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. 

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.

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.

Our primary use case is for the SCADA system, for the ITS system, and for the station system. I'm a system programmer and we are customers of Microsoft.

The advantage of the product is that it's user friendly, it's compatible with the scalar product applications, it's well known to our own users as well as to our end-user clients. 

I'd like to see more features and more functionality to the Microsoft operating system. The solution should be able to connect remotely and create a safer channel between the user and cloud assets, or through the internet. It's one of the biggest challenges we've had this past year. There are a lot of companies competing with each other to apply these features due to the pandemic. 

For additional features, I'd like to see something like third-party applications that would create a hub to receive a connection from outside. It would handle all types of servers to enable remote access for the user from home, so they can safely connect to the system and check in if there is an emergency. You know that the SCADA system is a critical system and you can be considered on-call and notified at any time. It would enable a remote connection rather than the need for long procedures to connect to my network. It could have a third-party authentication so we could connect to the server safely.

We've used this product since 2008. 

The product is stable with the current application we are using for SCADA but I'm not sure of the impact if you were to use another application or another technology. For the appliances using the firewall, using switches, it's very stable, especially, the critical system which you configure once, and forget about until you need to make another vulnerability scan. For the critical asset, or for the entire system, you'll configure it once, and it's stable. 

Sometimes you need a huge number of firewalls to manage all the assets, so scalability depends on the assets you have in your network. In our case we sometimes only connect seven substations, that's three or four firewalls to manage everything. That includes interconnection with the member states, meaning six countries in the Gulf area that will receive information or data from them. The total number of data is very manageable requiring only three or four firewalls. In general, it is scalable and manageable. We have just under 100 users. We have around 10 technical teams in our control center and 10 engineers monitoring the system who deal with admin, modifications and monitoring the system.

Any patching is tested in Dubai before applying it to the production system. We have minimal contact with the IT technical team. Given that the system is very stable, we rarely talk to the Microsoft technical team. 

There is usually a factory acceptance test, but because of the pandemic we have an agreement with our vendor for the latest project that we will carry out the merger in Saudi Arabia.

We're engaged with a reseller who deals with licensing for us. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

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.