Windows Server Reviews

We are using Windows Server on virtual machines running off-premise.

This operating system for business can be useful for personal documents or any daily or routine stuff.

The features that I have found most valuable are its ease of use and the compatibility with most other products.

I would definitely like to see bolting monitoring tools. To monitor the server you usually have to install third party tools. I would like to be less reliant on third-party tools. They always create some sort of security issue regarding ports that need to be opened, that type of thing. Windows Server has internally monitorable software but remote monitoring software would be a great add-on.

In the next version I would like to see monitoring tools or maybe an easier way to figure out who were the last people that were working on the server, something that gives me better insights into the actions taken by different users who need to access the server. Our server is definitely not for everybody to access, but even if it had logging installed or activated, it's quite difficult to figure out who did what.

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

It is a stable solution.

Windows Server is definitely scalable.

We have 200 users using it in the network.

I was not part of the initial setup, I'm not part of the technical team. But I know from the people who did install it that it was quite easy.

On a scale of one to ten I would give Windows Server a nine.

I would recommend Windows Server for users who want to start using it.

We are using Windows Server as an operating platform. It's an Operating system.

We host our products on the Windows Server.

The performance is good.

While it is easy to use, it could be easier. 

The performance is good but we have had some issues when we use virtual machines. Loading and processing a lot of data leads to memory-related issues. As such, while the performance is good, it could still be improved.

We are using version 2012 and it could be that other versions have improved this feature.

We are currently using Windows Server 2012. We have been using this solution for approximately 12 years.

I have no issues with the stability of the Windows Server.

It's scalable. I am satisfied with the scalability of this solution.

We don't have plans to increase our usage.

We don't deal with Microsoft support directly. Our service team is in contact with them if there is an issue.

Previously, I did not use another solution.

The installation was straightforward and easy.

We have a team of server maintenance and network engineers to maintain this solution.

We had help from the Server team to implement this solution.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I  would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

Windows Server can be used for various mission-critical applications, such as SAP, web servers, SQL databases, and hosting. Various security applications, for example, Symantec or McAfee, all need Windows Servers as the back end to operate. Additionally, this solution can be used to build up a Failover Cluster.

If everything is configured correctly this solution provides high performance. Building a Failover Cluster is comparatively much easier in Windows Server than any of the Linux-based solutions.

They should release a command-line version of the solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately 15 years.

Windows Server is stable. However, there is some maintenance required for smooth operations.

The solution can easily scale.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately one hour.

If the server environment is large I would advise using an integrator. We have a team that does the maintenance of the solution which is important because it is used for mission-critical applications.

The solution could improve by changing the licensing model. In Windows Server 2008 they provided two versions, one regular and the other was free with no graphics. In Windows 2012 they stopped providing the free version. They should go back to the previous model and let customers have the choice whether they want to opt for a free version or have the Microsoft supported version or the OEM version.

If you choose Windows Server on-premises, you will receive a perpetual license and there is also a subscription license option. For the cloud version, there are several options available, such as a monthly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for many things. It's an operating system. We use to run many different application servers like SAP exchanges, and applications in our environment.

Overall, we've been happy with the solution. 

The initial setup is pretty simple.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

The stability is decent. 

Technical support has been okay.

We're concerned about Windows vulnerabilities and how to manage those vulnerabilities ourselves. These are the main things that are tricky in Windows, the environment. 

The performance from time to time can be a bit suspect. 

I've used the solution for quite a long time. It's been something like 20 years or so that I have been using this product.

To a certain extent, I would say the stability is fine. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The product is scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

The size of the company doesn't matter. It works for any size of organization from small to large.

Technical support was okay. We haven't really had any problems with them.

You do have to pay for licensing of the product. 

We are a customer and an end-user of Microsoft. We do not have any special business relationship with them. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We're mostly happy with its capabilities. 

I would advise potential users to secure it well and keep it up to date. 

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.

We use the 2016 version. 

We use the solution for our applications. 

The performance is very good.

The security could be improved. 

We have been using Windows Server for three-and-a-half to four years. 

The tech support is great.

Prior to using Windows Server we used DBN. 

I handled the installation on my own. 

There is a licensing fee. It is possible that the Windows Server OS was built with this server. 

I recommend the solution to others.

I rate Windows Server as a ten out of ten. 

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 use it for a system that we have in our company. We are using Windows Server 2016.

It is stable and scalable.

It is not easy to use. It can be more user-friendly to make our routine work a bit easy.

It could also be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for four or five years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 1,000 users.

Support is handled by another department.

We didn't use any other solution.

I didn't handle its installation, but based on what I know, it was easy to install.

We install and maintain it with the help of another team in our company. They have three engineers for deployment and maintenance.

It could be cheaper. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.