Windows Server Reviews

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.

I'm an ICT system engineer and we are customers of Microsoft. 

The most valuable part about nowadays Windows is PowerShell. They got serious and implemented a real console which was always lacking in Windows. 

Compared to Linux, Windows requires a lot of restarts. If you get a CU update every month, you have to restart. Linux is better in that regard. Sometimes the PowerShell has an overly complicated syntax. 

I'd like to see some more features in the Windows administration kit - the WAC. It's this new product you got on the server and if you have a website you can manage your entire machine. It's a pretty good product, but it's still lacking some features like reporting because it's always a problem to have a dashboard for all your Windows machines, because Microsoft wants you to buy SCCM and all their monitoring services. The WAC is pretty nice but it still lacks some features. It would be great if they would develop it further.

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

It's pretty stable compared to the old Windows version, except sometimes there are problems with the CU updates. Maybe they should consider not employing so many updates and instead focus on the quality of the updates. 

From the numbers of CPU you can pop into your machine, it's really scalable, but you need to be aware that Windows still has problems with a lot of CPUs. Managing CPUs would likely be better in Windows compared to Linux. 

The initial setup is really straightforward, especially nowadays if you're using a WSUS server together with Microsoft deployment, you'll get it just perfect. It's faster than setting up the Linux box. 

I would recommend this solution but it depends on the software you are going to use it on.  When it's about a high performance web server, I would prefer Linux because you would choose to stick to engines as a web server and this product does not run very well on Windows, so you'd end up with Linux anyway.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

The main features that we are using are active directory, domain, and DNS. 

They can simplify the utilization and control of the system when you have a lot of setups. They provided something called Windows Center or Control Center in version 2019. It's a free tool that comes with the Windows Server. You can install it on your desktop and use it. 

This tool simplifies the control and monitoring of all servers. If I have 200 servers, I don't need to log in to each one to configure it. I can manage them from this tool. However, this tool needs quite a lot of improvements. It's difficult to use, and they need to improve it. 

I have been using this solution since 1990. Currently, we are using the latest version. We have the cloud and on-premises deployments. 

It is good.

We never contacted them.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took around 15 minutes. Usually, on the server, we don't do the physical installation. When we install initially, we install an image. You just create an image, and that's it. After that, we don't need to do an installation.

There are only two options in the market: Windows and Linux. It depends on your application. If you have an application that requires Windows, you go with Windows Server. Otherwise, you go for Linux. There are not enough choices to choose from and decide. 

They had an issue in version 2016 related to the slowness of update management, but they already solved it in version 2019. It was impacting batch management. The time that Windows required was a lot, but it was fixed in version 2019. That was the only issue we faced in Windows Server. Other than that, it's fine.

I would advise on the version, not on the solution itself, that is, whether to use Windows Server or not. If Windows Server is a required solution, you have to take it. It's not an option. However, I would advise to not use version 2016. 

I would rate Windows Server a ten out of ten. If your application is required on Windows, it's not comparable to any other solution. If an application can work with Windows or Linux, for sure, I'm going with Linux.

We're primarily using the solution mostly for the file server and communication and so on.

Every time they perform a new release, the solution gets better and better.

In the past year, Microsoft has done a lot of work around security. There have been a lot of improvements made in that respect.

Overall, the solution works well.

Right now what is needed on the server-side is an easier release process. Every year or every third year they are releasing a newer version and it could go smoother.

The solution lacks a few features here and there.

Although they've done a good job updating security, there's more to be done, and they should continue improving this aspect of the product.

We've been using the solution for what feels like forever. I can't recall a time we didn't actually use it.

The solution is reliable. I believe it to be stable. There aren't bugs or glitches that affect it. It doesn't seem to crash or freeze. It's good for the most part. I can't complain.

The solution is scalable. You can expand it if you need to, for the most part.

I don't have any experience with Microsoft's technical support. I wouldn't be able to speak to how effective they are at troubleshooting or solving issues. The solution works well, and we haven't had any issues, so there's been no reason to reach out. That probably speaks to how well the solution runs in general.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. You just click through, and it's pretty easy.

That said, some setups seem to have some more complex configurations. Most of the time, things are pretty straightforward.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We're using a standard out of the box deployment.

We always update the solution to the newest possible version. We update regularly.

I'd advise that new users learn about the solution before jumping in. It's always good to take a class or study up on it a bit so that you know what you can do with the server and how to navigate around in it. It's a good idea to take a certification course.

That said, users can always Google answers or use the Microsoft Flow tool.

I'd absolutely recommend the solution. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten overall. There's always room for improvement, of course. However, generally speaking, it hasn't given us any issues and does what we need it to do. There are always ways to improve security, stability, and scalability.

Most of the time we use it for user account access. We also deploy Microsoft on machines that must run on Windows. Beyond that, we use it for the remote desktop, and obviously for its mobile Microsoft features.

The active directory that the server provides is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The solution continues to improve and develop and we appreciate that it's always evolving. We've been working with the solution so long, we've seen a lot of changes for the better happen over time.

The pricing aspect of the solution needs improvement. It could be lowered. Over time, the pricing itself has fluctuated, and now, especially pricing around mobile aspects of the solution really seems to be driving everything up.

They also need to work on the license model for virtualization.

The solution could offer higher availability.

Users would benefit if the solution offered better management features.

I've been using the solution for 15 years. I've used it from version NT 4.4 to version Studio 1.6.

The solution is quite stable and continues to grow its stability reputation year over year. The latest version was much more stable than the previous versions.

The solution is easy to scale. If a company needs to expand this solution, they can do so easily. We have a variety of customers that may have as many as 1,000 users at any given time. We typically sell to medium-sized enterprises across three different localities.

Our company uses the solution quite extensively on a regular basis.

We have reached out to Microsoft's support for critical issues in the past to get their assistance.

When we get the support from Microsoft's Shanghai division, the support is very good. I would say, in the case is Iraq to the other regions, such as India, the support is not as good there.

We've used different solutions in the past, however, they don't really fit with most our use cases, and we feel much more comfortable with Microsoft.

The initial setup is easy. It offers a quick download time and easy deployment. I would describe the process as straightforward. It's not complex.

IN a physical environment, deployment wouldn't take more than an hour. On average it might take 30 to 45 minutes. The virtual deployment is much, much quicker.

You only need one person to deploy the solution.

We're resellers, and we sell IT products, so we're able to deploy the solution ourselves. If our clients need help, we can certainly help them deploy the service as well.

If you buy a standard license, you can only buy two towards your machine. If you need more than that, you need to buy another type of licensing. It changes the cost and makes it much more expensive.

We handle both on-prem and cloud deployments. We're in IT services, so we often sell these solutions to our clients. We use the Windows Server ourselves as well.

I'd recommend the solution. It works well, however, users still have to understand Windows and the Windows interface in order to use it correctly.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We have our applications on the servers.

I like the fact that Windows Server is user friendly.

With Microsoft, there are always bugs, and the stability could be improved.

We have been using Windows Server for a long time. We have different versions: 2016, 2012, and 2008 as well.

It's more or less stable. Sometimes, there are problems with bugs.

It is a scalable solution.

The initial setup is easy. It took about an hour without including configuration. One person handled the deployment. 

We used an in-house team.

I would recommend this solution and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We use Windows Server for endpoint security because there is an application we have working on it called Trend Micro.

Windows Server performance is very good for backups.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately six months.

Windows Server is a stable solution.

The scalability of Windows Server is very good.

We have five people in my organization using this solution. We plan to increase the usage in the future.

The support we have received from Microsoft has been quick.

The initial setup is simple for some but difficult for others.

We have two technicians that do the maintenance and deployment of the Windows Server.

I paid for a license to use Windows Server. It is a subscription-based license and it is purchased annually.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We are using it for Active Directory, DNS, and TCP.

The solution is deployed on-premise. There are over 5,000 people using this solution in my company.

The solution is easy to use. We are satisfied with its performance.

We are waiting for the solution to be more secure and more stable.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years.

It could be more stable.

We have enterprise rights for support for Microsoft. We communicate with them on tickets.

The complexity of setup just depends. Sometimes it takes half a day, and sometimes it takes one or two hours.

For maintenance, we have one manager and two operation specialists.

We have sometimes used a consultant for deployment. For example, we have one for AD FS role, but we don't have DNS, TCP, Active Directory. We manage it by ourselves.

We have an enterprise agreement.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. 

I would recommend this solution for someone who wants to start using it.