We use the 2016 version.
We use the solution for our applications.
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.
We used Windows Server for file sharing and centralized authentication.
We stopped using Microsoft Server in 2012 due to hardware failure and licensing costs. For these reasons, we decided to move to open-source solutions.
Compared to other solutions, the ease of administration is great.
In regard to the next release, I would like to see a more scalable solution. I would also like to see any future developments on the market because there was a time when most companies would run away from centralized authentication systems, like Active Directory — they moved to cloud solutions. If the service could be better integrated with the Azure Cloud, I think it would be a plus for Windows.
I used Windows Server from 2003 until 2012.
Windows Server is absolutely stable.
I can't comment on the scalability as we were only using two to three servers and we never attempted to scale out any further.
The technical support is okay. As I have a special relationship with them, It's quite easy for me to get a hold of them.
I started with FreeBSD, then moved to Solaris. Right now I am only using and recommending Linux.
The installation was easy compared to other operating systems, but the documentation part took longer than usual because I typically specialize in Linux-based operations.
I usually handle the implementation myself. If I encounter a specific issue then I may have to apply for a consultant.
Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. If your environment requires it, I would absolutely recommend Windows Server.
We use a variety of applications that are hosted on our Windows Server.
This product works well for the applications that we have hosted on it.
Stability-wise, there is room for improvement.
We have been working with Windows Server since it was first released.
This is a scalable product. We have thousands of users.
I have not been in contact with technical support.
We have an in-house team responsible for deployment and maintenance.
This is a product I can recommend and as far as I know, we plan to continue using Windows Server in the future.
I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
We started virtualizing servers to reduce the number of physical servers and to optimize the data center. We started with standalone installations of the Hyper-V server and synchronized with our virtual machine. After that, we built a cluster and all of the VMs were hosted in that environment.
The organization spent a lot of money buying a large number of physical machines, which made up the workspace. With a physical machine, it is easy to incur damage with hardware faults, such as the loss of a disk or another component. With a cluster environment, we obtain an HA solution.
We like all of the features connected with sharing resources, typical of a Hyper-V cluster manager. Several of these further stand out, including:
One area that needs improvement is the management console. It seems very easy to use but it is not as powerful as those of other vendors, such as VMware. Their solution allows for operation in a more granular and simpler way. For example, there is a wizard to migrate a VM from one node to another, or from one datastore to another.
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.
I use the solution solely for official purposes.
I like that the solution is reliable.
Perhaps the scalability could be better.
I have been using Windows Server for around ten years.
I have no issues with the stability. I feel the solution to be reliable.
For my purposes, I don't see any need to scale the solution, although this can possibly be improved.
I do not have experience with tech support.
I do not possess information about the technical team required for deployment and maintenance.
I did not evaluate other operating systems for business before going with Windows Server.
I have no issues with the security features. I consider everything about the solution to be fine.
There are more than 10,000 people using the solution in my organization.
I rate Windows Server as a nine out of ten.
The product is primarily used for applications, data storage, and communications. We also use it for the directory.
The solution is very user-friendly.
The scalability is very good.
You can deploy the solution either on the cloud or on-premises.
The solution needs more integration capabilities.
I've been using the solution for 15 years at this point. It's been well over a decade. I've used it for a long time.
The scalability of the solution is good. It's not a problem to expand it.
Likely the entire company is using the solution, however, I cannot speak to exact numbers that are on the solution right now.
I've never been in touch with technical support in the past. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are.
We did not previously use a different operating system.
I wasn't a part of the installation process. I can't speak to how straightforward or complex it was.
We have 12 to 15 team members that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. There are a manager, an admin, and engineers.
I don't handle the licensing costs. I don't have any visibility as to how much the company pays for licenses.
We use multiple deployment models, including on-premises and cloud.
I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.
I'd recommend using the solution to other companies.
I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.
The solution integrates well with other platforms.
The solution could improve by making it more secure.
I have been using Windows Server for approximately 30 years.
The stability has been good.
We have approximately 100,000 customers.
The installation of the solution is becoming easier every year after new releases. The first installation can take an hour but you can use templates to make the installation very quick.
We have six to eight engineers that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.
We are with Microsoft's Cloud Solution Provider Program and we pay for a monthly license for this use of this solution and we support our customer subscriptions. The overall price of the solution is good.
I would recommend this solution to others.
I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.