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 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.

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 are using this solution for all of our on-premise application servers. The latest version is Windows Server 2019, but we are using Windows Server 2016. We haven't felt the need to upgrade it.

It is easy to use, and its performance is good. 

When it comes to virtualization, VMware is a bit more advanced in terms of security. Hyper-V does provide facilities, but it probably has to do a bit more work in terms of encryption. People will normally go for VMware because of the features that it has as a server, particularly the virtualization feature.

I have been using this solution since 2012.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In terms of its usage, the license that we currently have is good enough for us. We will increase its usage, but we don't need to purchase anything in the foreseeable future. We have enough. 

We are also doing a PoC for moving the server that we have at each location to the cloud. After that is done, we will look at the cost and think about migrating to the cloud.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. The duration depends on how big the installation is in terms of the database and the domain you want to use. It can vary from about an hour to a couple of hours with updates, etc. It could be anywhere from 60 minutes to 3 hours.

All of our people are adept at handling its installation.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the domain controller.

The product has helped our company as it offers us a domain controller and the use of the domain service.

The solution is very easy to configure.

The solution has a lot of features.

The pricing is good. They offer special pricing to educational institutions that is less than what a typical organization might pay.

The solution is not easy to use.

The solution could be more stable. It's an aspect they could improve on in future versions.

The solution could be more scalable and flexible.

The solution needs to offer better documentation and more training to its users. This would help customers better understand how to use the product effectively.

I've been using the solution since 2015. It's been just over five years now. It's been a while.

The solution does not offer very good stability. It's something they need to improve upon.

The solution is moderately flexible. I'd rate it at a 3 out of five. It could be better.

We have 100 users on the solution currently. We do have plans to increase the number of users to 200 in the future.

Technical support could be a bit better. they do have a lot of features and sometimes we need assistance with everything.

I have some experience with Linux, however, I find it a bit more difficult to implement.

The solution is not too difficult or complex to set up. It's easier to implement than other servers. For example, Linux is much more difficult.

The pricing, for us, is reasonable. We are an educational institution and therefore we get special rates. Therefore, our pricing isn't too bad. However, an enterprise version of the solution is quite expensive.

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

We are currently using the 2016 version and have plans to upgrade to the 2019 version.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's an okay product, however, there are many areas that could be improved.

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.

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.