Windows Server Reviews

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. 

We typically use the solution for hosting applications, which is more related to Visual Studio and other similar items.

The solution's usability is very good. It's very user friendly.

We've found the solution to be very flexible.

It's very useful for domain authentication and other tasks. 

It's great for hosting all kinds of applications.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution could have better security features.

The pricing is a bit high. Linux has better pricing. They should try to make their product more competitively priced.

We've been using this solution for about a decade. It's been ten years, so it has been a while.

The solution is very stable and reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

The solution can scale well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. There wouldn't be anything stopping them.

We have 20 or so people on the servers right now.

We do plan to continue using the product.

I've found the technical support from Microsoft to be quite good. We've been satisfied with the level of service provided to us so far. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten overall.

We found the initial setup to be pretty straightforward and simple. It's not complex. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment is very quick and takes about five minutes in total.

In terms of the size of the team you need, it depends on the application. The bare-bones operating system only two to five minutes, or maybe two to 10 minutes. The deployment, with respect to software and other things, such as security checks, et cetera, it can take a while to get everything on there. It can take up to four hours.

We handle the implementation ourselves. We didn't need an implementor or a consultant to help us. It was all handled in-house.

We pay the license on a yearly basis.

It's a bit expensive if you were to compare it to Linux. 

We're not currently evaluating other options at this time.

We are not using the latest version of the solution. We're using N-1, one solution behind the most recent release.

We use multiple deployment models - both on-premises and cloud.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten at this point. Overall, we've been pretty happy with it.

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 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 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.

The most valuable feature is its stability. We have had no problems with Windows Server and we plan to continue using it in the future.

This product has very good features.

I would like to see better integration with other operating systems. For example, when I migrate from services from Linux or Unix to Windows Server, it's hard to do. I expect it to be easier.

We began using Windows Server between 10 and 12 years ago.

This is a scalable product. We have more than 150 people in 20 different groups who use it. In my personal group, we have four people.

We have not faced any problems that we couldn't solve, so we have not needed to contact technical support.

I have worked with other operating systems such as Linux and Unix, and I find that they are more complicated.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes between two and four hours to deploy, depending on the type of service.

We installed it ourselves and we have an IT staff of about six people that use it regularly.

We have a corporate deal with Microsoft and pay licensing fees annually. It is an expensive product.

Overall, this is a good product that is easy to use, it has very good features, and I can recommend it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

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'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.