Windows Server Reviews

We primarily use the solution on our DNS network. It's the de facto operating system in our organization.

The solution is very stable. We haven't run into any performance issues so far.

It is very easy to use. The system is very user-friendly.

The solution allows for many applications to run on it.

The initial setup could be easier. Right now, it's more difficult than it needs to be.

The solution is rather expensive and could be more affordable.

I've used the product in many different places and therefore have used it for a long time by this point. It's been many years now, as far as I know.

We've found the stability of the product to be excellent over the years. It's reliable. There aren't really bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable.

The solution can scale quite well. If you need to expand it, you can do so. It works for companies of all sizes.

We have about ten servers in our organization at this time that are Windows Servers. We have two people that manage them for us.

We will continue to use Windows unless, at some point, something else comes along that is cheaper and easier to use.

I haven't really dealt with technical support much. I wouldn't be able to effectively comment on their level of service or their knowledgeability. 

I have some experience with Linux. However, I find it limiting in terms of the number of applications you can actually run on it.

The implementation process for Windows isn't exactly straightforward. It could be easier and more efficient. It can be a bit difficult sometimes.

The initial installation typically takes two to three hours or so.

I handled the implementation with a partner.

Of course, the solution itself is expensive. However, they are not many alternatives. There's very little choice on the market.

We have servers that range from 2012 to 2016 to 2019. We're using both the older and the newest versions of the solution currently.

I would definitely recommend this product to other organizations. If you look at Linux, for example, it's not really a viable option as very very applications run on Linux. In the case of Windows, you don't have that shortcoming. You can run many, many applications on it, which is a good selling point. Many people who have legacy products like to use Windows.

I would rate the solution six out of ten overall.

We have many brands that we use here in our firm. As an example, we use Dell for our Laptops, we use Lenovo, we use IBM for our computers, Cisco for our switches, and Microsoft.

It's important to us that it is easy to use and has easy maintenance because we don't have specialists. It is necessary for us to have very simple maintenance procedures.

The initial setup could be simplified.

We have been using Windows Server for more than two years, maybe five or more.

It's a stable solution. We have not had any issues with stability.

We have 200 users in our organization who are using Windows Server.

We have plans to keep using this solution.

We have not contacted technical support. 

I only use the support online.

We use Windows Server, and Windows 10 for our laptops and PCs.

The initial setup depends on the preparation of the units.

If it is prepared by a specialist then the installation is easy.

We have to make sure that it has been configured properly.

We have a team of 20 for the deployment and maintenance of this solution.

It is important to have the cheapest price for all of the material and licenses.

We have so many customers with Windows Servers that we are obliged to use the same technical path.

We don't have any significant issues with Windows. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We use Windows Server to host applications, host files, emails, Windows server emails, and data exchange. But for the most part, we use it to host applications, directory services, and DNS services. 

I like the views in the user interface. 

It would help if Microsoft made it lighter to run on the servers and made troubleshooting much easier. I have to deal with unexpected errors and faults that happen in Windows. It also crashes. 

When it's a big environment, especially in an industrialized environment, we see unexpected errors. They create instability, or unexpected errors happen in the infrastructure. You need to restart the server or restart the services. You don't know the root cause of these errors.

I've been working with Windows Server for about 20 years.

Sometimes we have to deal with unexpected errors that create instability.

Windows Server is mostly scalable. However, you run into problems if it's going to be very big. If something happens, troubleshooting it will be very difficult.

Microsoft technical support is good.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. 

The Windows Server standard edition is affordable. But the cost of the data center edition is high, especially compared to some competitors. Some competitors are offering their operating systems for free.

I would tell potential customers of Windows Server that they need to study it. They need to understand their business case very well. If features are available in Windows Server, they can safely go for it, but they need to study the design very well.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Windows Server an eight.

We are using Windows Server 2016 for our organization's backend applications which reside in a data center. HP provides us with our Windows platforms, and we also have Unix platforms from them as well.

We have been using Windows environments since I joined my organization, which is close to 20 years now. Currently, we're doing what you can call a hosted private cloud with colocation and we are running some huge workloads using Windows Server in this cloud.

From our side, the organization's 2800 end users are mostly running Windows 10 in a highly virtualized environment. So whenever we need more resources, it takes just a couple of minutes to get it up and running.

Overall, Windows Server 2016 provides a stable environment for some of the very large workloads that it is subjected to in our organization, and it is very easy to use.

There are lots of improvements that can be brought by Microsoft, although for us Windows Server works mostly as expected. For how we're using Windows Server, security is a top priority, so when talking security, it can always be improved upon, no matter what.

Then there's the performance side, which is not bad, but we are currently looking to increase capacity and we have found that we need to enhance the hardware to get the performance we are looking for. Because of this, we are going to be refreshing the hardware and moving to new infrastructure in the next few weeks.

I have been using Windows Server for many years now.

It is very stable. 

We have enterprise support with them which I cannot personally comment on.

We are running a form of Windows Servers, from our side, which are highly virtualized. So from where we're sitting, to provision Windows Server takes just a couple of clicks and it is up and running.

For the backend systems where we implement Windows Server at the data center, the entire IT team is around 120 people. Then, from a user perspective, much of it is self-service, meaning users can request to provision as needed from the pool of virtualized resources.

Our current license is an enterprise license agreement which gives you a whole lot of possibility, especially when you go through an R&D process. For example, you can provision everything, spread the service use over six months, and then wrap it up. It gives you a lot of flexibility.

Windows Server is a stable product and there's no way we will change it for something else.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for the Arctic directory, SharePoint, or the Information System's company.

The operating system is the solution's most valuable aspect. Many people on the team are extremely familiar with it.

We haven't had any issues with the server whatsoever. It's been very reliable.

The patching could be better within the solution. There are many updates, however, if you compare it with other parts of Windows, the patching has a different management structure. 

The scalability could be improved a bit. 

I've worked with a company that has had the solution on and off over the course of maybe ten years or so. I've worked with them over the last two months.

The solution is quite stable. I consider it reliable. I don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good overall.

We have at least 2000 uses on the solution currently in my organization. About 60 of those are software engineers and data scientists and other related positions.

I find the scalability to be pretty good. We don't have any issues in that sense. However, it could be a bit better.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

Technical support is good however, you do need to sign a contract with premier support in order to get excellent service.

I don't deal with the pricing aspect of the solution and therefore can't really comment on how much it costs or if we are charged on a monthly or yearly basis.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We're using both the 2012 and 2016 versions of the solution right now.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

I've used it with government applications to integrate and install with Shine server and Fire servers, enabling remote access. For some clients, we have developed and installed an integrated solution for about 500 users and are usually 'anywhere applications.' One client is a government permit office, and they use it for GIS applications and keep track of services.

I'm quite satisfied with Windows Server. I find mutual authentication and the environment useful. Over the years, I've seen some very good improvements in the Windows Server's quality and functionality.

I find ethernet configuration and implementation difficult. I would also like to see more reliable updates.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 15 years.

When compared to the legacy Windows Server, stability has improved. 

Windows Server technical support is good. Over the last 15 years, I've used Microsoft technical support maybe 300 times or less, and those experiences were good.

For the most part, the initial setup is straightforward. In my experience, about 80% of the implementations were straightforward, and about 20% were a little more difficult.

It took us about six to eight months to deploy the Windows Server for my client at the government permit office.

In our case, we primarily use Microsoft, so the cost is a lot less. But some of our customers have spent approximately $12,000 a year on the operating system license.

Windows Server is a nice product, but it does have some small problems. I would recommend potential customers to do some research first. 

It's a little more difficult to implement this operating system with functionality in the cloud. Everything, including the files and interface, keeps us in a Microsoft environment, and when moving applications to the cloud, some people might find it challenging.

They have training for all the features that Microsoft offers. Technology is evolving quickly. Although I've been in this market for 25 years, I can see that I'm getting a little bit left behind because of a lack of formal training in the new functions that Microsoft and many other companies are implementing. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Windows Server an eight.

I primarily use the solution for college assignments.

We are using it just to learn how to configure all the options that Windows Server provides for the active directory and basically all the necessary configurations. It's for enterprise infrastructure, so to speak. We are mainly focusing on group policy and remote authentication, the main controller, and all the functionalities that a Windows server provides through the access directory.

The solution, in general, is quite straightforward. A beginner could probably use it with ease. It's always more or less simple to understand how this works.

Configuring a group policy has shown to be not very straightforward. For example, one of our assignments was to create a GPO that should block any user of opening and/or downloading an MP3/WAV file, and the same for video files. It was very confusing to find a solution that would do just that, we had to test different approches, or ven combining policies to achieve something that resambles what was asked to do. The default template in the File Server Resouce Manager isn't enough.

I've only been using the solution for about two months or so. It's relatively new to me.

The solution is quite stable. It doesn't have bugs or glitches, nor does it crash. It's reliable.

The solution is scalable. A company shouldn't have any troubles expanding it if they need to.

There may be 50 or 60 users on the solution currently. They're all students.

I'm not sure if I will continue using the solution of expanding usage in the future.

We've never really reached out to technical support. Typically, we'll look to the internet to search for answers. We'll google and find what we need.

I didn't previously use a different solution.

The solution is not too complex. It's quite simple to install the components, and not very difficult to configure for the most part. We're just to start using it, and it's not so complex so far. Still, it has a learning curve. You have to get to know some basic concepts before you can really understand what you're configuring. Otherwise, you get a little bit lost.

The installation itself only takes about ten minutes or so. It's rather quick. You don't really need to deploy it, per se, as it's on a virtual machine. It's not a professional environment. Of course, it would probably take longer if you have to configure all of the necessary requirements for professional applications.

My colleagues and I handled the installation as a group.

I'm not really a customer. I'm just a student learning the ins and outs of the product itself.

We are using in virtual machines the Windows Server 2019.

I'd recommend this solution. It's quite complete. For a company that wants all the necessary components to administer their infrastructure and so forth, it's quite good.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If they offered better documentation that wasn't as dated I might rate it higher.

We primarily use the solution for our different applications.

We appreciate how many different applications can be on the server at any given time.

The solution is easy to learn. It doesn't take much training.

The implementation is simple.

The graphic interface is very nice.

The technical updates need to be improved upon. How they are delivered isn't ideal.

Technical support in and of itself needs to be better. The experience we have isn't very good. It's hard to get timely answers to our questions.

The system needs to offer better integration capabilities.

The solution's availability could be better in future releases.

We've subscribed to Windows for many years now. It's been at least over two, but probably longer.

The solution is stable. We don't have problems with reliability. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. We don't experience bugs either.

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

Currently, our organization has 3,000 users.

We may not continue with Windows. We're moving towards graduating to Linux instead.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and I can say that we are not satisfied with their level of service. They are slow to respond. They need to act faster to get us the help we need.

We have always used some form of Windows products before we began implementing Windows Server. We originally decided to implement the server as we felt it was simple and easy to use. It also had a good graphic interface.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It was rather simple. In terms of people getting trained on the system, it shouldn't take up too much time so a company can get up and running quickly. That said, the time it takes to deploy is directly linked to the training. However long it takes to get your team comfortable with it, that's how long it will take to deploy.

We had an IT staff of around ten people that assisted with the implementation. We also has a team that handles any maintenance as necessary.

As the implementation process was pretty straightforward, we handled it internally ourselves. We didn't need an external consultant or integrator to help us.

We've looked into Linux. We may move over to that in the future.

We're just a Windows customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

Overall, from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine.

We use Windows Server to host all of our Windows-specific applications, such as Active Directory. We also use it for our systems that are running Microsoft SQL Server, since it used to be dependent on Windows. That is no longer necessary because we have an option to run it on Linux, as well.

Our infrastructure includes systems from Microsoft, Linux, and IBM.

Windows Server is well-integrated into what we do. It even integrates well with remote working tools like Teams.

The most valuable feature is Active Directory.

Microsoft Exchange is very valuable for us.

I am quite satisfied with the user interface.

Recently, they added a new terminal window where you can SSH into Linux machines easily. The Linux packages that are now installed with the Microsoft Store can support a miniature version of Ubuntu and Linux integration tools. When installed, it can easily connect remotely to other operating systems.

Better integration with more platforms would be useful.

I have been using Windows Server for perhaps 15 years.

It is easy to scale up and scale down Microsoft products. Expanding can be done by adding more servers, or just adding resources to a single server. For example, if I want more processing power then I can add RAM or upgrade the CPU. Then if the load on a single server becomes overwhelming then more nodes can be added.

Another case where adding more nodes is done is to have replication between data centers for Exchange or Active Directory.

We have approximately 2,000 users that access their email and we plan to continue using it in the future.

Once in a while, we contact Microsoft for support on the product and they have responded well. There have been cases where the problem is too complicated to easily correct over the phone, so they sent a local technical from their support team to assist us in troubleshooting.

Overall, I would say that the support is quite good.

We have always used Windows Server, although, with respect to email and Exchange, we switched to Windows from another product.

Setting up Windows Server is quite straightforward and easy to follow, compared to other operating systems. The GUI makes it very easy to install both the operating system and applications.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the applications that are running. In most cases, we're deploying a single application and it will take perhaps a day or two. If we are deploying infrastructure like Exchange then it may take a week or two weeks to set up the whole Exchange infrastructure.

We used a local Microsoft certified consultant to assist us in setting up our servers. We had internal skills as well, so it was quite easy to follow.

We have a team of ten system administrators who handle maintenance, although they are not specific to Windows Server. Rather, they take care of all of the products in our data center. Given that we also have Linux and IBM infrastructure, I would say that we have three personnel who take care of our Microsoft systems.

This is quite a good product and one that I recommend. I wouldn't recommend anything that does not integrate well with remote working tools, as most people are now working remotely. We are able to manage our systems from home.

Overall, deployment is quite straightforward, the technical support is quite good, and we are happy with the product. That said, nothing is perfect.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We have our applications on the servers.

I like the fact that Windows Server is user friendly.

With Microsoft, there are always bugs, and the stability could be improved.

We have been using Windows Server for a long time. We have different versions: 2016, 2012, and 2008 as well.

It's more or less stable. Sometimes, there are problems with bugs.

It is a scalable solution.

The initial setup is easy. It took about an hour without including configuration. One person handled the deployment. 

We used an in-house team.

I would recommend this solution and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.