Microsoft Virtual Server Reviews

In our operations, Microsoft Virtual Server is crucial for managing virtual machines in testing and development. We utilize cloud databases in the Amazon Partner Network for efficient data handling, integrating web servers, and web services. Third-party Internet services and the APN connector system enhance our connectivity, providing a robust network infrastructure.

Microsoft Virtual Server's standout features are its seamless network integration, robust data restoration capabilities, and versatile computing functions. These qualities are invaluable for cloud computing and networking, enhancing the overall flexibility and scalability of our operations.

While I am generally satisfied with the solution, it could slightly improve its stability.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for two years.

I would rate the stability as a seven out of ten. It could improve by adapting to new features and changes occurring every three months.

I would rate the scalability at a seven out of ten. We have over 100 users of the solution.

I would rate the technical support as a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Setting up and deploying can be a bit complex, and the time it takes depends on different factors. We have various environments, like development and production. If everything goes smoothly, it is quick, but if there are issues, it takes time to fix them. The deployment process involves moving through different stages, checking for problems like missing incidents or security issues.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Virtual Server as an eight out of ten.

In my organization, we have three physical servers running Windows Server 2015. We are also using Hyper-V to create virtual servers on these physical servers. We currently have seven virtual servers running on these three physical servers. These virtual servers are running properly and we have not had any issues with them. One of the advantages of using virtual servers is that we can back up a VM and restore it to any physical server in one to two hours.

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable. There is no issue there. Our customers are running two virtual terminal servers, one ERP server, and one antivirus server. All four servers are running properly, and a maximum of 60 users can log in.

The solution should be more user-friendly and cheaper. It will be charged through databases, which means that when I use the server, I will be charged, but when I don't use the server, I won't be charged. To use a physical server, you need to purchase one at a certain price. After three years, you need to purchase AMC for the server which is a recurring cost. Additionally, there are electricity and maintenance costs. Virtual servers in the cloud can be cheaper than physical servers, especially if the monthly cost is lower. Therefore, many clients and organizations will choose to use virtual servers.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for ten years.

The product is stable.

The product is not scalable. We have 60 primary users using this solution. Upon migration, it will be 100.

The initial setup is easy. To require a certain specification of the server, we need to clear the cloud first. We need at least a six-core server for our backup process. A Cisco server with 48GB of primary storage and two 1TB SSDs is sufficient for our needs for ERP. After six months, if the end of support is reached, we will move to our turn server and use the data server. The first step will be server migration, then it will be the terminal server migration.

The solution has a yearly license. If we switch to a yearly subscription plan for Microsoft Virtual Server, it would be cheaper in the long run. The price per month would be higher, but the overall cost for the year would be lower.

We want to move our ERP server to the cloud. We need to prepare our users and the ERP system itself, as well as develop a digital plan. We have two partners that we need to collaborate with, and we need to discuss the move with them. We believe that we can complete the migration within this year, and we plan to be fully operational in the cloud by January 2024. Around four technical staff is enough for maintenance. If a client is having a problem, they need to be able to contact the vendor (the end user) in order to provide support. Microsoft should have a portal or make it easy for customers to contact them if they are having any technical issues or addressing problems. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Our use cases are normal. It's a virtual machine. We have virtual machines for our application servers, for many application servers. So we use it just to reduce the cost of having new physical machines. That is the main benefit of virtualization in a GUI.

The most valuable feature is the stability of the solution. 

I would like to see an updated version of Microsoft Virtual Server that supports Linux.

We recently updated their special machines to the Linux version of Cybervisor, and we are also using VMware and Dell DXL. These platforms are more efficient than Microsoft Virtual Server, and we no longer carry on with Microsoft.

In the future release, I would like to see more automation. Moreover, improvements related to recovery could be beneficial.

I have used Microsoft Virtual Hyper-V for about six or seven years right now. 

The solution is very stable. We haven't had any critical issues. I don't think I have faced anything critical yet.

It is a scalable solution. There are about 200 end users using this solution. 

The customer service and support are very fast and efficient. 

The initial setup is very easy. It took around three to four hours to deploy the solution. 

We have one manager and two admins for the maintenance of the solution.

We just purchased our licenses from Microsoft, and it hasn't been an issue.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. It is a good product. It's very effective. Between Microsoft and VMware, Microsoft is cheaper than VMware. It doesn't have the same performance issue, but it will be enough for any small business.

We use Microsoft Virtual Server for its Hyper-V technology.

Virtual Server can assign RAM, CPU, and storage resources to virtual machines. This allows virtual machines to scale according to their needs.

There could be more security features included in the product.

We have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for eight years. We use version 2019 at present.

We have 1000 Microsoft Virtual Server users in our organization. We use it once a week. I rate its scalability a seven out of ten.

We use Microsoft Virtual Server to monitor user behavior on virtual machines. We can view incident reports using it.

The product helps us secure VMs from vulnerabilities in our systems like Sentinel. It indicates the threat via email notification. We are then able to resolve the issues as soon as possible.

The platform could provide more integration and stability.

It is a stable product.

We have 25 Microsoft Virtual Server users in our organization. We might increase the number of users to 40 in the current year, 2023. It is a scalable product.

I initially contacted Microsoft Virtual Server’s support team as we were in a learning phase. They were very cooperative and provided support on time.

I have worked with AWS services in virtual environments. It is very costly, and technical support services are difficult to find compared to Microsoft Virtual Server in our region. At the same time, Microsoft provides technical support on email and calls according to requirements.

The initial setup process is complicated compared to open-source solutions like Linux, which also provides a secure environment. We deploy the product on-premise and on the cloud.

I recommend Microsoft Virtual Server an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for internal business purposes. 

The solution is stable. 

Microsoft Virtual Server needs to improve its stability. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

The tool is scalable. 

Microsoft Virtual Server's deployment can be done in-house. 

Some of the licensing costs are monthly, and others are yearly. 

I rate Microsoft Virtual Server an eight out of ten. 

It is a good solution. If a company must have 100 physical servers, it can virtualize all those servers using Virtual Server. From a hundred physical servers, they can come to four physical servers. We can reduce the consumption.

The product helps with server management. It adds value to the business. It improves security and server management and reduces the cost of handling data filters. We can also add space for doing other things. The dashboard is valuable to us. It provides flexibility in the management of multiple servers. The tool provides flexibility in the configuration of different servers.

The solution must improve its pricing.

I have been using the solution for years.

The tool is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The tool is very, very scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Our clients are small, medium, and large enterprises. The solution fits any requirement.

The technical support is good.

Neutral

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward. The deployment takes four hours.

The product must reduce the cost by 40%.

Microsoft is better than Linux.

People who want to use the product need to make a good assessment of their needs, build the right licensing program, and hire a great team to implement and support the solution. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use Microsoft Virtual Server to centralize and access all Active Directory and file servers. Additionally, we regulate the computers within the domain and manage user access to the systems.

Microsoft Virtual Server can be deployed on-premises, in the cloud, or in a hybrid environment, depending on the specific business requirements of each organization.

The most valuable feature is the ability to share folders and run Active Directory.

Server security can always be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for five years.

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable.

I give the scalability of Microsoft Virtual Server a ten out of ten.

Technical support is available anywhere in the world, but we haven't needed to contact them because our Microsoft Virtual Servers are functioning as expected.

The initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who has experience with Microsoft servers can set up their environment including the shared folders quickly.

For the deployment, we must first understand the organization's requirements and determine whether there will be external users accessing the system or if it will be limited to internal use only. We need to define the goals and then consider all the necessary components to facilitate the process. It is crucial to establish a centralized location, and depending on the complexity of the network topology, we can determine how it can serve external users effectively. Finally, we can begin testing the security measures and take note of the advantages and disadvantages that arise.

I give Microsoft Virtual Server a ten out of ten.

The number of people required for deployment and maintenance depends on the size of the organization. A small company can manage with one person, but I have also seen large organizations that required fifteen people.

Microsoft Virtual Servers can offer a secure, reliable, and scalable network environment, catering to the specific roles of servers for organizations of any size. I highly recommend utilizing Microsoft Virtual Servers.