Windows Server Reviews

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. 

We use Windows Server as a business operating system.

The solution is easy to use and it supports multiple applications compared to other basic systems that are currently in a production environment. Many people prefer the Windows environment because they are used to it from previous experiences.

The solution could improve by having more integration and some of the new features that are being released in Windows 11.

We have been using the solution within the past 12 months.

Windows Server is highly stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have 100 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support from Microsoft has been good.

The installation is easy and it takes approximately 10 minutes.

I did the implementation of the solution.

There is a license required for Windows Server and Microsoft the cost is based on the number of ports that you have on the production server.

I would recommend this solution for enterprise use.

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.

We work mostly on the banking organization segment. In banking organizations, they are using around 40% of Windows Servers. If there is any database they will be using MySQL. Including enterprise segments. 80% of people are using Windows Server and SQL or Exchange though, actually, now people are migrating to the cloud. Groups of companies, including enterprise pharmaceuticals, are mostly using Microsoft.

The ease of use is great.

The installation process is great.

We've had a lot of problems from day one.

The security could be better. One of the banks suffered ransomware attacks and they were able to penetrate the servers. 

There's a short availability that could be much better.

The performance is not up to snuff. They need to work on increasing resources. 

I've used the solution since the inception of our company, which has been about seven years.

The performance is not ideal. It could be a lot better. 

We have around 200 clients and most of them are using Microsoft in one way or another.

Most of the time, we've noticed that customers can go and troubleshoot issues on their own. It seems rare to raise a ticket on Microsoft support. Due to the fact that it's so rare to need to raise issues, I can't really speak to having any direct experience dealing with them. That said, sometimes, if a patch is needed, they do need to go to Microsoft and get it. 

The installation is very straightforward and it is not overly difficult or complex. With a certain level of experience, anyone can install and configure it. It's not a problem. 

You likely just need one person to handle deployment and maintenance. You can handle this solution with a minimal number of technical staff. 

The license is perpetual. Once you buy the server, you don't have to continue to renew the license itself. 

Microsoft is a popular and necessary addition to any company. Most companies can't run at all without Microsoft being used at some level. 

If a customer has more than 100 workstations installed in Microsoft then I recommend them to use this sort of solution. If a customer is using .NET applications then by default the choice is Windows, however, if they are using Java or Oracle I recommend that they use Linux due in large part to the security.

The solution is very useful if the company doesn't want open storage, OS. In those cases, we usually recommend customers to use Microsoft services. Most of the time it's actually the client who gives us advice on what kind of OS they want to use and they will just ask for the quotation. 

The solution is very flexible.

We find the solution to be easy to use and simple to navigate. 

The stability is very good.

The security on the server has been great. It's much more secure than, for example, other open-source operating systems.

We find the solution very easy to install. 

Technical support is very helpful.

The solution could be more reasonably priced.

We've been dealing with the solution for a couple of years at this point. It's been a while now. We've had some time with it. 

The stability of the product is good. The product doesn't crash or freeze and there are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable. 

There is no need to scale the solution. It's not the type of solution that really needs to scale.

I'm not sure the exact number of people using the solution. It's my understanding that it's over ten at this time. 

Technical support is very fast when it comes to replying. They were able to solve any issues we raised with them. We're satisfied with their level of service. 

The initial setup is not complicated to set up. It's pretty simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process. 

The deployment process may take about 30 minutes or so, as long as you don't run into any errors.

You only need two technical people to manage the deployment process. You don't need a very big team.

The pricing could be a bit more competitive.

The solution offers a permanent license. You don't have to pay a monthly or yearly subscription. 

We are Windows Server consultants. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite satisfied with its capabilities. 

I would recommend the product to other users and companies, especially those that don't want to use an open-source option. 

We primarily use the solution in order to manage clients, the CRM, or ERP (such as SAP), or such applications as Microsoft Dynamics. We use it for a variety of things. 

The product is a good operating system. The features fit our needs very well. For example, with Windows Server, you can use a machine for printing, accessing the internet, or using some applications. You can do it all with one server. You don't need several servers. One is enough. 

For those with a bit of technical know-how and have a level of comfort with Microsoft, it's not too difficult to implement.

The solution can scale if you need it to.

I've found the product to be stable. 

The product integrates well with Sophos. 

It's incompatible sometimes and doesn't communicate with all applications. When you need to share some data, communication is difficult between the server and the app.

A typical user will find implementing it on their own difficult. 

We've used the solution for about ten years or so. It's likely been a decade. We've used it for a long time at this point. 

I personally have 20 years of experience working with a variety of Microsoft products.

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if you need it to. 

I also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is neither overly difficult nor very simple. It's somewhere in the middle. There's a moderate level of difficulty, however, it's not too hard. For a common user, it may come across as complex, however, with my level of knowledge, I don't find it too bad. 

I have enough experience with the solution that I can handle it myself. 

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

We tend to use Windows Server 2012 or 2016, depending on the enterprise applications.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. I've been please with its capabilities so far.