Windows Server Reviews

We use Windows Server mainly for deploying high-end applications and databases.

The most valuable features are the ease of access and maintaining the solution.

The security could improve. If you are comparing the Linux operating systems and Windows Server, Windows Server is still way behind in terms of security. Microsoft can enhance security instead of having customers rely on third-party security tools.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

Windows Server is stable.

The solution is scalable and flexible to expend.

We have approximately 25 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support and local support from Microsoft are good and there is a large online community that can support us. If we ever have any problems or bugs with the solution we can reach out to those supports to help us. However, we have not encountered any issues at this time.

If it is a basic installation then it is pretty straightforward. However, if you need to do a lot of configurations you will need some technical knowledge.

We can do the implementation ourselves, but mostly we distribute the task to consultants because they know the timeliness and the amount of work that needs to be done.

We have our IT support team of administrators and technicians that needs to manage the resources and in some cases do patch management and maintenance. For server maintenance, we need an expert that understands how to scale up or scale down the server.

There is a one-time purchase for the license of Windows Server.

Technically we only have two options to choose from for a solution to our use case. One is red Hat Linux and the other is Windows Server. Some of the applications that the team needs to develop only work on Windows Server. Based on the use case and the ease of access we went for Windows Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We are using Windows Server to run applications.

The solution could improve by being more secure.

I have been using Windows Server for a couple of years.

We have been using this solution for a long time and it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We are using virtualization servers, and on average we have installed approximately 200 servers.

We have not needed to contact the support.

The installation is straightforward.

We have two managers doing the maintenance of the solution and a team of five that handles the operations.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

It is very stable and easy to install.

Installation doesn't require a technical team.

Windows Server can be deployed anywhere, like on your desktop, laptop, cell phone, or on the cloud.

I would like Windows to come up lighter because the footprint itself can consume more than 300GB. It would probably take close to 100GB of space to install a Windows operating system because it has got so many features. It should be a core minimalistic addition, and users also should be allowed to add other features when needed. It should be more modular in nature.

The software should be minimalistic. Instead of offering so many options, it should be ideally the core system. Then, if a customer wants to have Active Directory, they should be allowed to do it separately.

There are hundreds of services which are running unnecessarily and slowing the system down or affecting the performance, and that wouldn't be there, which will be an advantage. It will only be the key services that the customer wants to run.

Microsoft technical support could be improved.

I've been dealing with this solution for more than 14 years.

You can deploy it anywhere, like on your desktop, laptop, cell phone, or on the cloud. I have mainly worked on-prem, but recently, I have had a few cloud instances for testing.

The Windows operating system is stable.

My experience with Microsoft technical support has been bad. Getting support from Microsoft is really tough, but if you have some skills around Microsoft, you can do the troubleshooting yourself.

It is easy to install.

It's very simple and doesn't require a technical team.

If you're buying an instance in the cloud, then you'll pay for it monthly. Otherwise, a normal purchase is always upfront; there is no subscription model with Microsoft, at least for the Windows Server licenses.

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

I use the solution for all my servers, for the domain, the file server and other applications with which it is compatible. 

I consider Bixby, DNS, Active Directory, File Servers, Print Servers, Windows Defender and a host of other features to be valuable. 

It would be nice if the the Windows Defender feature would be enhanced to be similar to that of other antiviruses or endpoint features on the market that have whole and individual features and are reliable. At present, Defender cannot be relied on independently. Another endpoint must be installed. It would be better could we rely on the more compatible endpoint features that already accompany Windows.

There should be inbuilt endpoints, such as we find with Linux, Unix, Apple Macintosh and other browsers, which don't require the installation of additional endpoints. 

Patch updates should be less frequent. Instead of them being put out daily, they should be put out weekly or monthly. 

If the storage is not installed on the SSD hard disk, it affects the performance. I am not referring to the processor, RAM or GUI, just the storage. Windows 7 worked fine on the HDD. 

The security should be improved. There are many services on the Windows Server which are enabled or started by default and this is unnecessary. Xbox would be an example of this. These should be removed. Only the minimum number of services needed to get the solution up and running should be included. The existence of services means open board and this opens one up to hackers and attackers. As an IT person, it should not be my role to come up with workarounds for such occurrences. This should be in Microsoft's domain. 

We have been using Windows Server for around 12 years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have never had need for Microsoft's technical support, as the solution is simple and easy to manage and maintain. There are also many communities and a host of references that can be found on the internet. The internet is very helpful and makes finding the relevant answers easy. 

The initial setup is very simple.

The solution is easy to install and to maintain. These processes are user-friendly.

There was no need for help from the vendor. I handled the installation on my own. 

The maintenance that is required involves the patching of the operating system with the latest fixes and security fixes, in addition to the updates which are downloaded by Microsoft.

The price needs to be reduced. Users find it prohibitive. It is exorbitant for the value one gets with the solution. 

There are around 300 users making use of the solution in my organization.

I would certainly recommend the solution to others. I must, as it simplifies the administration and operation. 

I rate Windows Server as 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.

The product is stable. It's reliable. 

Microsoft is a trusted brand and I enjoy working with it.

The graphical user interface could be better. It's a little dated. 

I do not like Microsoft's intrusive policies. 

We've used Windows Server for quite a long time. We've used it since around the 2012 version at least. 

The stability of the product is relative. Certain services are better handled by the Microsoft system. For example, the active directory. Microsoft Hyper-V, we use in many, many cases. However, with Linux systems, we don't have the ability to use some features of these systems. For example, with the authentication server, we use the Windows Server in most cases. If we do that, it's stable.

We have 100 people, more or less, on the solution.

We have technical support. We pay in order to have access to them.

I'm also familiar with Linux, although I prefer Windows.

I wasn't a part of the initial setup. It was already in place when I arrived at the company.

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

We do pay for technical support. We have that until December and then we will need to re-subscribe. 

We are a public company, a government company, and, due to legislation, most of the time, we can't simply choose a vendor. If we need to acquire a contract solution, we make a technical study where the features are evaluated and the final specifications are always based on features, not on vendors, or manufacturers.

We are service providers. We are implementers and sometimes we do the plans of the implementation.

We are a customer of Windows Server. Our company has an active contract for technical support as well.

We use the current version and past versions too in a hybrid environment.

The local infrastructure is hybrid in the sense of we maintain a large spectrum of systems. For example, legacy systems are on the same infrastructure as a Windows Server 2019, for example. Basically, legacy systems are on the same network as the most recent system.

I'm note of a Windows guy than a Linux guy. I like this product.

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

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. 

I use Windows Server 2015.

We have data center and now we use the software to do the virtualization. We develop certain functions. 

While the solution is stable, it could be more so. There are times when there is a need to make corrections. 

It would also be nice to see more integration. 

I have been using Windows Server for awhile, at least for a couple of years. 

Although the solution is stable, this could stand some improvement. 

Owing to the distance which is sometimes involved, the technical support can stand improvement. 

Windows Server is very easy to install. There is no issue in this regard. It can be done on one's disc, if he has one. 

The deployment can be done with rapidity and much ease. 

While I have five people in my organization, the deployment can be handled by a single engineer in my company. 

There are no fees involved in the solution. 

The government directly pays the licensing fees for all public organizations, of which we are included. The organization's name is IDU, which does license development for the country in the computer science department. They give us the SQL Server and Microsoft Office to install in our public hospital.

I work in MS Office, Oracle and SQL Server. Our company primarily uses MS Office. 

We have, perhaps, 200 users. 

I would recommend the solution to others, as I have done so in the past. 

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.