Windows Server Reviews

We are using this solution for some database applications.

The solution is mostly stable. 

The scalability is okay. We just need to get the correct edition of the Server.

The initial setup is easy and the deployment is fast.

There are some limitations around scalability.

The solution should be less expensive. Linux options are far less costly.

I've been using the solution for five years, at least, in this company.

The product, for the most part, is stable. I would say the hardware will cause some issues before the operating system.

In terms of hardware, it is scalable, if we can increase the hardware resources. We are not using the data center version of the OS. We're just using the standard version.

We have around 30 people using the solution.

I haven't dealt with technical support. So far we haven't escalated anything as our installation is very simple.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It is basically like any other Windows operating system. It's fairly straightforward.

The implementation only takes about 30 minutes. 

We have a team of three in the IT department that can handle deployment and maintenance. 

We did not need any integrator or consultant. it's very easy for a company to handle by itself. 

The pricing could be more competitive.

We only pay a one-time fee and do not have to continuously pay monthly or yearly.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are still using 2012, and we're planning to upgrade to 2019.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations. 

We work mostly on the banking organization segment. In banking organizations, they are using around 40% of Windows Servers. If there is any database they will be using MySQL. Including enterprise segments. 80% of people are using Windows Server and SQL or Exchange though, actually, now people are migrating to the cloud. Groups of companies, including enterprise pharmaceuticals, are mostly using Microsoft.

The ease of use is great.

The installation process is great.

We've had a lot of problems from day one.

The security could be better. One of the banks suffered ransomware attacks and they were able to penetrate the servers. 

There's a short availability that could be much better.

The performance is not up to snuff. They need to work on increasing resources. 

I've used the solution since the inception of our company, which has been about seven years.

The performance is not ideal. It could be a lot better. 

We have around 200 clients and most of them are using Microsoft in one way or another.

Most of the time, we've noticed that customers can go and troubleshoot issues on their own. It seems rare to raise a ticket on Microsoft support. Due to the fact that it's so rare to need to raise issues, I can't really speak to having any direct experience dealing with them. That said, sometimes, if a patch is needed, they do need to go to Microsoft and get it. 

The installation is very straightforward and it is not overly difficult or complex. With a certain level of experience, anyone can install and configure it. It's not a problem. 

You likely just need one person to handle deployment and maintenance. You can handle this solution with a minimal number of technical staff. 

The license is perpetual. Once you buy the server, you don't have to continue to renew the license itself. 

Microsoft is a popular and necessary addition to any company. Most companies can't run at all without Microsoft being used at some level. 

If a customer has more than 100 workstations installed in Microsoft then I recommend them to use this sort of solution. If a customer is using .NET applications then by default the choice is Windows, however, if they are using Java or Oracle I recommend that they use Linux due in large part to the security.

We primarily use the solution in order to manage clients, the CRM, or ERP (such as SAP), or such applications as Microsoft Dynamics. We use it for a variety of things. 

The product is a good operating system. The features fit our needs very well. For example, with Windows Server, you can use a machine for printing, accessing the internet, or using some applications. You can do it all with one server. You don't need several servers. One is enough. 

For those with a bit of technical know-how and have a level of comfort with Microsoft, it's not too difficult to implement.

The solution can scale if you need it to.

I've found the product to be stable. 

The product integrates well with Sophos. 

It's incompatible sometimes and doesn't communicate with all applications. When you need to share some data, communication is difficult between the server and the app.

A typical user will find implementing it on their own difficult. 

We've used the solution for about ten years or so. It's likely been a decade. We've used it for a long time at this point. 

I personally have 20 years of experience working with a variety of Microsoft products.

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if you need it to. 

I also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is neither overly difficult nor very simple. It's somewhere in the middle. There's a moderate level of difficulty, however, it's not too hard. For a common user, it may come across as complex, however, with my level of knowledge, I don't find it too bad. 

I have enough experience with the solution that I can handle it myself. 

We are just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We tend to use Windows Server 2012 or 2016, depending on the enterprise applications.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. I've been please with its capabilities so far.

We have many applications which require Windows Server, such as SQL Server and an application server that acts as a middle layer.

The solution is user-friendly, you do not need a command line technical team to operate it.

Windows Server could improve by having a faster browser, IE is too slow. There are better alternatives, such as Chrome.

I have been using this solution for approximately four years.

The solution is highly secure and stable with many policies. We did not have any issues with the performance.

We have approximately 2,000 users using the solutions.

The installation was straightforward.

We have a team that does the maintenance and policies for the solution.

There is not a license required for this solution.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We are using it mainly for Active Directory, Exchange Servers, and file services.

There are a lot of features. Active Directory is most valuable.

It should have more stability and fewer automatic updates. A CLI approach, similar to Linux, is missing right now.

I have been using this solution for 12 years.

It should have more stability.

I am quite satisfied with its scalability. We are an IT company, and we provide professional services to other companies, so we deploy a lot of services. Combined, we have a lot of users, but if you look at a specific company, we have between 200 to 500 employees.

I am satisfied with their technical support most of the time.

We have multiple types of licenses. Some of them are on a yearly basis, and some of them are prepaid.

I would rate Windows Server a seven out of 10.

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 have an asset management system from a vendor that requires Windows Server. That's where the old content of customers is being stored.

The solution is perfect for Microsoft applications.

The stability is okay.

The solution is scalable.

The installation process is easy.

I don't like it. However, I'm forced to use it, due to the applications, or the vendor supply, that need to run on it. Many of the applications only support Windows Server.

The solution is less stable than Linux.

We've used the solution for a while. We use it constantly.

The solution is pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's pretty reliable. That said, Linux is even more reliable. 

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

We also use Linux. We're 50% Linux, 50% Windows. 

The installation process is very straightforward. It's very easy. It's not too complex. A company shouldn't have any problems handling the process.

We use various versions of the solution, including 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2019.

We're a service provider. I have colleagues who are MSP-certified. They are the consultants to our customers.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. it's okay. However, it's not my first choice. I find Linux, for example, more stable. 

I would only recommend the solution to a user if they really needed to use it for specific applications. I would not advise it if you needed to install it. I'd only advise it if your application requires Windows. If that's the case, then, of course, you should use it.

The solution is basically an operating system for business. We use it for business purposes. that's it.

The performance of the solution is good.

It's very easy and user-friendly compared to any other operating system.

The stability has been good.

The scalability could be better.

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

The stability has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. Even if we ran into trouble, we know we can rely on Microsoft to help us very quickly.

The scalability is limited. They could make it easier to expand.

I'm working with a startup and I would say there are about 50 people or so on the solution at this time. We don't have a big setup.

Likely, we plan to increase it in the future. By how much, I can't say.

Technical support is responsive. We know if we run into issues, they will respond quickly in order to help us resolve the issue. We are quite satisfied with their level of attentiveness. They are helpful.

We did not use a different solution before setting up this product.

I can't speak to the installation procedures. I've never participated in an initial setup and therefore cannot speak to the process or how easy or hard it was.

I can't speak to the maintenance requirements or how many people on staff look after the solution.

I'm not involved in the licensing aspect of the solution, I can't speak to the company's arrangement with Microsoft. I'm not sure how often we pay licensing fees or how much.

We are end-users and customers. 

We use multiple deployment models, including cloud and on-premises. 

I'm using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. It's worked well for us so far.