Windows Server Reviews

We use Windows Server to manage Active Directory.

The product is easy to use and adapt. It is known for GUI.

They could provide a lot of patches for the platform.

We have been using Windows Server for 10 to 12 years.

I need to ensure patches are updated on time. I rate its stability an eight out of ten. It could be improved.

We have 400 Windows Server users in our organization. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

It is an easy-to-install product. It requires two engineers to manage the infrastructure and takes three to four hours to complete.

We take help from third-party integrators, consultants, and resellers for implementing the product.

We have purchased Windows Server’s yearly license. I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

I advise others to ensure updating patches regularly for Windows Server. It is a flexible product. I rate it a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for mass storage and application storage.

DFS is the most valuable feature of the product. The product is very transparent. Any changes to the underlying file servers are not visible to users. It is a huge benefit for us. 

The GUI is familiar. Anyone who doesn't know how to use a file server can be taught to use the product in a few minutes.

The solution should improve its stability. After some updates, one of the KBs faced issues while booting. On boot, it started boot looping randomly.

The solution is very rigid. Whenever we want to make changes that are slightly out of the ordinary, we have to do them manually.

I have been using the solution for four and a half years.

The solution is definitely scalable. Around 1,500 people are currently using the solution in our organization.

It is quite easy to maintain the product. We have deployed the solution across the whole company.

I have used all the versions from 2003 to 2022. You can change the host and IPs and switch on the whole configuration. The users do not notice anything as long as DFS is active and the file system is the same. The product is a good choice for small-scale environments. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

Currently, we are trying to use the solution as the host for a specific system. Another use case is as NFS files sharing space.

The solution is deployed on-premise.

From the very beginning, I have been using a Windows-based OS so for me, it's very easy because it's GUI compared to command line or something Linux-based. I prefer GUI, so Windows is very good for me.

The only thing that could be improved is the price.

I just installed the evaluation because I got the license product key, so I need to activate it. But to my surprise, I cannot activate the evaluation version so I need to recreate the VMs using the ISO that Microsoft gives to me.

I have been using this solution for around two years.

We haven't had any issues with stability. We have about eight people using the solution.

I haven't had any issues with the scalability because I'm using virtualization.

When I wanted to activate the Windows Server using the product key that I have just purchased, I used Microsoft support in Malaysia. They wanted me to forward the problem to the Microsoft support machine. It's very fast and they will respond even at night.

I haven't used any other solutions because my IT career began with using Windows.

The solution was easy to install. It didn't take longer than 10 minutes. We have two engineers for maintenance.

The license is a one-time purchase. The cost could be less expensive. We have education pricing, so it's okay now because we pay less than other agencies.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. I recommend this solution.

Our primary use case of Windows Server is running our business applications, such as ERP. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. 

One of the most valuable features of Windows Server is that it is easy to use. Also, with Windows, everything is integrated. 

Windows Server could be improved with cheaper licensing costs. 

We have been using Windows Server for more than 10 years. 

Windows Server is stable, and we have had no problems. 

The scalability of this solution seems good. 

We have more than 150 people in our organization using this solution. We don't currently have plans to increase our usage. 

Before implementing Windows Server, we used Oracle Linux. We switched to Windows Server because, when we upgraded, the integration was good with the FieldServer. 

For installation, 2016 took even less time than 2012. '16 takes maybe fifteen to twenty minutes, maximum. I can handle the installation myself. 

For deployment and maintenance, we have a team of one or two people. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

To use Windows Server, we pay for licensing yearly. The licensing cost should be cheaper—it is expensive and should not cost that much. 

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten. I would recommend Windows Server to others, but it depends on their requirements. We can meet our requirements with Windows because we have a Microsoft ERP. It has good performance with the Windows Server, which is why we use this solution. 

Our primary use case of Windows Server is application support. We have applications such as SAP-based or web-based solutions that we use through Citrix-based solutions. We deploy it on Azure. 

A valuable feature of Windows Server has been the performance. We have done all the redundancy and fault tolerance things to protect our servers and, so far, so good.

As for additional features, we are very interested in the new feature released by Windows: Azure Virtual Desktop. We are currently exploring it so that instead of people depending on their own desktop, we could work on Azure Virtual Desktop. Integration with Azure Virtual Desktop would be cool. 

We recently began using Windows Server. 

This solution is stable and we're satisfied with the performance. 

We enabled scalability, but haven't scaled it much. We have a limited set of users, so the scalability feature is not really in use. 

There are many end users, but there are less than 10 people managing this solution. We don't currently have plans to increase our usage because we are happy with the current capacity. We may decide to increase our usage later, but it depends on the solution and new requirements. 

We have contacted Microsoft's technical support. We used to have weekly and monthly meetings with them, so we got up-to-date directly from Microsoft support, which were were happy with. 

We didn't use a different solution previously. We went directly for Microsoft because the solution is only supported by Microsoft, so we've never tried any other operating system. 

The installation was easy. We didn't do it directly because we have an Infrastructure as Code setup, with Terraform, so we were able to do it very easily. As for the time frame, if you go for a manual process, it will take five or ten minutes, but using code, you can deploy the solutions in less than a minute. We managed it ourselves, without any support. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

I'm not involved much in the payment part, but I believe that we pay a yearly subscription for licensing. 

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others who are considering implementation. 

We primarily use the solution for a variety of tasks including active directory servers, exchange servers, hosting applications, running insurance apps, and SQL databases. A whole gamut of things. 

The SQL version of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The solution is very easy to use and very easy to onboard. 

The solution, for the most part, is stable. The stability is actually pretty good in terms of availability.

The product's performance depends on the use case.

The solution is very scalable.

The initial setup isn't overly difficult.

It requires a lot of monthly maintenance in terms of vulnerability management, which is the downside. 

I would say the biggest improvement could be improvement in the vulnerability space. Every month we get critical vulnerabilities across the Windows Server fleet. If I could see the volumes come down there, that would be the biggest step forward.

I've been using the solution for 15 or more years at this point. It's been well over a decade. it's been a while.

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

However, every release gets more stable and offers more performance with the exception of vulnerability management, which doesn't seem to improve. I would say, we haven't got that much experience with 2019, yet 2012 was a big advancement on 2008's version. 2016 advanced as well. Every newer version gets better in terms of performance and stability.

We tend to scale horizontally, and that'll scale up to quite a degree. We have some very large SQL Servers in particular that are scalable.

We have about 5,000 to 10,000 users on the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If I had to rate it against any industry standards, I would rate it at a six or seven out of ten. It's not as good as other providers I work with. Right now, Microsoft needs you to prove it's a Microsoft issue before they'll work on it.

We generate a custom build that's automated. Automating everything took quite a lot of effort, however, now that we have an automated build, implementing that for any new version probably takes, I'd say, a month, or maybe a bit more, which is not too bad. It's pretty straightforward.

We have a team of eight or nine individuals that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation by ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

We have enterprise agreements with Microsoft.

We are customers and end-users.

While the deployment models we use are mostly on-premises, we do sometimes use cloud deployment as well.

We use a variety of versions of the solution, including 2019, 2016, and 2012.  We actually use a lot of 2012.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's a step up from older versions.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies. However, it depends on the use case. If you were hosting SQL or Exchange server, certainly. However, in other circumstances, if it was between this and Red Hat Linux, you might choose Red Hat Linux.

We use the product to manage databases for various projects.

The product offers in-house servers. It helps us update them and check any technical issues easily.

The product's user interface upgrades and firewall services need improvement.

We have been using Windows Server for seven to eight years.

The platform provides ease of access to databases in terms of migration.

It is a scalable product. We have more than 200 Windows Server users in our organization. We might increase usage in some of our departments, like support administration, in case the business expands.

We have an in-house technical support team.

The initial setup is easy if you have a basic knowledge of the process. We can deploy it on-premise or on the cloud, depending on the project requirements.

There could be a one-time cost for Windows Server and not every month. It is a huge amount for the companies to pay yearly.

I recommend Windows Server to users working on multiple projects and have an in-house team with enough resources. I rate it a seven out of ten.

Managing active directories and middle directories, including users and accounts, is of utmost importance for organizations. 

This entails implementing protective measures, enabling conditional access, and ensuring data security, among other essential aspects.

The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, security, and that it is easy to use.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years.

I would rate the stability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We have plans to increase our usage in the future.

I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have experienced a positive return on investment (ROI).

The cost is relatively high.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

I use Windows Server for the deployment of applications for users.

This is only for the duration of the project; it is not for our personal use.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to be used in a virtualized environment.

I would like to see better integration with other solutions.

I have been working with Windows Server for five years.

Windows Server is a stable product.

Technical support is fine. They were helpful.

I have not worked with other similar solutions.

It's a software solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

It takes two months to deploy.

For deployment, we have an internal technical team of three people.

Because we are not using this solution for our needs, the ROI would be more applicable to our customers.

In terms of price, it's affordable.

There are additional fees to pay for support. This is more specifically to do with the license price.

I evaluated several products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux, in order to find a budget for a project solution, but the project was canceled.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. 

Our company is a partner.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

 For the server-side deployment, we use Windows Server to run applications.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is the ease of use and the applications that are available.

Windows Server could improve by improving technology modernization.

I have been using Windows Server for a very long time.

The stability of Windows Server is an important feature.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution.

The support from Microsoft is good.

The initial setup of Windows Server was straightforward.

The implementation requires a full team to accomplish the task.

There is a license required to use Windows Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.