Windows Server Reviews

All our IT infrastructure is Windows. We run our banking applications on Windows Server, along with Oracle databases. In addition, our digital banking section utilizes AI and Copilot to enhance processing in the bank and serve customers.

Windows Server meets our needs; no one works without Microsoft these days. We run applications on top of Windows Server, and all our banking applications use Windows Server. Although we have some Oracle databases and Unix systems, most of our servers are Windows Server, totaling around seven hundred. Our strategy is to move everything to the cloud, decreasing the operational cost.

I don't know exactly how to enhance Windows Server, but it meets our requirements. We can work with both virtual and physical setups. If there are new features from Microsoft, we are happy to test them.

We have had an enterprise agreement with Microsoft since 2008 for Windows Server.

Windows Server is stable.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. It has supported our organization's growth well.

Support is okay, but sometimes it takes time to get assistance unless it is opened as a security issue. I would rate Microsoft tech support seven out of ten.

Neutral

For me, it's only Windows Server. Our organization's database admins use other systems, but I have only used Windows Server.

We are familiar with Windows Server. There are no hassles, especially with virtual machines, which take about ten to fifteen minutes to set up.

We observe cost savings through virtualization and the use of Microsoft Cloud, which decreases running costs.

Previously, server licenses were purchased. Now, it's core-based licensing, which costs more. This is now Microsoft's licensing approach.

Without the need for recommendations, everyone uses Windows Server. I rate Windows Server nine out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Other

I am working in a bank, and we use Windows Server for different purposes and services. Specifically, it is used for our banking system and banking software. We need to install software and databases on Windows Server.

Windows Server is user-friendly compared to other operating systems, like Linux. It offers virtualization techniques, such as Hyper-V, and other features that make it favorable. It is also user-friendly, which is beneficial for my organization as it simplifies processes.

One area that needs improvement is the protection against ransomware attacks. A mechanism similar to what Linux offers for preventing ransomware attacks would be beneficial.

I have been working with Windows Server for at least ten years.

I would rate the stability of Windows Server as nine out of ten.

I would also give a rating of nine out of ten for scalability and its ability to expand.

I would rate the technical support from Microsoft an eight out of ten. The response time is one area that could use improvement.

Positive

The initial setup of Windows Server is very simple. While it used to be complex, it has become more straightforward and easier over time.

The pricing for Windows Server is moderately high, and with time, the price is increasing. It is suggested that Microsoft focuses on the pricing issue.

Windows Server's main competitor is Linux, but it is not as user-friendly, making Windows Server a preferred choice in my country.

I would give Windows Server an overall rating of eight out of ten.

On-premises

It's very user-friendly, not like technical stuff like Linux or Unix. It is very easy to go and use. That's one reason we like it.

It's easy to manage core applications and deploy engineers. 

Windows engineers are more affordable than Linux or Unix engineers, so that's another advantage. So, the management costs are much lower for the Windows Server. 

Plus, troubleshooting is straightforward with readily available online resources, so we don't need to raise tickets or wait for help. We can easily search on Google and find the solution on the search engine. 

Windows Server is pretty mature already. They're doing a good job with it.

More security features would be great.

We've been working with Microsoft Server for about 15 years now.

It's very stable. I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

It's definitely scalable. We have over 9,000 users accessing it regularly. 

We use it extensively in my company. 

We raise a ticket to Microsoft. We have an enterprise agreement, and our in-house team can also solve most issues.

The initial setup is very straightforward. It really doesn't take much time. It took around one to two hours to deploy. 

We handled the deployment in-house. 

We use both cloud and on-premises deployment models. We start with a server administrator background check, then deploy OS, and finally deliver it to the application servers.

Our technical team has 10 to 12 people, including admins, managers, and engineers.

All my business applications run on it. We're very competitive commercially and technically because of it.

It is not expensive. We have yearly basis licensing. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. I'd recommend to make sure you have security checkups before deploying Windows Server. That's the first thing. And you need to consider your licensing options.

Hybrid Cloud

We are using Windows Server to connect our client software. We use it to access client systems and work on SQL databases.

Rather than purchasing and setting up infrastructure, we are using Windows Server, which obviously saves some costs.

Windows Server is fulfilling our daily work-life purposes. We use it to connect to client systems and are happy with the performance and its features. 

Also, it has a user-friendly interface. Rather than purchasing and setting up infrastructure, we are using Windows Server, which obviously saves some costs.

Sometimes the performance goes down, which might be due to the stability zone or network issues. It can also depend on our network.

I have been working with Windows Server for more than eight years.

Sometimes the performance goes down, so it may be due to the stability zone or network issues. It can also depend on our network.

I had the opportunity to connect with Microsoft support. They resolved our problems within the defined SLA. I would rate my experience nine out of ten.

Positive

I haven't done any initial setup on it. Whatever we are getting from our vendor, I'm using the same application. We don't have access to install and setup.

I am not an expert in Windows Server, however, am aware of using it alongside Azure virtual machines.

I would rate Windows Server nine out of ten. It has a good user interface and is user-friendly. I would definitely recommend it.

On-premises

Windows Server serves as the foundation of our infrastructure, handling user authentication, security, and file sharing. It also supports other essential tools like SQL for database management, SharePoint for collaboration, and interfaces with communication servers for seamless integration with our landlines.

The most valuable features of Windows Server for us are scalability, hardware compatibility, and support for various hardware interfaces like communication boards. Additionally, its seamless integration with Windows mobile devices proved highly beneficial for our operations.

One area for improvement in Windows Server is the basic administration tools and scripts, which have become less reliable and functional over time. Restoring the simplicity and effectiveness of these tools would greatly enhance the user experience and efficiency of server management.

I have been working with Windows Server for over 20 years.

Windows Server has been extremely stable for us. We have experienced no blue screens or crashes and often achieved an uptime of 2,000 to 3,000 days without any issues whatsoever.

Around 5,000 users work with Windows Server in our organization.

Microsoft's technical support for Windows Server has been lacking, with rare responses even with premium support. As a result, administrators often rely on each other for assistance, sharing knowledge and troubleshooting together. I would rate the support as a one out of ten.

Negative

Setting up Windows Server is straightforward, usually taking around half an hour with just one person. No extra resources are needed for deployment.

Windows Server offers excellent value for money, particularly when compared to alternatives. Despite price increases, it remains a cost-effective choice.

The pricing for Windows Server has increased over the years and is now tied to Azure pricing. Previously, a Windows Server with two processors cost around two 154 euros annually, but now it is estimated to be around 3,000 to 4,000 euros for the same configuration.

Windows Server was crucial for our business as it offered scalability, allowing us to seamlessly upgrade servers as our company expanded rapidly. It served as the backbone for all our tools and applications, providing a unified platform for our operations.

Windows Server's security features have significantly improved our IT security posture. While occasional vulnerabilities arose, Microsoft promptly addressed them, providing clear instructions on mitigation. Consequently, we have had no security incidents in over 20 years, thanks to proactive measures and effective security management.

Managing Windows Server in a multi-server environment used to be relatively easy, but in recent years, it has become increasingly challenging due to the removal of useful tools and Microsoft's focus on cloud services. 

Integrating Windows Server with Azure was initially challenging due to limited documentation and some synchronization issues, but it became smoother over time with the help of user experiences and shared knowledge. Integration with AWS for specific tasks was less problematic.

I would recommend Windows Server to others. Overall, I would rate it as a nine out of ten.

Even though there were changes in my job role or company, I continued to use Windows Server.

In recent times, improvements are required since everything is going to be very granular. If you give access to a particular group or particular user in a particular product line and if you want someone to be a part of that group which has different rights from another team, like an SME, who has more rights compared to an ordinary person, and if a new person or novice person comes in, he will have lesser rights.

Nowadays, everybody wants a user-friendly dashboard and interface. People don't want to know about complex commands and want everything to be available in just a few clicks on the dashboard, where they can see the top trends, what commands are being used, how many logins, and other such related information. The integration process should be smooth if I have Microsoft Active Directory deployed on an on-premises model and I want to connect it to a Microsoft Active Directory on the cloud. Even if you are involved in complex things on the back end, from the front end, the tool should be made easier for users to understand so that they can identify the credentials or keys they use.

If you want to integrate or connect with multiple integration points or ecosystems, then such a process should be something that is easily doable for users. Whether the tool is connected to an API, on-premises model, or cloud, it should be made a process that is easy for users.

I have experience with Windows Server. I have used Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows NT.

When it comes to volume, the performance decreases. I have seen a lot of companies claim that their tools can support a certain amount of capacity, but when we, as users, come near the prescribed capacity limit and are unable to use the product, the company claims that the capacity limit details were given to them by their engineering team. I feel that the engineering team hardly tested the product at the required level to see if the product could support it when the actual production load came to the level they figured out earlier. If a particular product claims to be able to support 1,000 units or users, I see the performance decreasing after the tool is used by 800 or 900 users. If you go for a storage tool, the company claims that its product will support one petabyte, but when users actually have that much capacity, they realize that the product doesn't offer much support.

Around seven people in my company use the product.

My company uses the solution's technical support if we are not able to solve a problem related to the product.

Since migrating to the product from another solution, my company faces challenges in using complex security support when there is a high volume.

If an architecture is complex, the setup phase takes time. If you need to integrate multiple touchpoints, then the setup process takes time.

The deployment process can be done with the help of our company's in-house team.

Speaking about how the product enhances our company's data management capabilities, I would say that based on my long experience with the product, I feel that presently, the solution is totally different. Nowadays, users get Version 21H2 (OS build 22000)​​ Windows 11, which is totally different from its past offerings. Previously, Windows Server fell under a totally different domain or technology, but currently, it's a totally different tool.

I would say that I have stopped using the product at an individual level and have started working with the team in my company that takes care of its deployment and manages the virtual environments.

The tool has been beneficial for our company's IT infrastructure since I feel that Windows is preferred by many for the domain controller and for using SSO authentication along with Active Directory services. With SSO authentication and Active Directory services, users' contact domains and everything are available. It can help users benefit from the tool while sharing authentication, user access, rollback, and other areas.

In terms of security features, users need more in areas like authentication and location.

There is no multi-vendor support to help deal with the area of integration.

I rate the product a seven out of ten.

I use Windows Server primarily as an Infra Server and Active Directory domain controller. It acts as a domain controller, chain email server, application server, and file server.

Windows Server offers good operational benefits. It is quite sustained, provides good support, and is quite reliable.

All features are required for managing my data center. The domain controller is for Active Directory, and if you need to include an email server, you can't ask about features individually since all features are necessary.

The price is very expensive. It would be excellent if Microsoft could reduce the price. Also, the support team is getting worse in terms of expertise. No cost-saving benefits have been observed.

I have been working with Windows Server for almost 20 years.

For stability, I rate Windows Server seven out of ten.

Scalability is rated eight out of ten.

The customer support team is not satisfactory. Their expertise has diminished. I rate them two out of ten.

Negative

The setup is easy. I would rate it a nine out of ten. Deployment takes about five minutes per server.

You need at least a team of two people for deployment to manage and support, especially when one person is unavailable.

There is no cost saving. I have not observed any cost-saving benefits.

The price of Windows Server is very expensive. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I rate it ten out of ten.

It's better to have your own internal server capabilities. Do not rely on the support; you need your team to manage and support the server.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

I used the solution for my file server, music server, and document management system.

The solution is quite stable. It's very common, so finding applications and support is easy. The security is fine. The single sign-on makes it easy for the users, and the ability to automatically deploy software to everybody is good.

The administration interface should be more user-friendly. Some parts of the administration interface have been upgraded, while others are old-fashioned. The vendor must update everything with the same user interface and make it more modern.

I have been using the solution for 25 years.

I rate the tool’s stability a 10 out of 10.

The tool’s scalability is fine.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. Due to the Windows updates, it always takes me two days to install Windows Server.

I can do the deployment myself. I just had one server.

It's easy to get support. It's well known, so we can find answers anywhere. The tool supports many applications. It’s simple. It’s not cheap, but it works. The ROI is pretty good.

We had an annual license. The product was quite expensive.

I have also used Linux servers. Windows has better application compatibility, availability, and ease of use.

I have never used Microsoft's virtualization features. Windows is one of the most common operating systems. Many applications are available for it, so it's hard to go wrong if we have the money to pay for it. Overall, I rate the product a 9 out of 10.

On-premises