Windows Server Reviews

 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.

We're using Windows Server for its basic function. We use it to run applications, but there's a team who manages that, and they are certified. I'm not the one managing. I'm just a user.

The Windows Server interface is okay, though it would still depend on the usage perfective. The interface is what I like about this solution.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Windows Server is for it to have faster updates.

I've been dealing with Windows Server for five years now.

Windows Server is stable. I've had no issues or problems with it.

I've evaluated Linux.

I'm using both Windows and Linux operating systems.

We have a team who does the installation of Windows Server, so I'm unable to give information on whether it's easy or complicated to install. For deployment and maintenance, we have five to eight people in charge.

We have 30 to 50 end users of Windows Server within our company, and currently we don't have plans of increasing usage.

Whether the technical support for Windows Server is fast or is knowledgeable, it would depend. It's a case to case basis, but I'm not the one who's creating the tickets, so whenever we have any issues, we send it to our team who's in charge of creating the tickets for the Windows support team.

Windows Server is a solution I can recommend to others, if we're basing my recommendation on my satisfaction with it.

I'm rating Windows Server a five out of ten.

We use this solution for our exchange, database and SQL servers. 

This solution is easy to use. 

The upgrade process for this solution could be simplified and made more straightforward.

I have been using this solution for 20 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward and took two to three hours. 

We are using Windows Server for running our applications. One of our use cases is in a financial institution.

Windows Server is user-friendly and it is simply to support.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately two years.

Windows Server has been stable in my usage.

The scalability of Windows Server is good.

We have approximately 3,000 users using the solution.

We have premium support with Microsoft, and it is good.

I have used Windows 10.

The installation is simple, and it takes approximately one hour.

We have a golden copy of Windows Server, and we only need to apply it to the systems. This does not take much time for us, approximately seven minutes and Windows Server will be ready. We do the maintenance, such as patching, antivirus, and all the security that we have been approved in the bank. However, it's virtual now. All our environment is virtual, we only need to apply the golden copy. 

Depending on the application or use case, we might use Windows 19, 16, or 12.

I can do the implementation of the solution.

We have 10 engineers and managers that support Windows Server.

We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the price for the license is bundled together. The solution is expensive but for the bank that is using it, the price is fine. We pay for a license every three years.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We login and run our personal and business applications on Windows Server. We have 50 users in our organization.

The performance of Windows Server is good.

The solution is old so it is not user friendly. I assume that he newer versions would be better than our current one.

We have been using Windows Server for five years.

Windows Server is stable, we have had no issues.

The solution has been installed for many years.

We pay a license to use Windows Server.

I would recommend Windows Servers to others who would like to start to use it. I would rate it an 8 out of  10.

The solution helps fulfill customer requirements. We use it for applications.

The solution is very stable. There isn't a lot of downtime.

The product can scale. 

The initial setup is very easy.

There was one instance in which, during an installation, I got an error I could not easily resolve.

The performance could be a bit better.

I've used the solution for around ten years or so.

We've found the stability to be reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. there are no bugs or glitches. 

Scalability is possible. If you need to expand it, you can do so. 

We have about 15 customers on the solution right now. 

I've never really had a problem with the solution, and I've worked with it for many years, I've never had to contact technical support in the past.

With ten years of experience under our belts, we've handled implementations many times over. It's not a problem at all for us. We find the process very straightforward, very simple. 

We have five or six engineers on our team that are able to easily handle deployment and maintenance. 

We can handle the implementation process for our clients. 

We are both a customer and a consultant. 

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I started to work as an engineer and I started working with the server in 2012. I've seen many user requirements met by this server, which is why I can confidently recommend it to others. It helps resolve a lot of issues with the infrastructure.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Window Server is for the front-end applications. It is on the client-facing side.

The biggest advantage of Windows Server is the services. It offers the ability to configure services, so your application can run on a Windows Server. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years. Since the company was founded, we've been using Windows Server and Linux. We're still using Red Hat. When I joined the company, I migrated all the databases over to Linux. Everything on the application side is on Windows Server.

Windows Server is stable as far as I know. 

I can't really say that it's scalable. At the application level, we only have about 20 users.

I'm not the one in charge of the platform. The person in charge takes care of things when there is a critical error and there are new updates or patches from the Microsoft site. They're the one who contacts the technical support team if needed.

Installing Windows Server is straightforward. We have a technical team to manage the solution, but I can handle the deployment by itself. 

I think it's a yearly license.

I rate Windows Server six out of 10. I would recommend Windows Server if you are working with .NET applications. But one issue I have with Windows Server is the limit on the number of concurrent sessions. You cannot have more than three simultaneous users unless you activate a license. You have to install it so that more people can access the applications simultaneously.

We primarily use the solution for many things. It's an operating system. We use to run many different application servers like SAP exchanges, and applications in our environment.

Overall, we've been happy with the solution. 

The initial setup is pretty simple.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

The stability is decent. 

Technical support has been okay.

We're concerned about Windows vulnerabilities and how to manage those vulnerabilities ourselves. These are the main things that are tricky in Windows, the environment. 

The performance from time to time can be a bit suspect. 

I've used the solution for quite a long time. It's been something like 20 years or so that I have been using this product.

To a certain extent, I would say the stability is fine. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

The size of the company doesn't matter. It works for any size of organization from small to large.

Technical support was okay. We haven't really had any problems with them.

You do have to pay for licensing of the product. 

We are a customer and an end-user of Microsoft. We do not have any special business relationship with them. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We're mostly happy with its capabilities. 

I would advise potential users to secure it well and keep it up to date. 

We are using Windows Server for our business applications, ERP and everything else.

Windows Server is running well, the performance is good, there are no issues and it is stable.

Because we are using it a very long time and all our applications need Windows OS to run, so by default, we are using Windows OS.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 20 years.

In terms of the versions we are using, it is mixed - we are using 2016 and 2019. A few of our servers are still using the 2012, also.

In terms of scalability, in one server we need to install only one OS. So if you want to install more OS's in more servers, then we can install it.

The quality of support depends upon the Microsoft products. Sometimes they will provide quick support, sometimes it takes time, so I cannot comment exactly on their support.

Sometimes we are getting very quick support, sometimes it takes time.

We are using Windows Server as well as a few open tool Linux.

Windows Server typically takes around 30 minutes to install.

We need very few people for deploying the Windows Server.

Without a license we cannot use Windows Server. The price depends on the people and their budget. We have our enterprise EA agreement with Microsoft and based on that we are doing the licenses.

Everyone knows how the graphic user interface looks with Microsoft Windows Server.

In terms of whether I would recommend Microsoft Windows Server, it depends on their use case. If their application is running only in Windows Server, they should use the server.

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

Windows Server is user-friendly.

The Active Directory and the applications where the server is installed are the most valuable features.

The main features that should be improved are the security and it should have better performance.

We have been using Windows Server for nine years.

Windows Server is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

Every month technical support has a deployment every month making it very easy.

The setup was very easy.

There are software costs that are dependent on the CAL requirements. 

I would rate Windows Server a 9 out of 10. It is better than Ubuntu Linux.