Windows Server Reviews

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.

The solution is mainly used if you have a lot of solutions that integrate with Microsoft products. The usage varies. It depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use it for integrating for web services or integrating for OS with some of your net applications, or your C-Sharp type of environments, then Windows is your go-to.

The product is very good for those that are integrating a lot of Microsoft products. It's great at integrating them.

The initial setup is pretty easy. The deployment is very fast.

The solution needs to be more stable and secure. Linux servers are much better in terms of stability and security and are better at thwarting any form of cyber attack. You stand a better chance if you're on a Linux box if you get hit. Not that they don't get attacked. However, Windows is a high-maintenance operating system. You have to keep it up to date almost all the time, and you also need to have a lab to test your updates as some of the updates could actually break the environment. There is a fine line between keeping it updated and breaking it.

I've been using the solution for what feels like forever. It's easily been seven or eight years.

The stability needs to be improved. You really need to have some sort of sandbox in order to test the updates. While it needs to be kept updated, you also run the risk of breaking your environment. It's a tricky balance. 

There are not so many users on the solution. Users are only using the applications, not so much the servers themselves, however, I would say, from our systems, we've got about five people that have to look after these servers.

The initial setup process has improved over the years. Now it's actually better than it was. I would say that at this point it's straightforward. Within 10 or 15 minutes, you can build a single Windows Server and put it on production.

You can likely handle the implementation yourself. It's easy. I did it myself. I didn't need the assistance of any outside integrator or consultant. 

You do need to pay for a license. It's reasonably priced. Of course, if you are strapped for cash, you can set up a Linux type of server basically for free. It depends on what you need.

I am aware of Linux servers. You can set up an Unbuntu server for free if you want. With Microsoft, you do have to pay. I also find Linux to be more secure. You are less likely to suffer attacks.

We use various versions of the product. Right now, for example, it's a mix between the 2015 and 2019 versions.

Users need to be aware that they need to manage the solution properly. It could be pretty unsafe if you don't manage it properly.

I wouldn't outright recommend the solution per se. It depends on what you want to achieve or if you have the knowledge of what you want to do. I would only recommend it if you have to integrate it with other Microsoft products. There are other server platform products that are much more secure and better than Windows. That said, if you are integrating into a Microsoft environment, yes, Windows is your best option.

In general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's great for Microsoft-heavy environments, however, it could be more secure. 

We use Windows Server to host all of our Windows-specific applications, such as Active Directory. We also use it for our systems that are running Microsoft SQL Server, since it used to be dependent on Windows. That is no longer necessary because we have an option to run it on Linux, as well.

Our infrastructure includes systems from Microsoft, Linux, and IBM.

Windows Server is well-integrated into what we do. It even integrates well with remote working tools like Teams.

The most valuable feature is Active Directory.

Microsoft Exchange is very valuable for us.

I am quite satisfied with the user interface.

Recently, they added a new terminal window where you can SSH into Linux machines easily. The Linux packages that are now installed with the Microsoft Store can support a miniature version of Ubuntu and Linux integration tools. When installed, it can easily connect remotely to other operating systems.

Better integration with more platforms would be useful.

I have been using Windows Server for perhaps 15 years.

It is easy to scale up and scale down Microsoft products. Expanding can be done by adding more servers, or just adding resources to a single server. For example, if I want more processing power then I can add RAM or upgrade the CPU. Then if the load on a single server becomes overwhelming then more nodes can be added.

Another case where adding more nodes is done is to have replication between data centers for Exchange or Active Directory.

We have approximately 2,000 users that access their email and we plan to continue using it in the future.

Once in a while, we contact Microsoft for support on the product and they have responded well. There have been cases where the problem is too complicated to easily correct over the phone, so they sent a local technical from their support team to assist us in troubleshooting.

Overall, I would say that the support is quite good.

We have always used Windows Server, although, with respect to email and Exchange, we switched to Windows from another product.

Setting up Windows Server is quite straightforward and easy to follow, compared to other operating systems. The GUI makes it very easy to install both the operating system and applications.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the applications that are running. In most cases, we're deploying a single application and it will take perhaps a day or two. If we are deploying infrastructure like Exchange then it may take a week or two weeks to set up the whole Exchange infrastructure.

We used a local Microsoft certified consultant to assist us in setting up our servers. We had internal skills as well, so it was quite easy to follow.

We have a team of ten system administrators who handle maintenance, although they are not specific to Windows Server. Rather, they take care of all of the products in our data center. Given that we also have Linux and IBM infrastructure, I would say that we have three personnel who take care of our Microsoft systems.

This is quite a good product and one that I recommend. I wouldn't recommend anything that does not integrate well with remote working tools, as most people are now working remotely. We are able to manage our systems from home.

Overall, deployment is quite straightforward, the technical support is quite good, and we are happy with the product. That said, nothing is perfect.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

A couple of years ago we migrated from the 2008 to the 2012 version and we are currently in the process of trying to migrate our applications to that of 2019. We use Windows 10 for OS. We're researching z/OS, which is actually Linux based, to see how well it works with Windows applications. 

When it comes to the SQL server, we have separate application and database servers, the latter which is also on Windows Server 2012. This means that we have a couple of applications in which we hosted in IIS and Windows Server 2012. Consequently, we have quite a collection of Windows 2012 that are currently running in our data center. 

For the moment, we are not making use of the solution in our environment but looking into how we can have a license free OS that can both work with lower machines and function very well.

We like the ease of use, stability and performance of Windows Server. The reason I was skeptical when it comes to moving to Windows Server 2019, which is currently the latest version that the market has to offer, is because the solution is easy to use and stable, something typical of any OS. While we are currently inspecting the compatibility of applications that are running on Windows version 2019, we're still using the 2012 version and everything is working fine. We have encountered no problems with the OS being used to run the applications. 

What could help in improving the footprint is if Microsoft could come up with several flavors or start providing containerized solutions for server systems. 

Say, for example, that I wish to host a web server online. I would pose the question whether I would really need to have a Windows Server OS for me to be able to do that on IIS. At the moment, the use of Kubernetes or Docker present the only solution. As there is a steep learning curve for one's team to acquire the skill-set and obtain the capabilities associated with these solutions, a relevant Microsoft version would make life much easier. 

As I have already paid for a license, I should have the option of requesting the containerized functionality from the OS to reduce the Windows Server OS footprint. This will save me from having to make constant installations as a condition of running my servers on it. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years, straight from the beginning. 

We have had no issues with Windows Server that required technical support, although we did have to call the Microsoft team concerning something on which we were working and had issues around the MS Teams and certain things relating to Azure. I can connect you to my system's administrator if you wish, who may have more information. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

I can easily replicate what I want. My environment allows me to clone servers in a matter of mere minutes, as I already have a startup which contains all of my standards. 

One must pay for a license for the solution. 

The number of users utilizing the solution averages slightly north of 500, since this is the application we use in running all our key activities. Each member of our organization's staff requires access to the solution for carrying out several functions, be it in respect of the application or of the need to log into the system as a consequence of this being where the employee management system is located. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

We are using this solution as a server operating system.

The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running.

I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line. 

When you work on the command line you can make scripts and then use them every time you want to complete a task. You can capitalize on past experiences by using a script to simplify them, such as when you need to install something or do configurations. Making those tasks faster and simplified. You end up saving a lot of time by using the command line which is best for administrators and the graphical interface is best for the end-user.

You can not do most of the automation on Windows that you can on Linux, it is not the same thing. Windows is improving but it is not at the same level as Linux.

When using a graphical interface it tends to have more bugs, vulnerabilities and weakens the server. Normally we install Linux on big servers that do not have any graphical interfaces inside. The fewer services you run the better it with be for security. We prefer most of the time installing Windows without the graphical interface. 

Overall Windows for us is more difficult and less efficient than Linux.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 25 years.

The solution is stable. However, when you start putting in some extra layers, such as data intelligence inside, then problems tend to start happening.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server solutions for a long time. We started with Windows NT then switched to Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and all the way up to this current version. Additionally, we work with Linux and Windows 10.

It is easy to do some types of deployments with Windows dedicated networks.

We have evaluated Linux and other Windows systems.

I recently started using my Windows 10 with the Linux Subsystem for Windows, to install and administer all my Linux servers worldwide. I can run a DBM on the Linux Subsystem for Windows, Ubuntu, or Kali Linux, and can access my servers worldwide. Having Linux Subsystem running inside Windows 10, I have been enjoying using the operating system much more.

I cannot install a virtual machine inside the Subsystems which I do very easily on any Linux distribution. Additionally, after installing a virtual machine on Linux, the virtual machine will be more powerful than the Linux Subsystem for Windows. If Microsoft was able to achieve the same level of a virtual machine, then it will be very good for us to start doing many more operations inside of Windows.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

Most of the time we use it for user account access. We also deploy Microsoft on machines that must run on Windows. Beyond that, we use it for the remote desktop, and obviously for its mobile Microsoft features.

The active directory that the server provides is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The solution continues to improve and develop and we appreciate that it's always evolving. We've been working with the solution so long, we've seen a lot of changes for the better happen over time.

The pricing aspect of the solution needs improvement. It could be lowered. Over time, the pricing itself has fluctuated, and now, especially pricing around mobile aspects of the solution really seems to be driving everything up.

They also need to work on the license model for virtualization.

The solution could offer higher availability.

Users would benefit if the solution offered better management features.

I've been using the solution for 15 years. I've used it from version NT 4.4 to version Studio 1.6.

The solution is quite stable and continues to grow its stability reputation year over year. The latest version was much more stable than the previous versions.

The solution is easy to scale. If a company needs to expand this solution, they can do so easily. We have a variety of customers that may have as many as 1,000 users at any given time. We typically sell to medium-sized enterprises across three different localities.

Our company uses the solution quite extensively on a regular basis.

We have reached out to Microsoft's support for critical issues in the past to get their assistance.

When we get the support from Microsoft's Shanghai division, the support is very good. I would say, in the case is Iraq to the other regions, such as India, the support is not as good there.

We've used different solutions in the past, however, they don't really fit with most our use cases, and we feel much more comfortable with Microsoft.

The initial setup is easy. It offers a quick download time and easy deployment. I would describe the process as straightforward. It's not complex.

IN a physical environment, deployment wouldn't take more than an hour. On average it might take 30 to 45 minutes. The virtual deployment is much, much quicker.

You only need one person to deploy the solution.

We're resellers, and we sell IT products, so we're able to deploy the solution ourselves. If our clients need help, we can certainly help them deploy the service as well.

If you buy a standard license, you can only buy two towards your machine. If you need more than that, you need to buy another type of licensing. It changes the cost and makes it much more expensive.

We handle both on-prem and cloud deployments. We're in IT services, so we often sell these solutions to our clients. We use the Windows Server ourselves as well.

I'd recommend the solution. It works well, however, users still have to understand Windows and the Windows interface in order to use it correctly.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I primarily use the solution for college assignments.

We are using it just to learn how to configure all the options that Windows Server provides for the active directory and basically all the necessary configurations. It's for enterprise infrastructure, so to speak. We are mainly focusing on group policy and remote authentication, the main controller, and all the functionalities that a Windows server provides through the access directory.

The solution, in general, is quite straightforward. A beginner could probably use it with ease. It's always more or less simple to understand how this works.

Configuring a group policy has shown to be not very straightforward. For example, one of our assignments was to create a GPO that should block any user of opening and/or downloading an MP3/WAV file, and the same for video files. It was very confusing to find a solution that would do just that, we had to test different approches, or ven combining policies to achieve something that resambles what was asked to do. The default template in the File Server Resouce Manager isn't enough.

I've only been using the solution for about two months or so. It's relatively new to me.

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches, nor does it crash. It's reliable.

The solution is scalable. A company shouldn't have any troubles expanding it if they need to.

There may be 50 or 60 users on the solution currently. They're all students.

I'm not sure if I will continue using the solution of expanding usage in the future.

We've never really reached out to technical support. Typically, we'll look to the internet to search for answers. We'll google and find what we need.

I didn't previously use a different solution.

The solution is not too complex. It's quite simple to install the components, and not very difficult to configure for the most part. We're just to start using it, and it's not so complex so far. Still, it has a learning curve. You have to get to know some basic concepts before you can really understand what you're configuring. Otherwise, you get a little bit lost.

The installation itself only takes about ten minutes or so. It's rather quick. You don't really need to deploy it, per se, as it's on a virtual machine. It's not a professional environment. Of course, it would probably take longer if you have to configure all of the necessary requirements for professional applications.

My colleagues and I handled the installation as a group.

I'm not really a customer. I'm just a student learning the ins and outs of the product itself.

We are using in virtual machines the Windows Server 2019.

I'd recommend this solution. It's quite complete. For a company that wants all the necessary components to administer their infrastructure and so forth, it's quite good.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If they offered better documentation that wasn't as dated I might rate it higher.

We primarily use the solution for a variety of tasks including active directory servers, exchange servers, hosting applications, running insurance apps, and SQL databases. A whole gamut of things. 

The SQL version of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The solution is very easy to use and very easy to onboard. 

The solution, for the most part, is stable. The stability is actually pretty good in terms of availability.

The product's performance depends on the use case.

The solution is very scalable.

The initial setup isn't overly difficult.

It requires a lot of monthly maintenance in terms of vulnerability management, which is the downside. 

I would say the biggest improvement could be improvement in the vulnerability space. Every month we get critical vulnerabilities across the Windows Server fleet. If I could see the volumes come down there, that would be the biggest step forward.

I've been using the solution for 15 or more years at this point. It's been well over a decade. it's been a while.

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

However, every release gets more stable and offers more performance with the exception of vulnerability management, which doesn't seem to improve. I would say, we haven't got that much experience with 2019, yet 2012 was a big advancement on 2008's version. 2016 advanced as well. Every newer version gets better in terms of performance and stability.

We tend to scale horizontally, and that'll scale up to quite a degree. We have some very large SQL Servers in particular that are scalable.

We have about 5,000 to 10,000 users on the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If I had to rate it against any industry standards, I would rate it at a six or seven out of ten. It's not as good as other providers I work with. Right now, Microsoft needs you to prove it's a Microsoft issue before they'll work on it.

We generate a custom build that's automated. Automating everything took quite a lot of effort, however, now that we have an automated build, implementing that for any new version probably takes, I'd say, a month, or maybe a bit more, which is not too bad. It's pretty straightforward.

We have a team of eight or nine individuals that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation by ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

We have enterprise agreements with Microsoft.

We are customers and end-users.

While the deployment models we use are mostly on-premises, we do sometimes use cloud deployment as well.

We use a variety of versions of the solution, including 2019, 2016, and 2012.  We actually use a lot of 2012.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's a step up from older versions.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies. However, it depends on the use case. If you were hosting SQL or Exchange server, certainly. However, in other circumstances, if it was between this and Red Hat Linux, you might choose Red Hat Linux.