Windows Server Reviews

We do software services, and most of the time we use this for UAT and testing purposes.

The availability of resources that are aware of Windows is great. It's more than any operating system. 

The support that Microsoft provides for this is very good. If you have an issue with the Windows Server, you'll get a lot of support from Microsoft.

The integration is great.

The interface and dashboards are fine.

While I would say scripting needs improvement, I've noticed that they started to do this couple of years ago. They do have their own WSL and PowerShell Scripts.

Generally, there is always room for improvement. However, nothing comes on top of my head right now. 

For countries in the Middle East and Africa, their pricing is a little bit high. Microsoft is having unified pricing across the globe. That's an issue. They don't negotiate on that. It's very expensive for many countries in this region.

They have something called Windows Server Core, and it doesn't have a graphical user interface, which is fine. However, there should be a management console or something that you can hook up to Windows Server Core so you can manage it much easier if you need UI or something.

We have used the solution since the beginning of the company, about 12 years at this point.

Technical support is great. If a company needs assistance, Microsoft is great at helping assist in troubleshooting. We are satisfied with the level of support.

We use Windows and Azure, Google Cloud GCP, and many flavors of Linux. For the database, we also use SQL Server and MySQL.

The pricing is high in certain regions as they don't price adjust for certain countries. They also do not negotiate their pricing. The cost is the cost. 

We use various deployment models, including on-premises, on the cloud, and hybrid.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If the pricing was more flexible, it would be better for the customer.

Windows Server is deployed both on-premises and on cloud.

The features that I have found most valuable are that it is quick with an easy installation and has good troubleshooting compared to Linux or any other operating system.

They provide updates and patches in a timely manner.

I would like to see better updates and for it to support other applications

I have been using Windows Server since the inception of the company.

Windows Server is stable. It is just that the updates and other things do sometimes break. The updates are fast so maybe everything is my issue with the legacy applications.

Windows Server is scalable. We have around 300 to 500 users on it.

Customer support is okay, but I believe it would be much better if they supported other applications. The challenge with them is they will say that you have installed some applications that they cannot support. So the blame game is there in that case and it is not a Microsoft issue or an application specific issue. So we have to fiddle around with that.

The initial setup is easy. It took 10 to 15 minutes.

We had a technical team of around 10 people for the deployment and maintenance.

You can do it by yourself or with the help of the consultant or integrator, it depends on the configuration you need.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Windows Server an eight.

My advice to anyone considering Windows Server is, if they don't have any other choice then they can use it. If they have a choice then they should go for an alternate solution because in the longer run they can save a lot of money in licensing.

I primarily use it for my day-to-day business tasks. 

As an end-user, the experience of the solution is that it's very reliable. It just works. As long as it doesn't affect my daily operation and we can work safely and securely with each other, that's all I care about.

The solution has a sufficient amount of stability and performance that meets my needs. 

I can work securely and all the files are easily accessible.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. 

The scalability potential is quite good. 

The cost to use the solution is quite high.

Our main problem is the Citrix environment we're still in. However, we're migrating from that to the Windows 10 environment, so Citrix will be out within two or three years. Therefore,  performance is not really an issue - on the operating system at least. 

I've used the solution for more than three years at this point, It's been a while now. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. I've found it to be reliable. It doesn't give me trouble. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale if you need it to.

We have about 70,000 users on this product currently.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We did not previously use a different solution. It's always been Windows, although we may at some point have also used Unbuntu Linux.

The initial implementation is easy. It's not overly complex or difficult. It's just pushed with the build we have and that way it doesn't affect the end-user. It's just ready to go. We find that the installation is simple and efficient.

While we have a technical team of about 5,000 or 6,000 users, I'm not sure how many were involved in the initial deployment. 

The initial setup was handled internally. They did it themselves. There's sufficient knowledge of the Windows Server products to do it in-house. We have a rather large IT department. It's over 5,000 people.

The pricing is quite high on Microsoft products. It would be ideal if they were made to be more affordable. 

With the magnitude of our organization, every three years, a proper review of the contracts would be handled.

Although it's my understanding that we have some special deal with Microsoft, I cannot speak to the exact cost or the licensing agreement that was reached. 

We are customers and end-users of the product.

In general, if you're asking me if I'm happy with Windows Server, yes, I am.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight. I'm satisfied with its overall capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We primarily use the solution for hosting applications. We have six applications, which are VMs.

The stability and performance are great. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

The solution can scale. 

Technical support is great.

We've had a few minor compatibility issues.

We have been using Windows Server for 20 to 25 years at this point. It's likely been over two decades. We've used it for quite a while. 

The solution is extremely stable and the performance has been great. The product doesn't crash or freeze. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It's a reliable system.

The scalability is good. We moved from the 2012 version to the 2019 version and found that the scalability has improved. 

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

Technical support has been fine. We are satisfied with the level of support we get.

We previously used the 2012 version and have since moved to the 2019 version of Windows Server. 

The initial setup was very straightforward for us. We didn't run into any issues and didn't find any complexities or difficulties. We upgraded from the 2012 to the 2019 version and that took us about one day. It was pretty fast.

We have a team of about 15 technicians that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We did not use a consultant or integrator when we did the implementation. We handled it ourselves, in-house. We were quite capable of handling the process internally.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. 

We are using the 2019 version of the solution, which is the latest.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies. 

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. 

I just use Windows Server to install third party software, things like data integration tools and BI tools. One of the uses was to set up an on-prem Active Directory. So these kinds of things.

The feature that I have found most valuable is the Active Directory. I have had good experience with Windows Server. I haven't had any issues

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the Active Directory synchronization on Azure. This is something which was not easy to do. Using Azure Active Directory, I was trying to sync and this was not straightforward. This process could be more simplified.

I have been using Windows Server for the past eight, nine years.

It is a stable product.

In terms of the maintenance it requires, maybe there are some regular updates. We do make some backups as well. But this is a lab environment, we don't have much sensitive information stored here.

Windows Server is easy to scale.

We have 15 people using it.

I do have experience with Microsoft support in general, but not related to Windows Server.

In general, my experience with Microsoft support is good.

If we are talking about Windows like Windows 11 or Windows 10 versus Mac OS? For personal use, I believe Mac is overall simpler and has a better user experience. It is a little bit more robust. I just prefer the way the application installations are done and services are managed within the Mac OS.

But for work, I cannot compare Mac OS to a Windows Server. I can compare Mac OS to Windows 10 or Windows 11.

The initial setup was a simple one. It took maybe an hour.

I did it by myself and we had a bunch of engineers as well, who were working on it.

It is a fair price. For Microsoft overall, we have a subscription with Office. So there is also a bundle for Windows.

The price is good. It is cheaper than Mac OS. In this case, it's better in terms of price.

I would recommend Windows Server because it's just easier to use for some people than Red Hat. That's the main thing - it is easier to use and maintain versus other operating systems within the Linux space.

On a scale of one to ten, let's be generous and give Windows Server an eight.