IIS Reviews

We are basically using IIS like people use SharePoint. Technically IIS is a configurable web server. SharePoint is meant to be a collaborative tool. We configured IIS to be a collaborative tool of our own design.  

The most valuable parts of IIS are the interface, simplicity, and ease of management.  

There are a lot of security issues with IIS, and this has become more of a concern, especially recently. That security problem is the biggest disadvantage.  

Scalability is also a problem. Microsoft needs to improve on that aspect of the product. There are many limitations on IIS that seem like they should not be hard to remedy.  

On the other hand, Microsoft is doing more to concentrate on Azure for the cloud solution, so it may be their intent that Azure is ultimately the better solution.  

Overall, I have been working with IIS solutions on the cloud and on-premises for eight to ten years.  

Recently IIS has been more stable than in earlier releases and it has gotten better as it matured.  

I do not think that much of IIS as a very scalable solution. It is used by our entire organization, which is about 1,000-plus end-users. But the product itself has limitations built into it.  

We have a maximum of two people who manage the product. We work with it somewhat less now because of the scalability limitations and security issues, so we also dedicate less staff to projects with the product.  

The technical support is neutral: not good and not bad. It has become less satisfying because they changed how support is handled and we have to depend on forums. We do not have direct access to Microsoft support, in other words. It is not at all optimal.  

Microsoft tries to divert from this lack of interest in supporting the product, I think, by providing documentation. We also use the community and go into the forums — the Microsoft TechNet forums — and then use Google as a last resort. For technical support on IIS, it turns out that Google is our best friend.  

From the beginning, we have been using Microsoft products as our base solution. We have Unix and Apache and those things in addition in the places where we need them, but we are mainly running on IIS and Windows.  

The initial setup was straightforward. That is one of the biggest advantages for IIS. It takes just three or four clicks and the installation is done. The whole process takes just a few minutes.  

Recent versions, especially IIS 10, are very stable. For the stability I highly recommend IIS.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate IIS as an eight-out-of-ten.  

We primarily use the solution for the internet and opening applications. We use it, for example, to access Outlook on the web. We use it for a variety of Microsoft applications.

The solution is very stable. The solution is very simple and easy to use.

The level of technical support the solution offers could be improved.

I've been using the solution for one to two years.

The solution is stable, but they could improve on it a bit.

It's easy to scale the solution. We have about 200 users using it currently.

We've been in contact with technical support. They're okay, but they could be better in terms of the level of support they offer.

The solution was easy to set up. It only takes about one hour to deploy it.

We handled the deployment ourselves.

The pricing of the product could be improved.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use this program as application server.

What I like most about this program, is the fact that it's built into Windows, and then I also like the interface and the support.

I haven't yet come across anything that needs to improve. Perhaps the installation process can be simplified.

I have been using IIS for ten, twelve years now.

The stability is okay. It's fairly enterprise-grade and robust for enterprise use. 

The program is scalable. We have between 50 and 100 users.

Microsoft's technical support has always been very good, so I am satisfied with it.

We've used this platform from the beginning.

The initial setup was somewhere in the middle. It wasn't complicated but it wasn't easy either. The documentation isn't very good and the options are very complex.

I will definitely recommend this solution to others. On a scale from 1 to 10, I will give it an eight rating. 

The primary use case of this solution is for infrastructure, Active Directory, infrastructure functionality, such as DHCP, and also, it's the main operating system for virtual machines.

What I like the most is that it is easy to use.

The price could be reduced.

In the next release, I would like to see better integration between the cloud environment and the on-premises environment.

I have been working with this solution for twenty years.

The stability is better than it was in the past. It is better today than it was five years ago.

I am no longer involved in the technical areas anymore. Instead, I am a part of the trade sales team. In this role, I have contacted Microsoft for the commercial parts but not for support.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It is deployed in all environments, on-premises and on the cloud.

The price of the cloud system is a bit high.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is very easy to use and offers a quick deployment.

We've never had any issues with the solution, but it's still nice to have overall improvements on it. It could be easier and faster to use, for example.

I've been using the solution for a few years now.

The solution is stable.

We have around 80 users on the solution currently.

We've never had any issue that required us to reach out to support. We've been satisfied with the solution overall.

Overall, the deployment was very fast. It didn't take long to set up.

The solution could offer better pricing.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd recommend the product. I'd rate it eight out of ten.

The solution is easy to use and connects with Microsoft. 

The solution is very robust.

The documentation is not very detailed. They need to improve it and add to it. They should ensure there are lots of visuals to help users better understand the solution.

I've been using the solution for five years.

In the previous version, scalability was a bit difficult, but with the latest version, a lot of improvements have been made. It's getting better.

We don't use technical support. We do find there is a lot of community support online if we need it.

The solution is easy to setup. It's very easy to comprehend.

We implement the solution ourselves on behalf of clients.

We use the current version of the solution and the on-premises deployment model. We're partners with Microsoft. We generally work with enterprise-level organizations.

I'd recommend the solution, but only to those organizations already using Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for application infrastructure.

The solution is easy to use.

The solution integrates well with most Microsoft products.

The solution doesn't integrate well with all Microsoft products. There are a few that actually don't integrate well with IIS.

If Microsoft IIS could work well with AppOptics or things like PHP, Python, and other custom languages that run on the webserver, it would be ideal. I think there are cases where people need to use Apache instead of IIS when IIS doesn't work well with other web languages.

I've been using the solution for ten years.

The solution is stable.

It's a good solution, but we don't use it on a large scale, so I'm not sure how well it scales. Currently, we have 250 users on it. Most are end-users, but we do have five admins on the solution as well.

We've never reached out to technical support. Mostly if we have issues, we look to community support for answers.

We also use Apache Web Server side by side with IIS.

The initial setup is very straightforward.

We handled the implementation ourselves.

We use the on-premises deployment model.

I'd recommend IIS for almost everything. I would suggest using use case scenarios.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We have a GIS solution from ESRI, ArcGIS Web Adaptor, and it is installed on top of IIS. It's part of ArcGIS Enterprise solution.

The graphical user interface makes it easy for users to configure the sites. 

This solution needs to be easier for cases where you want to have an IIS cluster. If you have several IIS solutions running, it is not clear on how to make them communicate to each other. Normally, IIS Web Server run independently on each server. To have "IIS cluster", currently you need to have a network load balancer (NLB) appliance running in front of them. We use NLB to distribute the load and have high-availability of IIS Web Server.

This solution is stable. However, because of the way IIS interacts with the application pool, it is possible that another application running in different application pool, can have an impact to other application pool. Theoretically, each application pool will have independent process and should not conflicting between each other.

This is something that we are looking into because we want to have IIS Web Server that can communicate between each other. So far, we cannot find this options inside it, anywhere on the menu.

In our office, we only have few people who use this solution and we don't have a plans to increase its usage. It is for internal publishing only.

But for our client, we implement this solution in production environment and so far, no critical issue happened to run IIS Web Server on it.

We have not been in contact with technical support. So far, we have been able to handle all issues.

The initial setup of this solution is simple. Even if you aren't familiar with it, it is not complex. If you are installing it inside Windows Server, it will take less than half an hour to deploy. In most cases, it can be done in fifteen minutes.

This solution comes included with Windows Server.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is to go ahead with it. This is a mature product that is suitable for production environment. It competes with the Linux-based web server, which has more features. However, Microsoft is becoming more friendly with the open-source community, so hopefully they will implement more advanced features inside IIS.

It seems to me that Microsoft has been evolving the product with one of the main goals to be ease of use. However, I think that they need to focus on handling the biggest load. 

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.