Windows Server Reviews

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. 

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 use this solution as an operating system to run applications, such as Microsoft SQL.

Overall the solution has been functioning very well for us.

Security and vulnerabilities could improve.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately three years.

The stability is good in Windows Server.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution in my organization.

The installation is straightforward and took approximately 30 minutes.

I did the implementation myself.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server nine out of ten.

I like that it's a stable product. For me, it's working fine.

It would help if there was a possibility to postpone some updates. If some are not required, it could speed up the process of starting up the operating system. Sometimes big workloads related to services are running directly on the system itself and not the application. This is what I have noticed.

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

Windows Server is a stable solution.

I would recommend this solution to new users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Windows Server a ten.

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 use it for our servers. We have Windows 2012 and Windows 2016. We are not on the latest version, but we are almost there. 

It is pretty simple and flexible. It works with all kinds of software. That's why we are using it. We avoid using Linux and other platforms.

Its performance is also good.

It can have more integration with different platforms. Its installation could also be easier.

I have been using this solution for six years.

Currently, we have around 150 users. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

I don't have experience with their technical support.

Its installation is of medium complexity. It can be tricky.

Normally, the installation takes half an hour to one hour. The updates take more time than the installation.

Normally, I do it myself. Only when I have issues, I use a consultant.

We have a technical team of two engineers for deployment and maintenance.

Its price is fine. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

I would surely recommend this solution to others who want to start using it.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We use this solution as our operating system.

It is very useful, and it is easy to use.

In the next release, I would like to see better pricing.

I have been using Windows Server since the beginning.

We are using the latest version.

Windows Server is stable.

It's an operating system, so scalability is not really applicable.

Everybody in our organization is using this solution. We have approximately 200 users.

We don't have any plans to increase usage.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, we had not used any other solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

It only took five minutes to deploy.

For 200 users, we need one engineer to maintain this solution.

We completed the installation ourselves, we did not use an integrator or consultant.

In general, the pricing can be improved.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend Windows Server to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use the solution as a server OS. Due to security reasons, we have created some virtual machines instead of on-premise deployments and we are writing SQL queries.

The main feature of the solution is the ease of use.

There should be the ability to add other databases to be installed and configured instead of going to other virtual machines. They should be better integrated so they are all in one place.

I have been using this solution since I started my career, which is a long time ago.

The solution is stable. We created virtual machines with huge configurations and based on our volume of data or jobs it is running it has been performing very well.

It is not scalable because we are dealing with virtual machines. You just log in to the system and you can run the queries. It is not like a database, where you can integrate and process. You can only use it and let the query control the system.

We have five people using this solution in my organization.

If we have an issue we write a ticket to Microsoft and they are able to help us with a solution.

The installation is straightforward, it takes approximately 30 minutes.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.