Windows Server Reviews

It's there just hosting the SQL Servers and they're not using IIS or some Microsoft-specific technology. We're just hosting some MSSQL.

The solution is very stable.

The product is scalable. 

The solution is pretty easy to install.

I can't speak to any missing features. I don't have any opinion on how to improve the product.

The solution needs container compatibility. Windows Server is not able via Docker, for example.

I've been using the solution for half a year.

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

The solution scales well. A company shouldn't have any issues if they want to scale. 

That said, I didn't choose Windows Server for that kind of purpose. It's just there for hosting the SQL Server.

There is one user for the Windows Server itself. Everyone else is using just the database and not the Windows Server.

We haven't dealt with technical support yet. I haven't been in contact with them.

We're also using Linux Servers.

The solution is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

While I didn't handle the installation myself, I would estimate deployment takes about 20 to 30 minutes. 

We have four team members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We had a team member who handled the implementation in-house. We did not need a consultant or integrator. 

I don't have any insights into the licensing. 

We use the solution both on-premises and on the cloud. 

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. I'm neutral on it. It doesn't impress me. It just does what it does. 

I'd advise those considering the solution that if they want to run some Microsoft-specific applications, then there's a lot of choices.

The product is stable. It's reliable. 

Microsoft is a trusted brand and I enjoy working with it.

The graphical user interface could be better. It's a little dated. 

I do not like Microsoft's intrusive policies. 

We've used Windows Server for quite a long time. We've used it since around the 2012 version at least. 

The stability of the product is relative. Certain services are better handled by the Microsoft system. For example, the active directory. Microsoft Hyper-V, we use in many, many cases. However, with Linux systems, we don't have the ability to use some features of these systems. For example, with the authentication server, we use the Windows Server in most cases. If we do that, it's stable.

We have 100 people, more or less, on the solution.

We have technical support. We pay in order to have access to them.

I'm also familiar with Linux, although I prefer Windows.

I wasn't a part of the initial setup. It was already in place when I arrived at the company.

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

We do pay for technical support. We have that until December and then we will need to re-subscribe. 

We are a public company, a government company, and, due to legislation, most of the time, we can't simply choose a vendor. If we need to acquire a contract solution, we make a technical study where the features are evaluated and the final specifications are always based on features, not on vendors, or manufacturers.

We are service providers. We are implementers and sometimes we do the plans of the implementation.

We are a customer of Windows Server. Our company has an active contract for technical support as well.

We use the current version and past versions too in a hybrid environment.

The local infrastructure is hybrid in the sense of we maintain a large spectrum of systems. For example, legacy systems are on the same infrastructure as a Windows Server 2019, for example. Basically, legacy systems are on the same network as the most recent system.

I'm note of a Windows guy than a Linux guy. I like this product.

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

We work mostly on the banking organization segment. In banking organizations, they are using around 40% of Windows Servers. If there is any database they will be using MySQL. Including enterprise segments. 80% of people are using Windows Server and SQL or Exchange though, actually, now people are migrating to the cloud. Groups of companies, including enterprise pharmaceuticals, are mostly using Microsoft.

The ease of use is great.

The installation process is great.

We've had a lot of problems from day one.

The security could be better. One of the banks suffered ransomware attacks and they were able to penetrate the servers. 

There's a short availability that could be much better.

The performance is not up to snuff. They need to work on increasing resources. 

I've used the solution since the inception of our company, which has been about seven years.

The performance is not ideal. It could be a lot better. 

We have around 200 clients and most of them are using Microsoft in one way or another.

Most of the time, we've noticed that customers can go and troubleshoot issues on their own. It seems rare to raise a ticket on Microsoft support. Due to the fact that it's so rare to need to raise issues, I can't really speak to having any direct experience dealing with them. That said, sometimes, if a patch is needed, they do need to go to Microsoft and get it. 

The installation is very straightforward and it is not overly difficult or complex. With a certain level of experience, anyone can install and configure it. It's not a problem. 

You likely just need one person to handle deployment and maintenance. You can handle this solution with a minimal number of technical staff. 

The license is perpetual. Once you buy the server, you don't have to continue to renew the license itself. 

Microsoft is a popular and necessary addition to any company. Most companies can't run at all without Microsoft being used at some level. 

If a customer has more than 100 workstations installed in Microsoft then I recommend them to use this sort of solution. If a customer is using .NET applications then by default the choice is Windows, however, if they are using Java or Oracle I recommend that they use Linux due in large part to the security.

We primarily use the solution in order to manage clients, the CRM, or ERP (such as SAP), or such applications as Microsoft Dynamics. We use it for a variety of things. 

The product is a good operating system. The features fit our needs very well. For example, with Windows Server, you can use a machine for printing, accessing the internet, or using some applications. You can do it all with one server. You don't need several servers. One is enough. 

For those with a bit of technical know-how and have a level of comfort with Microsoft, it's not too difficult to implement.

The solution can scale if you need it to.

I've found the product to be stable. 

The product integrates well with Sophos. 

It's incompatible sometimes and doesn't communicate with all applications. When you need to share some data, communication is difficult between the server and the app.

A typical user will find implementing it on their own difficult. 

We've used the solution for about ten years or so. It's likely been a decade. We've used it for a long time at this point. 

I personally have 20 years of experience working with a variety of Microsoft products.

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if you need it to. 

I also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is neither overly difficult nor very simple. It's somewhere in the middle. There's a moderate level of difficulty, however, it's not too hard. For a common user, it may come across as complex, however, with my level of knowledge, I don't find it too bad. 

I have enough experience with the solution that I can handle it myself. 

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

We tend to use Windows Server 2012 or 2016, depending on the enterprise applications.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. I've been please with its capabilities so far.

We have many applications which require Windows Server, such as SQL Server and an application server that acts as a middle layer.

The solution is user-friendly, you do not need a command line technical team to operate it.

Windows Server could improve by having a faster browser, IE is too slow. There are better alternatives, such as Chrome.

I have been using this solution for approximately four years.

The solution is highly secure and stable with many policies. We did not have any issues with the performance.

We have approximately 2,000 users using the solutions.

The installation was straightforward.

We have a team that does the maintenance and policies for the solution.

There is not a license required for this solution.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

Windows Server is very useful and easy to install.

It has been stable after 2002, so versions 2016 and 2019 are stable.

It is not fast and is very slow. Versions before 2002 are not stable.

It is not easy to use, and it could be cheaper as well.

Windows Server could use low resources and have automation abilities.

Automation and implementation could be changed to work better with other systems. It needs be easy to integrate with other cloud and open source systems. Generally, people want to use open source systems because Windows Servers don't integrate easily.

I have been using Windows Server since 2003.

It is stable, particularly after 2002.

If you use Microsoft application servers and if you use Microsoft products, you can generally get good technical support.

I used Linux operating systems.

It is easy to install and takes about half an hour.

I installed it myself.

Windows Systems use more resources than Linux systems and can be very costly. If you use a Linux system, two CPUs are enough, but if you use a Windows system, you need eight CPUs. You should use a minimum of eight CPUs, and CPU resources are very expensive.

We have enterprise agreements regarding licensing.

I would rate Windows Server at seven on a scale from one to ten.

We primarily use the solution for many purposes, the Active Directory, SQL, web server, and many other features.

The solution is very scalable. 

The installation process is very straightforward. 

Technical support is good. 

The stability needs to be improved. I don't find it to be very stable. It's something they need to work on.

I've used the solution for many years at this point. it's been so long I've lost track of the exact amount of time, however, it's been a while. 

The solution isn't as stable as it could be.

The product scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have about 2,000 users on the solution at this time. I can't speak to if we have plans to increase usage or not.

I am satisfied with technical support so far. They've been helpful and responsive. 

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's straightforward and pretty easy to execute. 

The deployment is fast. It only takes us about 50 minutes to get everything up and running.

I handled the installation by myself. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant. It's a pretty simple process. 

Right now, we are not on the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. For the most part, we have been happy with its capabilities. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies.

Mostly we use the product for file sharing, and then for database applications. That's about it. We're not running cloud services and other things. 

We're required to support it, however, for the most part, it works well and is reliable. 

Technical support is helpful. There's a lot of documentation and helpful information online as well.

The initial setup is not overly difficult.

The security needs to be improved. That's its weakest area. It's my understanding that they cannot do anything about it at this stage. We have to wait when they are able to, more or less, integrate with Ubuntu, or with Canonical. Then, we will have a server that is quite stable in terms of security. Maybe in five years or six years, then you could see a Window Server which is going to be very impressive.

I've been using the solution likely for 20 years. It's been two decades. I've used it for a while at this point.

The solution is reliable and the performance is good.

We have lots of users, especially those running Oracle. We have close to about 200 users for Oracle that are connected to Windows Server.

We don't have any issues when it comes to Microsoft and technical support. Most of the time it is straightforward. Right now, you can go to the internet, and there are many people who post helpful information for Microsoft products. In the same way for a Linux operating system, we have a lot of users that are posting tutorials for you to be able to learn. It's not something which is very, very hard. It's quite easy already.

I also use Unbuntu and find them comparable. It's like to be able to integrate them together.

The initial installation is pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex.

We have about 30 staff members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance.

Per installation, the deployment time, including the updates, is maybe about three or four hours.

We do have assistance when I'm using an HP serve. They have a way of making the installation much easier.

We do have to pay a licensing fee in order to use the servers.

We've got open licenses for the Windows Server OS, as well as the SQL Server database, and then we have to pay for the device CALs, client access license. 

In terms of versions, right now, we're hooked on OS. We have 2012, and I have 2016. I'm interested in 2019 as well.

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

I'd recommend the solution to others for business use cases.