tool. If a person is trying to enter a system with some fake passwords, then there are lockouts. After three incorrect passwords, the account gets logged out, and in such a manner, you can secure that entity.

The tool's integration feature with the existing IT ecosystem has been easy. The integrations are absolutely fine because Windows is designed to allow for easy integrations, even though Linux is also getting integrated easily these days. Mostly, Windows carries a GUI. For users, it is easier to maintain Windows Server than some other tools.

I would just suggest others always try to use the latest OS or operating system for servers and laptops because the latest servers come with new features and security enhancements, which can keep one's environment safe. If one weak PC or one weak OS is there in your environment and if it is outdated and not getting security updates, then it can be hacked, or there could be some virus that can try to harm your network and infect other operating systems. It is very important that each and every operating system is up to date.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We mainly worked with Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2016 as they were the go-to operating systems for applications like Excel Server and various other software. We occasionally used Linux servers, especially for databases and specific applications, but most of our work was on Windows servers.

When we deploy this operating system, we're primarily focused on managing virtual environments. There are different parts like the directory, data storage, and CPU usage which are really useful. We also compare it to other parts like group policy, all of which are related to users. Currently, I find that users are very involved when it comes to these applications or servers on the two other links.

I believe that Windows Server can be somewhat vulnerable compared to other options, but its security can be improved. I also think that the setup process can be somewhat complex, depending on the applications involved.

Regarding the security features of Windows Server, while it offers some built-in security measures, it's not sufficient to solely rely on them. Additional external devices such as firewalls may be needed for comprehensive protection. Deploying antivirus and firewall software on the server is advisable, but having an external firewall adds an extra layer of security.

When migrating to Windows Server from previous versions or other platforms, noticeable improvements were observed, particularly in the utilization of graphical interfaces. Windows offers robust graphical guidance, especially compared to Linux or other systems like Acronis, making it easier to navigate and manage various functionalities.

I have used Windows Server for a couple of months.

I found it somewhat lacking in responsiveness at times.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate Windows Server around a 5 or 6.

When it comes to recommending Windows Server to others, it depends on the critical applications being used. If you're installing an Oracle database, for example, I wouldn't recommend Windows Server. In such cases, Linux or similar platforms might be more suitable. However, for tasks closely related to Windows environments, like utilizing Microsoft products extensively, Windows Server could be a faster and more compatible option, especially when it comes to firewall capabilities.

I use Microsoft System Center to manage our Windows Server.

My organization benefits from the use of the product since it is a tool that offers security while being user-friendly and easy to manage.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance. My company currently uses Microsoft SCOM to monitor the performance of Windows Server. My company wishes to have some applications on QRadar or log management tools like ELK.

The product has certain shortcomings related to security capability in the area of incident response, making it the tool's component where improvements are required. My company uses QRadar to resolve our server-related issues quickly.

I have been using Windows Server for twenty years.

It is a stable solution. More than 15,000 people in my company use the solution.

My company has no plans to increase the use of the solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is deployed on the cloud model.

To start the deployment process in our company, we first need to make a request to the IT team. After that, the IT team looks at the requirements and deploys the server. In our company, we have a system to follow the deployment process.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of minutes since our company already has some idea and image about Windows Server. My team deploys the product in a couple of minutes every time there is a requirement in a department that is associated with our company.

Around three people in my company are required to take care of the product's deployment and maintenance processes.

My company has an enterprise agreement with Microsoft. I feel that the price of the product is okay.

Windows Server helps our company to install a virtual environment.

Speaking about the beneficial features of Windows Server for our company's IT infrastructure, I would say that my company uses Microsoft Active Directory, along with some other services like Office 365 and the cloud services offered by Microsoft.

There are product security updates, which serve as a security feature for our company.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it, but they need to use it based on their requirements.

My company did not face any problems while using the integration capabilities of the product with the existing systems in our environment.

The only problem with Windows Server stems from the area revolving around the software lifecycle since our company has to apply the latest version to our current system every couple of years.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use Windows Server for Active Directory (AD). We use the solution to manage user data and access through Active Directory. We use Windows Server to host and configure the mail servers.

Since Windows Server has a graphical user interface (GUI), it is easy to use and implement the services that we are using.

Compared to Linux, the solution is a bit difficult to deploy. The solution should have a faster deployment.

I have been using Windows Server for more than five to six years.

The solution has good stability.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 50 employees are using the solution in our organization. The solution is used extensively in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

The solution's installation process is a bit lengthy and hectic. It took more time than the Linux operating system used to take. Our in-house team follows the documentation part, and we do the deployment ourselves from scratch.

We use only the license versions of Windows Server.

We currently have our own data center where we host the services. Since we are a government-based R&D organization, we do not trust any cloud platform services like Azure, Google, and AWS.

We had to configure all the services and features that were available. We had to look for additional plugins that we could create and integrate for the security of our organization. I would recommend Windows Server for an organization dependent on the GUI part. Otherwise, I recommend using Linux servers.

The hardware requirement for Windows Server is very large compared to Linux. For that, we need to use or deploy the maximum hardware that is necessary.

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.