Windows Server Reviews

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.

I primarily use it for my day-to-day business tasks. 

As an end-user, the experience of the solution is that it's very reliable. It just works. As long as it doesn't affect my daily operation and we can work safely and securely with each other, that's all I care about.

The solution has a sufficient amount of stability and performance that meets my needs. 

I can work securely and all the files are easily accessible.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. 

The scalability potential is quite good. 

The cost to use the solution is quite high.

Our main problem is the Citrix environment we're still in. However, we're migrating from that to the Windows 10 environment, so Citrix will be out within two or three years. Therefore,  performance is not really an issue - on the operating system at least. 

I've used the solution for more than three years at this point, It's been a while now. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. I've found it to be reliable. It doesn't give me trouble. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale if you need it to.

We have about 70,000 users on this product currently.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We did not previously use a different solution. It's always been Windows, although we may at some point have also used Unbuntu Linux.

The initial implementation is easy. It's not overly complex or difficult. It's just pushed with the build we have and that way it doesn't affect the end-user. It's just ready to go. We find that the installation is simple and efficient.

While we have a technical team of about 5,000 or 6,000 users, I'm not sure how many were involved in the initial deployment. 

The initial setup was handled internally. They did it themselves. There's sufficient knowledge of the Windows Server products to do it in-house. We have a rather large IT department. It's over 5,000 people.

The pricing is quite high on Microsoft products. It would be ideal if they were made to be more affordable. 

With the magnitude of our organization, every three years, a proper review of the contracts would be handled.

Although it's my understanding that we have some special deal with Microsoft, I cannot speak to the exact cost or the licensing agreement that was reached. 

We are customers and end-users of the product.

In general, if you're asking me if I'm happy with Windows Server, yes, I am.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight. I'm satisfied with its overall capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

I use the solution for all my servers, for the domain, the file server and other applications with which it is compatible. 

I consider Bixby, DNS, Active Directory, File Servers, Print Servers, Windows Defender and a host of other features to be valuable. 

It would be nice if the the Windows Defender feature would be enhanced to be similar to that of other antiviruses or endpoint features on the market that have whole and individual features and are reliable. At present, Defender cannot be relied on independently. Another endpoint must be installed. It would be better could we rely on the more compatible endpoint features that already accompany Windows.

There should be inbuilt endpoints, such as we find with Linux, Unix, Apple Macintosh and other browsers, which don't require the installation of additional endpoints. 

Patch updates should be less frequent. Instead of them being put out daily, they should be put out weekly or monthly. 

If the storage is not installed on the SSD hard disk, it affects the performance. I am not referring to the processor, RAM or GUI, just the storage. Windows 7 worked fine on the HDD. 

The security should be improved. There are many services on the Windows Server which are enabled or started by default and this is unnecessary. Xbox would be an example of this. These should be removed. Only the minimum number of services needed to get the solution up and running should be included. The existence of services means open board and this opens one up to hackers and attackers. As an IT person, it should not be my role to come up with workarounds for such occurrences. This should be in Microsoft's domain. 

We have been using Windows Server for around 12 years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have never had need for Microsoft's technical support, as the solution is simple and easy to manage and maintain. There are also many communities and a host of references that can be found on the internet. The internet is very helpful and makes finding the relevant answers easy. 

The initial setup is very simple.

The solution is easy to install and to maintain. These processes are user-friendly.

There was no need for help from the vendor. I handled the installation on my own. 

The maintenance that is required involves the patching of the operating system with the latest fixes and security fixes, in addition to the updates which are downloaded by Microsoft.

The price needs to be reduced. Users find it prohibitive. It is exorbitant for the value one gets with the solution. 

There are around 300 users making use of the solution in my organization.

I would certainly recommend the solution to others. I must, as it simplifies the administration and operation. 

I rate Windows Server as a seven out of ten. 

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. 

The solution is used both as a security measure and basically for all operating systems which are mostly for the ERP systems. They need to be installed in a Windows Server so that it has a link to the domain. It makes it a secure network.

The Windows Server is mostly to host our SAP application. It's just that basic operating system. We are using the backend as a database, a Microsoft SQL Server is there also in front of them.

Over the ten years we have used the servers, we've never had a problem. They are robust and reliable. 

The solution is quite stable.

The product can scale very well.

We could always use more security on the product.

If it had more integration capabilities, that would be ideal.

We've been using the solution for about ten years now. It's been a decade or so. We've had it for a while.

The solution is reliable and the performance is great. We literally never have any issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales quite well. If we need to expand it, it has the capacity to do so.

Windows Server acts basically as the SAP application that is being hosted on this server. We have not given access to our internal employees. Basically, we give access of SAP to several of our clients and there are more than 200 people using SAP and the backend Windows Server.

Technical support is from the provider. So they are the ones who contact the Microsoft support team if there is an issue with the server.

We also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is handled by our service providers. I do not handle the implementation process myself. Everything comes pre-installed and ready to go.

Maintenance is being done by the hosting service provider. We don't maintain the operating system; they do it from their end.

The installation is done by the hosting service providers. They provide us the servers in which they pre-install Windows Server 2019. That comes as part of the servers which we take from the internet solution providers.

We don't pay for the license. That is as part of a contract in which we pay a monthly charge for having the servers in the hosted environment.

We have several servers. The oldest are the 2012 versions. The newest servers we have are from 2019.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I cannot say enough that, over the decade of use, we have had zero issues. It's been great.

I'd definitely recommend the product to other users and companies.

I just use Windows Server to install third party software, things like data integration tools and BI tools. One of the uses was to set up an on-prem Active Directory. So these kinds of things.

The feature that I have found most valuable is the Active Directory. I have had good experience with Windows Server. I haven't had any issues

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the Active Directory synchronization on Azure. This is something which was not easy to do. Using Azure Active Directory, I was trying to sync and this was not straightforward. This process could be more simplified.

I have been using Windows Server for the past eight, nine years.

It is a stable product.

In terms of the maintenance it requires, maybe there are some regular updates. We do make some backups as well. But this is a lab environment, we don't have much sensitive information stored here.

Windows Server is easy to scale.

We have 15 people using it.

I do have experience with Microsoft support in general, but not related to Windows Server.

In general, my experience with Microsoft support is good.

If we are talking about Windows like Windows 11 or Windows 10 versus Mac OS? For personal use, I believe Mac is overall simpler and has a better user experience. It is a little bit more robust. I just prefer the way the application installations are done and services are managed within the Mac OS.

But for work, I cannot compare Mac OS to a Windows Server. I can compare Mac OS to Windows 10 or Windows 11.

The initial setup was a simple one. It took maybe an hour.

I did it by myself and we had a bunch of engineers as well, who were working on it.

It is a fair price. For Microsoft overall, we have a subscription with Office. So there is also a bundle for Windows.

The price is good. It is cheaper than Mac OS. In this case, it's better in terms of price.

I would recommend Windows Server because it's just easier to use for some people than Red Hat. That's the main thing - it is easier to use and maintain versus other operating systems within the Linux space.

On a scale of one to ten, let's be generous and give Windows Server an eight.

Our primary use case of Windows Server is application support. We have applications such as SAP-based or web-based solutions that we use through Citrix-based solutions. We deploy it on Azure. 

A valuable feature of Windows Server has been the performance. We have done all the redundancy and fault tolerance things to protect our servers and, so far, so good.

As for additional features, we are very interested in the new feature released by Windows: Azure Virtual Desktop. We are currently exploring it so that instead of people depending on their own desktop, we could work on Azure Virtual Desktop. Integration with Azure Virtual Desktop would be cool. 

We recently began using Windows Server. 

This solution is stable and we're satisfied with the performance. 

We enabled scalability, but haven't scaled it much. We have a limited set of users, so the scalability feature is not really in use. 

There are many end users, but there are less than 10 people managing this solution. We don't currently have plans to increase our usage because we are happy with the current capacity. We may decide to increase our usage later, but it depends on the solution and new requirements. 

We have contacted Microsoft's technical support. We used to have weekly and monthly meetings with them, so we got up-to-date directly from Microsoft support, which were were happy with. 

We didn't use a different solution previously. We went directly for Microsoft because the solution is only supported by Microsoft, so we've never tried any other operating system. 

The installation was easy. We didn't do it directly because we have an Infrastructure as Code setup, with Terraform, so we were able to do it very easily. As for the time frame, if you go for a manual process, it will take five or ten minutes, but using code, you can deploy the solutions in less than a minute. We managed it ourselves, without any support. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

I'm not involved much in the payment part, but I believe that we pay a yearly subscription for licensing. 

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others who are considering implementation.