Windows Server Reviews

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. 

This solution can be used for a lot of things, such as email, file servers, authentication, network access protocol, DNS, active directory, and accessing the main controllers.

The main features are ease of use and simple administration. 

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

I have found the stability to be good but it could improve.

The solution is scalable and we plan to increase usage.

I have used Linux Red Hat previously.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately 10 minutes.

I have done the implementation myself but sometimes I require assistance because some environments have a lot of servers. The more servers you have the more administrators you will need for the maintenance.

There is a license required and it is on an annual basis.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

It's there just hosting the SQL Servers and they're not using IIS or some Microsoft-specific technology. We're just hosting some MSSQL.

The solution is very stable.

The product is scalable. 

The solution is pretty easy to install.

I can't speak to any missing features. I don't have any opinion on how to improve the product.

The solution needs container compatibility. Windows Server is not able via Docker, for example.

I've been using the solution for half a year.

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

The solution scales well. A company shouldn't have any issues if they want to scale. 

That said, I didn't choose Windows Server for that kind of purpose. It's just there for hosting the SQL Server.

There is one user for the Windows Server itself. Everyone else is using just the database and not the Windows Server.

We haven't dealt with technical support yet. I haven't been in contact with them.

We're also using Linux Servers.

The solution is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

While I didn't handle the installation myself, I would estimate deployment takes about 20 to 30 minutes. 

We have four team members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We had a team member who handled the implementation in-house. We did not need a consultant or integrator. 

I don't have any insights into the licensing. 

We use the solution both on-premises and on the cloud. 

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. I'm neutral on it. It doesn't impress me. It just does what it does. 

I'd advise those considering the solution that if they want to run some Microsoft-specific applications, then there's a lot of choices.

We primarily use the solution as a base layer for our software. Our developers decided they should create our products based on the Microsoft platform. We have to use the Windows Server as the applied model.

We have some solutions based on Linux, however, Microsoft Windows Server is the primary operating system.

The solution has improved our organization as we are able to sell our products with Microsoft. Without it, we can't make our business work. 

The solution is absolutely integral to our business processes. 

It's a widely used system.

The product is very stable.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

Technical support is very helpful.

I haven't had any experience with active data storage or high-level configuration. From my perspective, Windows Server can stay on this level without any development as it works for me how it is.

The price could be a little less. It's a bit expensive.

Maybe 10 or 15 years ago, there were some problems with stability, however, right now, we haven't needed to install any patches and we have not faced any problems. I'd describe it as quite stable at this point.

The solution is used widely across the company. However, I cannot speak to how many servers we have at this time. 

We do plan to increase usage as we continue to grow.

Microsoft technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. We are very happy with the level of support on offer. 

The initial setup is very straightforward and not overly difficult.

The pricing isn't the cheapest. For example, Linux would be a free option. People don't have to pay for it. With Microsoft, you need to pay to license it. 

We are a customer and end-user. We are also a Microsoft reseller. 

SQL Server 10 can't work without an operating system. It needs to be installed on the machine with an operating system, so it is dependent on it. A Windows Server needs to be installed as a first step before SQL will be installed.

We primarily use on-premies or private cloud deployment models.

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

I'd recommend the solution. It's a very good platform. 

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.

We use a variety of applications that are hosted on our Windows Server.

This product works well for the applications that we have hosted on it.

Stability-wise, there is room for improvement.

We have been working with Windows Server since it was first released.

This is a scalable product. We have thousands of users.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

We have an in-house team responsible for deployment and maintenance.

This is a product I can recommend and as far as I know, we plan to continue using Windows Server in the future.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We're using Windows Server for its basic function. We use it to run applications, but there's a team who manages that, and they are certified. I'm not the one managing. I'm just a user.

The Windows Server interface is okay, though it would still depend on the usage perfective. The interface is what I like about this solution.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Windows Server is for it to have faster updates.

I've been dealing with Windows Server for five years now.

Windows Server is stable. I've had no issues or problems with it.

I've evaluated Linux.

I'm using both Windows and Linux operating systems.

We have a team who does the installation of Windows Server, so I'm unable to give information on whether it's easy or complicated to install. For deployment and maintenance, we have five to eight people in charge.

We have 30 to 50 end users of Windows Server within our company, and currently we don't have plans of increasing usage.

Whether the technical support for Windows Server is fast or is knowledgeable, it would depend. It's a case to case basis, but I'm not the one who's creating the tickets, so whenever we have any issues, we send it to our team who's in charge of creating the tickets for the Windows support team.

Windows Server is a solution I can recommend to others, if we're basing my recommendation on my satisfaction with it.

I'm rating Windows Server a five out of ten.