Windows Server Reviews

We have many brands that we use here in our firm. As an example, we use Dell for our Laptops, we use Lenovo, we use IBM for our computers, Cisco for our switches, and Microsoft.

It's important to us that it is easy to use and has easy maintenance because we don't have specialists. It is necessary for us to have very simple maintenance procedures.

The initial setup could be simplified.

We have been using Windows Server for more than two years, maybe five or more.

It's a stable solution. We have not had any issues with stability.

We have 200 users in our organization who are using Windows Server.

We have plans to keep using this solution.

We have not contacted technical support. 

I only use the support online.

We use Windows Server, and Windows 10 for our laptops and PCs.

The initial setup depends on the preparation of the units.

If it is prepared by a specialist then the installation is easy.

We have to make sure that it has been configured properly.

We have a team of 20 for the deployment and maintenance of this solution.

It is important to have the cheapest price for all of the material and licenses.

We have so many customers with Windows Servers that we are obliged to use the same technical path.

We don't have any significant issues with Windows. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We use Windows Server as our certified server for compatibility.

It could be more compatible with other platforms.

The compatibility and the ease of use are areas that I would like to see improved.

We have been using Windows Server since 2016.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. We have approximately 3,000 users in our organization.

We plan to continue to use this solution.

We have not contacted technical support.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy to install.

The deployment took three to six months.

We have a team of 50 admins for deployment and maintenance.

We had the help of a system integrator.

Definitely, I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We use Windows Server to host applications, host files, emails, Windows server emails, and data exchange. But for the most part, we use it to host applications, directory services, and DNS services. 

I like the views in the user interface. 

It would help if Microsoft made it lighter to run on the servers and made troubleshooting much easier. I have to deal with unexpected errors and faults that happen in Windows. It also crashes. 

When it's a big environment, especially in an industrialized environment, we see unexpected errors. They create instability, or unexpected errors happen in the infrastructure. You need to restart the server or restart the services. You don't know the root cause of these errors.

I've been working with Windows Server for about 20 years.

Sometimes we have to deal with unexpected errors that create instability.

Windows Server is mostly scalable. However, you run into problems if it's going to be very big. If something happens, troubleshooting it will be very difficult.

Microsoft technical support is good.

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. 

The Windows Server standard edition is affordable. But the cost of the data center edition is high, especially compared to some competitors. Some competitors are offering their operating systems for free.

I would tell potential customers of Windows Server that they need to study it. They need to understand their business case very well. If features are available in Windows Server, they can safely go for it, but they need to study the design very well.

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

We are using Windows Server 2016 for our organization's backend applications which reside in a data center. HP provides us with our Windows platforms, and we also have Unix platforms from them as well.

We have been using Windows environments since I joined my organization, which is close to 20 years now. Currently, we're doing what you can call a hosted private cloud with colocation and we are running some huge workloads using Windows Server in this cloud.

From our side, the organization's 2800 end users are mostly running Windows 10 in a highly virtualized environment. So whenever we need more resources, it takes just a couple of minutes to get it up and running.

Overall, Windows Server 2016 provides a stable environment for some of the very large workloads that it is subjected to in our organization, and it is very easy to use.

There are lots of improvements that can be brought by Microsoft, although for us Windows Server works mostly as expected. For how we're using Windows Server, security is a top priority, so when talking security, it can always be improved upon, no matter what.

Then there's the performance side, which is not bad, but we are currently looking to increase capacity and we have found that we need to enhance the hardware to get the performance we are looking for. Because of this, we are going to be refreshing the hardware and moving to new infrastructure in the next few weeks.

I have been using Windows Server for many years now.

It is very stable. 

We have enterprise support with them which I cannot personally comment on.

We are running a form of Windows Servers, from our side, which are highly virtualized. So from where we're sitting, to provision Windows Server takes just a couple of clicks and it is up and running.

For the backend systems where we implement Windows Server at the data center, the entire IT team is around 120 people. Then, from a user perspective, much of it is self-service, meaning users can request to provision as needed from the pool of virtualized resources.

Our current license is an enterprise license agreement which gives you a whole lot of possibility, especially when you go through an R&D process. For example, you can provision everything, spread the service use over six months, and then wrap it up. It gives you a lot of flexibility.

Windows Server is a stable product and there's no way we will change it for something else.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

Windows Server can be used for any kind of application. It is an operating system that supports enterprise applications. There is no application that doesn't go with Windows.

It could be more stable. Windows has certain problems that Unix platforms don't have. It requires more administrative effort as compared to Unix. I don't know why Microsoft has not changed that. It generates a lot of trash data, so slowly and steadily, you find more and more space being utilized. There is some kind of administrative load, which doesn't happen with Unix.

I have been using this solution for many years.

It is stable, but its stability can be better.

We have a maximum of 50 or 60 users. 

We didn't use their support much. 

It was very easy to install. The time period for installation depends on the complexity. If we want to simply install with the default option, it doesn't take much time. If you want to enable all of the service options that Windows provides, such as SNMP, it will take longer. If you have to install IAS and all such things, it will take time.

I would recommend this solution to others. We plan to keep using it.

I would rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

I've used it with government applications to integrate and install with Shine server and Fire servers, enabling remote access. For some clients, we have developed and installed an integrated solution for about 500 users and are usually 'anywhere applications.' One client is a government permit office, and they use it for GIS applications and keep track of services.

I'm quite satisfied with Windows Server. I find mutual authentication and the environment useful. Over the years, I've seen some very good improvements in the Windows Server's quality and functionality.

I find ethernet configuration and implementation difficult. I would also like to see more reliable updates.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 15 years.

When compared to the legacy Windows Server, stability has improved. 

Windows Server technical support is good. Over the last 15 years, I've used Microsoft technical support maybe 300 times or less, and those experiences were good.

For the most part, the initial setup is straightforward. In my experience, about 80% of the implementations were straightforward, and about 20% were a little more difficult.

It took us about six to eight months to deploy the Windows Server for my client at the government permit office.

In our case, we primarily use Microsoft, so the cost is a lot less. But some of our customers have spent approximately $12,000 a year on the operating system license.

Windows Server is a nice product, but it does have some small problems. I would recommend potential customers to do some research first. 

It's a little more difficult to implement this operating system with functionality in the cloud. Everything, including the files and interface, keeps us in a Microsoft environment, and when moving applications to the cloud, some people might find it challenging.

They have training for all the features that Microsoft offers. Technology is evolving quickly. Although I've been in this market for 25 years, I can see that I'm getting a little bit left behind because of a lack of formal training in the new functions that Microsoft and many other companies are implementing. 

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

We are primarily using Windows Server for monitoring purposes.

The most valuable features are the file transfer protocol (FTP) and the secure file transfer protocol (SFTP). These are both used for file sharing.

The reporting, event logging, and event management functionalities need to be improved.

Windows Server needs more applications from the monitoring and backup perspective. These are not incorporated yet. In previous versions, the backup software was available, but not now.

I have been using Windows Server for 10 years.

There are bugs that appear but Microsoft provides updates that can rectify the bugs or expand the number of features.

Most of the features are scalable. Windows 2016 and 2019 may be more scalable, but we have not recently upgraded the infrastructure.

Our customer has a small number of people using Windows Server. 

We began with using Windows Server and we are still using it. We are looking to migrate to Linux as well, but it depends on the infrastructure and the types of licenses. Microsoft recently began including lots of applications that require licenses, where they were not needed previously.

We are also using Ubuntu Linux and CentOS, which are open-source solutions.

Certain tools are easier to use, depending on whether you are using Linux or Windows.

The initial setup is straightforward and our deployment was completed in three months.

When we implement this solution, we start in a development environment and then move it to production.

Our in-house team performed the deployment.

The number of staff required for maintenance depends on the environment, infrastructure, and the type of activity that is being done.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our use cases are usually data and analytics. We are building platforms for our clients to exploit their data. We are building the data curation. 

Also, the analytics for the front end, and the presentation of the data for the end-user.

The features that I like the most are that it's easy to use and the integration.

In terms of support, it's pretty complicated when you have to study the documentation.

It would definitely be helpful if the documentation could be more straightforward.

I have been working with Windows Server for eight years.

We are usually working with the latest version.

Windows Server is stable.

It's a scalable product. The number of users depends on our customers. Some customers have as many as 50 users while some others have 15 users. It really depends on the clients, but we're not in the thousands of end-users.

The technical support is pretty good. We have a good relationship with our vendor's specialists. We mostly work with Microsoft and some other vendors.

Overall, they are supportive.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It took approximately a month to deploy, but it depends on the number of installations we have. Some are larger and some smaller.

We need two or three staff members to deploy it. They are PDAs, they are infrastructure people who have the tech knowledge. 

We have a team in our organization that we call specialists to configure the server. They are tech-savvy, and they know all about the backend.

We are integrators.

There are licensing costs for this solution, although it's not expensive. Microsoft is relatively inexpensive compared to other database platforms.

I would recommend this solution to others who want to use Windows Server.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.