Microsoft Virtual Server Reviews

We use it to spin up multiple virtuals that have different operating systems and we do different tests.

I appreciate the ease and speed with which I can set up and manage virtual machines using Microsoft Virtual Server.

The main thing that could be improved is the licensing cost. Additionally, enhancing the backup features would be beneficial.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for 12 years.

I would rate the scalability as a nine out of ten. It is very stable.

I would rate the scalability as a seven out of ten.

Deploying virtual machines with Microsoft's virtualization is quick, taking just two or three minutes with our automation scripts. I can initiate it with a simple PowerShell command, and it is a solo task.

When it comes to ROI, the solution has saved us time and reduced costs by around 15%.

I would rate the costliness at a seven out of ten. It has a yearly licensing model.

For those considering this solution, my advice would be to plan for scalability by ensuring enough resources. Overall, I would rate Microsoft Virtual Server as an eight out of ten.

I use the solution for internal applications.

The product is easy to set up.

The interface should be improved. The product should also improve its performance.

I have been using the solution for the last one year.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Around 125 people are using the solution in our company. It is extensively used. We need a technical staff, a manager, and an IT head to deploy and maintain the tool. The scalability must be improved.

It took more than six months to deploy the solution.

An integrator helped us with the deployment. We must check all the features before deploying the solution.

The pricing must be improved.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We build remote environments for customers who work remotely. We create virtual desktops that also work on phones for about 2,000 employees.

The solution is good at allowing end users to connect anytime and anywhere. The cost can also be optimized by changing the size of the implementation.

The bandwidth to Singapore could be scaled better. Moreover, the virtual desktop should be better at connecting back to the on-premises servers.

We have used the solution for one or two years.

I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The initial setup is complex the first time you do it. The second and third times are easier, especially if you have a knowledgeable person helping. You would normally need about two engineers when deploying the solution.

When deploying the solution, you’ll have to focus on the network design with regards to WLAN and so on. After that, you’ll have to verify the phones and create user profiles.

We deployed the solution in-house using Microsoft documentation.

We are embarking on a virtual environment for our disaster recovery before embarking on our production. We tested several virtual servers. When they are successful during the DR environment, we plan for our production environment with a very small-scale noncritical production environment.

When everything stabilizes after a few months, we return to the production environment for critical systems. We migrate from the physical to the virtual. It takes about one and a half years to do that with help from our local vendor.

The solution provides easy monitoring and easy troubleshooting.

The solution’s pricing could be improved. When embarking on a virtual environment, the sizing is not done properly. Capacity planning should be comprehensively done before embarking on any virtualized environment.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for 11 years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Around ten users use the solution in our organization.

Microsoft Virtual Server is a scalable solution.

A feasibility study needs to be done properly for the solution's deployment.

Microsoft Virtual Server’s licensing is expensive.

Users must read everything about their virtual environment before they go for any enhancement on the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

I use the solution to deploy the server for different use cases.

The product provides flexibility. It is a fast solution.

The tool must provide updates less frequently.

I have been using the solution for a couple of years.

I do not use the tool daily. More than 100 people use the product in my organization. We need four engineers to maintain the product.

The setup is easy.

The IT team implemented the solution with the help of an integrator.

I recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We are a data centre and hosting provider. We provide our clients with a dedicated server and VM. My client uses Microsoft Virtual Server to deploy website applications. 

The tool is productive and performs well. The server speed is also fast. 

We've faced challenges with migrating virtual machines from one host to another. Also, managing Microsoft updates has been a struggle. We have to update the host node every month when new updates are released, and our virtual machines go down every time there's an update. This causes downtime repeatedly and irritates our clients. It should also be lightweight. 

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable. 

My company has more than 1000 customers. 

We do not take direct support from Microsoft. We have experts in-house. 

We deploy the tool manually. The deployment process involves meeting the client's requirements. We install the necessary memory and configure the system to meet these specifications. My company has more than 100 resources to manage Microsoft Virtual Server. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. The tool's compatibility with other operating systems is fine. We enjoy better manageability because we handle everything in-house, leveraging our expertise in Microsoft. 

High Availability features Performance Monitoring

Sussex County is envisioning the future of computing and communications technologies, anticipating a new path to business process management. Visualizing and comparing business processes that aim to improve new process techniques and deployment. Identifying business process and standardizing them through best practices and e-Business opportunities enhances efficiencies in management, operations, transparency and governance.

Virtual Network Tools Security Tools Snapshot Management

7 years

Yes Exchange 2003 issues Software License

no

no

Very Good

Very Good

Yes Management of Virtual Enviroments

Complex. The P2V process had some issues

Both

CAPEX-160k OPEX-34k

Citrix Microsoft

This business concept will lead you to a positive business process of managing your systems.

The typical use base varies due to the fact that, with our client base, we're here, there, and everywhere across the board. It all depends on what direction they want us to go and that we go, or suggest to go. The only places that we would use a virtual server is in an instance of running an exchange. I have also looked at it for running our managed services server on as well.

The greatest aspect of the solution is its capability to be available from anywhere.

The solution works well for running exchanges and managed services.

It's evolving so fast here now I don't know whether a guy can stay ahead of what the next thing should be. It's extremely difficult to keep up right now.

Support could always be a bit better. It's integral to a product. If it's not good, you end up shying away from the product itself. You want to feel assured that the company can help you if you run into trouble. Microsoft is beginning to lose popularity as it's becoming extremely hard to get a hold of anyone. It's a problem.

I've been using the solution for around five years or so. It's been a while at this point.

Most of our clients are small. I'd say 30 users and below. We do have some that are a little bit larger than that, however, predominantly under 50 is where it's at.

I'm not very familiar with the scalability aspect of the solution. It's not something I've dealt with head-on.

The technical support used to be better. These days, Microsoft support is getting harder and harder to reach. It's turning people off. We're less satisfied with it at the moment. Even if you have the proper licensing for the support it doesn't seem to make it easier to connect with them. Microsoft has lost all credibility on this front.

The initial setup can be a bit difficult, and often it's a time when you need to reach out to support.

It's like anything else that's hung out there on the internet. There's a lot of factors that come into play, and sometimes it's not the actual server that's causing the grief. It's the connection through it and all the rest of it.

We have about six people on staff that can assist with any maintenance.

In terms of licensing costs, it varies depending upon how much you need. It all falls together. What is advertised to get started really, in nine times out of 10, doesn't give you enough to run under for any length of time.

We're resellers.

I'm not sure which version of the solution I'm using at this time. It's likely one of the latest versions.

In general, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. Largely, it's a pretty good solution, however, technical support is really lacking right now.