Windows Server Reviews

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.

It's a platform, so it brings on a system for the servers themselves. I have multiple services running over Microsoft Servers, for example.SAP, Exchange . All of my services already running are running over this platform.

I also using it occasionally for application access.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its operating system. It's just like Linux or UNIX. 

I'm using all the features within it and find them all quite helpful.

I love using it for the DHCP server, DNS services, and using a computer to map sites on our domain.

The security should be improved, specifically from port security & Allowed protocols,The improvement should retire all marked ports & protocols as a security breach to enhance platform risks & stability . 

Overall, from a security perspective, Microsoft needs to improve.

The Server platform GUI seems to take up a lot of resources unnecessarily.

I've been using the solution for twenty plus years for now.

While the solution hasn't always been stable, starting from the 2012 version, it's increasingly gotten more stable.

Since the 2012 version, we find it to be quite stable. The OS between the resources, between applicators, technical support, etc., is all very easy to handle. We don't have issues with it; it seems to be quite reliable.

The company here is using this solution. Sometimes it's for remote access, however, even if they don't use it for that, they already using is as it's implemented over the Windows Server.

I'm not sure if we'll be scaling any more as everyone is using it.

Registration is very easy, so we didn't need technical support for that aspect of the solution. However, it still requires continual study in order to use everything properly. In terms of speaking with someone directly, I don't have any information about that, and therefore can't comment on the quality of their service.

The initial implementation was not complex. I'd describe the setup as straightforward.

You have to sign off the approach of the planned service, make a timeline, and start to implement a POC. Once you're done with that, you can apply for it online. 

For Microsoft platforms, we have not needed any outside assistance. For the other services, like ERP,  we are already using consultants for implementation.

We're just a customers. We've been using multiple versions of the solution up to the 2016 version.

I would recommend the Microsoft platform and Windows Servers in particular. It's great for implementation into any environment and is easy to use. They have enhanced some security, however, there needs more done in that respect.

That said, from an efficiency, performance, business continuity, and integration standpoint, I'd highly recommend the Microsoft platform. While Linux has a better security layer, if that is your concern, be aware it will require investment in a lot of resources, training. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. To get higher marks, the solution really needs to do something about the GUI & its security, which currently consumes a lot of resources & allowing breaching. 

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.

We are using Windows Server to run our business application.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

The stability of the Windows Server is good.

The scalability of Windows Server is okay, but it could be better.

The initial setup of Windows Server is simple, and the process took less than half an hour.

We did the implementation of Windows Server internally. We have one person that does the maintenance and support of this solution.

Windows Server needs to be more flexible with the minimum requirements with the license and options. We are on an annual subscription to use the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

The solution helps fulfill customer requirements. We use it for applications.

The solution is very stable. There isn't a lot of downtime.

The product can scale. 

The initial setup is very easy.

There was one instance in which, during an installation, I got an error I could not easily resolve.

The performance could be a bit better.

I've used the solution for around ten years or so.

We've found the stability to be reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. there are no bugs or glitches. 

Scalability is possible. If you need to expand it, you can do so. 

We have about 15 customers on the solution right now. 

I've never really had a problem with the solution, and I've worked with it for many years, I've never had to contact technical support in the past.

With ten years of experience under our belts, we've handled implementations many times over. It's not a problem at all for us. We find the process very straightforward, very simple. 

We have five or six engineers on our team that are able to easily handle deployment and maintenance. 

We can handle the implementation process for our clients. 

We are both a customer and a consultant. 

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I started to work as an engineer and I started working with the server in 2012. I've seen many user requirements met by this server, which is why I can confidently recommend it to others. It helps resolve a lot of issues with the infrastructure.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Window Server is for the front-end applications. It is on the client-facing side.

The biggest advantage of Windows Server is the services. It offers the ability to configure services, so your application can run on a Windows Server. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years. Since the company was founded, we've been using Windows Server and Linux. We're still using Red Hat. When I joined the company, I migrated all the databases over to Linux. Everything on the application side is on Windows Server.

Windows Server is stable as far as I know. 

I can't really say that it's scalable. At the application level, we only have about 20 users.

I'm not the one in charge of the platform. The person in charge takes care of things when there is a critical error and there are new updates or patches from the Microsoft site. They're the one who contacts the technical support team if needed.

Installing Windows Server is straightforward. We have a technical team to manage the solution, but I can handle the deployment by itself. 

I think it's a yearly license.

I rate Windows Server six out of 10. I would recommend Windows Server if you are working with .NET applications. But one issue I have with Windows Server is the limit on the number of concurrent sessions. You cannot have more than three simultaneous users unless you activate a license. You have to install it so that more people can access the applications simultaneously.