Windows Server Reviews

We are using this solution for all of our on-premise application servers. The latest version is Windows Server 2019, but we are using Windows Server 2016. We haven't felt the need to upgrade it.

It is easy to use, and its performance is good. 

When it comes to virtualization, VMware is a bit more advanced in terms of security. Hyper-V does provide facilities, but it probably has to do a bit more work in terms of encryption. People will normally go for VMware because of the features that it has as a server, particularly the virtualization feature.

I have been using this solution since 2012.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In terms of its usage, the license that we currently have is good enough for us. We will increase its usage, but we don't need to purchase anything in the foreseeable future. We have enough. 

We are also doing a PoC for moving the server that we have at each location to the cloud. After that is done, we will look at the cost and think about migrating to the cloud.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. The duration depends on how big the installation is in terms of the database and the domain you want to use. It can vary from about an hour to a couple of hours with updates, etc. It could be anywhere from 60 minutes to 3 hours.

All of our people are adept at handling its installation.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the domain controller.

The product has helped our company as it offers us a domain controller and the use of the domain service.

The solution is very easy to configure.

The solution has a lot of features.

The pricing is good. They offer special pricing to educational institutions that is less than what a typical organization might pay.

The solution is not easy to use.

The solution could be more stable. It's an aspect they could improve on in future versions.

The solution could be more scalable and flexible.

The solution needs to offer better documentation and more training to its users. This would help customers better understand how to use the product effectively.

I've been using the solution since 2015. It's been just over five years now. It's been a while.

The solution does not offer very good stability. It's something they need to improve upon.

The solution is moderately flexible. I'd rate it at a 3 out of five. It could be better.

We have 100 users on the solution currently. We do have plans to increase the number of users to 200 in the future.

Technical support could be a bit better. they do have a lot of features and sometimes we need assistance with everything.

I have some experience with Linux, however, I find it a bit more difficult to implement.

The solution is not too difficult or complex to set up. It's easier to implement than other servers. For example, Linux is much more difficult.

The pricing, for us, is reasonable. We are an educational institution and therefore we get special rates. Therefore, our pricing isn't too bad. However, an enterprise version of the solution is quite expensive.

We are just a customer and an end-user of the solution. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We are currently using the 2016 version and have plans to upgrade to the 2019 version.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's an okay product, however, there are many areas that could be improved.

We have the product that my team works on and we need to, for example, deploy the solution on running servers. That way, the client can access it and the QAs in our team could test it.

Also, we have some database servers other than the Windows Server. We use it for servers - indicators for better pages for better performance. We create the databases actually. 

The remote session is really helpful due to the fact that we are using Windows on our machines. You can access the remote session easily on that server. There's also the database management tool that we use to run queries and show a relational database check. If there is some problem with the data we can see it. 

It's good for performance testing on the actual app.

The scalability it offers is great. We can upgrade for the internal services. If we want to increase storage, or our clients do, the solution can accommodate that.

Overall it's really easy to use. It's like using Windows, yet with many other features.

The initial setup is very easy.

Sometimes we face some overload on servers. You need to request one of the IT to assist as there is no way that you can do a remote session on it. They need to intervene directly on the server. It has to be done manually. We also can't intervene ourselves as there is no way to log in remotely to the servers. That's why IT needs to get involved. It's a pain point for us as all you can really do is wait.

In a future release, it would be helpful if there were more tools to help us do some performance testing. The last time we needed to look for tools online and choose some third-party tools to analyze how the application is performing. If they could instead provide us with pre-installed tools, that would be better. There are some but they don't really give you the information that we are looking for. 

We've been using the solution for the last 12 months. We use it pretty much daily.

The stability is good. It's extremely reliable. We are using it in both the development phase and in production whenever we have a release for a client. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.
It also provides multiple metrics that help us supervise the overall performance of the server based on data collected over the lifetime.

For my own team, from our own premise, there are more than a hundred users at any given time on the solution. Sometimes there could be multiple deployments on one server. 

We do have plans to increase usage. It comes with a variety of good features and it's quite useful to us. 

I haven't personally worked with technical support in any capacity. However, I have colleagues that have opened tickets and they don't have any complaints. They are helpful and reliable when dealing with our team.

The initial setup was straightforward. There are some requests from the clients to use HTTPS and therefore we needed to test some certificates. The documentation thing for Amazon or Microsoft is really detailed at the center. It's easy to find the details you need.

We do have a license from Microsoft.

I can't speak to how the subscription works however it's my understanding that it's paid yearly due to the fact that it's a large-scale scheme.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

We have servers deployed within the company's headquarters right here in Tunis which we use for internal purposes. For other clients, it's deployed in other data centers, and they have access to them from our company.

I'd recommend this solution to other companies and users. There are some clients that require this particular server and there are some older solutions that require deployment on a Windows Server. That said, we've moved to .net code to support both Microsoft and Linux.

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

Our primary use case is for the SCADA system, for the ITS system, and for the station system. I'm a system programmer and we are customers of Microsoft.

The advantage of the product is that it's user friendly, it's compatible with the scalar product applications, it's well known to our own users as well as to our end-user clients. 

I'd like to see more features and more functionality to the Microsoft operating system. The solution should be able to connect remotely and create a safer channel between the user and cloud assets, or through the internet. It's one of the biggest challenges we've had this past year. There are a lot of companies competing with each other to apply these features due to the pandemic. 

For additional features, I'd like to see something like third-party applications that would create a hub to receive a connection from outside. It would handle all types of servers to enable remote access for the user from home, so they can safely connect to the system and check in if there is an emergency. You know that the SCADA system is a critical system and you can be considered on-call and notified at any time. It would enable a remote connection rather than the need for long procedures to connect to my network. It could have a third-party authentication so we could connect to the server safely.

We've used this product since 2008. 

The product is stable with the current application we are using for SCADA but I'm not sure of the impact if you were to use another application or another technology. For the appliances using the firewall, using switches, it's very stable, especially, the critical system which you configure once, and forget about until you need to make another vulnerability scan. For the critical asset, or for the entire system, you'll configure it once, and it's stable. 

Sometimes you need a huge number of firewalls to manage all the assets, so scalability depends on the assets you have in your network. In our case we sometimes only connect seven substations, that's three or four firewalls to manage everything. That includes interconnection with the member states, meaning six countries in the Gulf area that will receive information or data from them. The total number of data is very manageable requiring only three or four firewalls. In general, it is scalable and manageable. We have just under 100 users. We have around 10 technical teams in our control center and 10 engineers monitoring the system who deal with admin, modifications and monitoring the system.

Any patching is tested in Dubai before applying it to the production system. We have minimal contact with the IT technical team. Given that the system is very stable, we rarely talk to the Microsoft technical team. 

There is usually a factory acceptance test, but because of the pandemic we have an agreement with our vendor for the latest project that we will carry out the merger in Saudi Arabia.

We're engaged with a reseller who deals with licensing for us. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We typically use the solution for hosting applications, which is more related to Visual Studio and other similar items.

The solution's usability is very good. It's very user friendly.

We've found the solution to be very flexible.

It's very useful for domain authentication and other tasks. 

It's great for hosting all kinds of applications.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution could have better security features.

The pricing is a bit high. Linux has better pricing. They should try to make their product more competitively priced.

We've been using this solution for about a decade. It's been ten years, so it has been a while.

The solution is very stable and reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

The solution can scale well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. There wouldn't be anything stopping them.

We have 20 or so people on the servers right now.

We do plan to continue using the product.

I've found the technical support from Microsoft to be quite good. We've been satisfied with the level of service provided to us so far. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten overall.

We found the initial setup to be pretty straightforward and simple. It's not complex. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment is very quick and takes about five minutes in total.

In terms of the size of the team you need, it depends on the application. The bare-bones operating system only two to five minutes, or maybe two to 10 minutes. The deployment, with respect to software and other things, such as security checks, et cetera, it can take a while to get everything on there. It can take up to four hours.

We handle the implementation ourselves. We didn't need an implementor or a consultant to help us. It was all handled in-house.

We pay the license on a yearly basis.

It's a bit expensive if you were to compare it to Linux. 

We're not currently evaluating other options at this time.

We are not using the latest version of the solution. We're using N-1, one solution behind the most recent release.

We use multiple deployment models - both on-premises and cloud.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten at this point. Overall, we've been pretty happy with it.

We primarily use the solution on our DNS network. It's the de facto operating system in our organization.

The solution is very stable. We haven't run into any performance issues so far.

It is very easy to use. The system is very user-friendly.

The solution allows for many applications to run on it.

The initial setup could be easier. Right now, it's more difficult than it needs to be.

The solution is rather expensive and could be more affordable.

I've used the product in many different places and therefore have used it for a long time by this point. It's been many years now, as far as I know.

We've found the stability of the product to be excellent over the years. It's reliable. There aren't really bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable.

The solution can scale quite well. If you need to expand it, you can do so. It works for companies of all sizes.

We have about ten servers in our organization at this time that are Windows Servers. We have two people that manage them for us.

We will continue to use Windows unless, at some point, something else comes along that is cheaper and easier to use.

I haven't really dealt with technical support much. I wouldn't be able to effectively comment on their level of service or their knowledgeability. 

I have some experience with Linux. However, I find it limiting in terms of the number of applications you can actually run on it.

The implementation process for Windows isn't exactly straightforward. It could be easier and more efficient. It can be a bit difficult sometimes.

The initial installation typically takes two to three hours or so.

I handled the implementation with a partner.

Of course, the solution itself is expensive. However, they are not many alternatives. There's very little choice on the market.

We have servers that range from 2012 to 2016 to 2019. We're using both the older and the newest versions of the solution currently.

I would definitely recommend this product to other organizations. If you look at Linux, for example, it's not really a viable option as very very applications run on Linux. In the case of Windows, you don't have that shortcoming. You can run many, many applications on it, which is a good selling point. Many people who have legacy products like to use Windows.

I would rate the solution six out of ten overall.

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 are using Windows Server to run our business application.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

The stability of the Windows Server is good.

The scalability of Windows Server is okay, but it could be better.

The initial setup of Windows Server is simple, and the process took less than half an hour.

We did the implementation of Windows Server internally. We have one person that does the maintenance and support of this solution.

Windows Server needs to be more flexible with the minimum requirements with the license and options. We are on an annual subscription to use the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.