Windows Server Reviews

We mainly worked with Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2016 as they were the go-to operating systems for applications like Excel Server and various other software. We occasionally used Linux servers, especially for databases and specific applications, but most of our work was on Windows servers.

When we deploy this operating system, we're primarily focused on managing virtual environments. There are different parts like the directory, data storage, and CPU usage which are really useful. We also compare it to other parts like group policy, all of which are related to users. Currently, I find that users are very involved when it comes to these applications or servers on the two other links.

I believe that Windows Server can be somewhat vulnerable compared to other options, but its security can be improved. I also think that the setup process can be somewhat complex, depending on the applications involved.

Regarding the security features of Windows Server, while it offers some built-in security measures, it's not sufficient to solely rely on them. Additional external devices such as firewalls may be needed for comprehensive protection. Deploying antivirus and firewall software on the server is advisable, but having an external firewall adds an extra layer of security.

When migrating to Windows Server from previous versions or other platforms, noticeable improvements were observed, particularly in the utilization of graphical interfaces. Windows offers robust graphical guidance, especially compared to Linux or other systems like Acronis, making it easier to navigate and manage various functionalities.

I have used Windows Server for a couple of months.

I found it somewhat lacking in responsiveness at times.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate Windows Server around a 5 or 6.

When it comes to recommending Windows Server to others, it depends on the critical applications being used. If you're installing an Oracle database, for example, I wouldn't recommend Windows Server. In such cases, Linux or similar platforms might be more suitable. However, for tasks closely related to Windows environments, like utilizing Microsoft products extensively, Windows Server could be a faster and more compatible option, especially when it comes to firewall capabilities.

I use the solution in my company for our applications and security.

Windows Server is similar to any other typical server, considering that there are multiple servers available in the market. The ease of administration that the product provides is one of the reasons why my company uses it.

The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required, considering that there has been an increase in the tool's licensing costs, especially the ones required for virtualization.

The scalability of the product needs to be improved, considering that organizations may have an increase in resource requirements.

I have been using Windows Server for a few years. I use the versions that were released in 2016 and 2018.

It is a stable solution. Compared to the stability offered by the product in the previous year, I feel that there have been improvements in the current year.

I have experience with the solution's technical support. My company is able to find solutions to our ratios with the help of the product's technical team. The product's technical team is neither good nor bad, meaning the support team offers normal support services.

My company uses IBM Power AIX and SUSE Linux Enterprise servers. My company has also tested some of the Linux servers' versions.

With the help of SentinelOne, Windows Server was installed and used for the management of the virtual environment. My company also uses a PAM solution along with a security-oriented product.

The product's installation phase is easy.

In my company, we know the product's deployment process. Due to the aforementioned reason, it doesn't take my company much time to deploy the product.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises and cloud model.

It is an expensive product. My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product.

My company uses Windows Server, considering the knowledge that my organization possesses about the product and the information concerning the integration capabilities the tool offers.

The security features offered by the product to protect our enterprise's resources are good. Though there is a scope for improvement in the product's security features, it is one of the most used solutions in the world when compared to the other tools in the market.

It is one of the cleaner systems available in the market that can be tailored to fit into your environment. Most people have experience using Windows Server in their environment. Windows Server is the easiest option my company chooses, considering the amount of experience we have with it in our environment.

I don't think that I have any special comments on how the product has improved our company's system performance area.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use Windows Server for Active Directory (AD). We use the solution to manage user data and access through Active Directory. We use Windows Server to host and configure the mail servers.

Since Windows Server has a graphical user interface (GUI), it is easy to use and implement the services that we are using.

Compared to Linux, the solution is a bit difficult to deploy. The solution should have a faster deployment.

I have been using Windows Server for more than five to six years.

The solution has good stability.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 50 employees are using the solution in our organization. The solution is used extensively in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

The solution's installation process is a bit lengthy and hectic. It took more time than the Linux operating system used to take. Our in-house team follows the documentation part, and we do the deployment ourselves from scratch.

We use only the license versions of Windows Server.

We currently have our own data center where we host the services. Since we are a government-based R&D organization, we do not trust any cloud platform services like Azure, Google, and AWS.

We had to configure all the services and features that were available. We had to look for additional plugins that we could create and integrate for the security of our organization. I would recommend Windows Server for an organization dependent on the GUI part. Otherwise, I recommend using Linux servers.

The hardware requirement for Windows Server is very large compared to Linux. For that, we need to use or deploy the maximum hardware that is necessary.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use Windows Server for network management. 

The product is reliable. It is powerful and we can make a lot of tools to work with it. 

Windows Server needs to improve stability and pricing. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

The product is stable. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Windows Server is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The technical team is knowledgeable and responsive. 

Windows Server is easy to deploy. You only need to install the application. The deployment steps typically involve working with virtual environments. We use templates to set up the machines, specifying the number of interfaces, IP addresses, and routing information. After that, we shift to the system, and the process of putting on the applications is relatively fast. You need around 30 technical resources to handle maintenance and deployment. 

Windows Server is worth its money. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. We use Windows Server and Red Hat Linux, depending on the application. If the application is designed for Windows, we opt for Windows Server as it is easier to install and deploy.

It is used for day to day purposes. 

The simplicity of the solution is the most valuable aspect. 

They could make it more company-specific to some of the tools that we use.

I have experience using Windows Server. 

The stability is very high. 

Close to a thousand users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is an expensive solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution for our different applications.

We appreciate how many different applications can be on the server at any given time.

The solution is easy to learn. It doesn't take much training.

The implementation is simple.

The graphic interface is very nice.

The technical updates need to be improved upon. How they are delivered isn't ideal.

Technical support in and of itself needs to be better. The experience we have isn't very good. It's hard to get timely answers to our questions.

The system needs to offer better integration capabilities.

The solution's availability could be better in future releases.

We've subscribed to Windows for many years now. It's been at least over two, but probably longer.

The solution is stable. We don't have problems with reliability. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. We don't experience bugs either.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand, they can do so.

Currently, our organization has 3,000 users.

We may not continue with Windows. We're moving towards graduating to Linux instead.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and I can say that we are not satisfied with their level of service. They are slow to respond. They need to act faster to get us the help we need.

We have always used some form of Windows products before we began implementing Windows Server. We originally decided to implement the server as we felt it was simple and easy to use. It also had a good graphic interface.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It was rather simple. In terms of people getting trained on the system, it shouldn't take up too much time so a company can get up and running quickly. That said, the time it takes to deploy is directly linked to the training. However long it takes to get your team comfortable with it, that's how long it will take to deploy.

We had an IT staff of around ten people that assisted with the implementation. We also has a team that handles any maintenance as necessary.

As the implementation process was pretty straightforward, we handled it internally ourselves. We didn't need an external consultant or integrator to help us.

We've looked into Linux. We may move over to that in the future.

We're just a Windows customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

Overall, from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine.

We use Windows for its Single-Instance Storage, SIS, capabilities. The solution has deduplication default features. In respect of Windows security, the solution offers a GUI, graphical user interface, that is very convenient for the user. Linux, for its part, does not offer a graphical user interface. 

The solution's licensing price is on the expensive side. This is an issue which Microsoft should address right away. 

I have much experience with Windows Server, having used it my entire career, in excess of 15 years. 

The solution is stable. 

We do not have plans to increase usage for at least the coming two years. 

We did not use a different solution for our desktop prior to Windows Server, although for our server we used Linux. 

The installation is not difficult. I found it to be very straightforward. 

It lasted 35 minutes.

The installation can be done on one's own. Only one person is needed for the deployment. However, as we have a large scale data center, we have a team, consisting of five members, who are responsible for maintaining the entire infrastructure. 

The price of the solution's license is expensive and this an issue which demands Window's immediate attention. 

Our licensing fee is perpetual. 

I rate Windows Server as a nine out of ten. 

A couple of years ago we migrated from the 2008 to the 2012 version and we are currently in the process of trying to migrate our applications to that of 2019. We use Windows 10 for OS. We're researching z/OS, which is actually Linux based, to see how well it works with Windows applications. 

When it comes to the SQL server, we have separate application and database servers, the latter which is also on Windows Server 2012. This means that we have a couple of applications in which we hosted in IIS and Windows Server 2012. Consequently, we have quite a collection of Windows 2012 that are currently running in our data center. 

For the moment, we are not making use of the solution in our environment but looking into how we can have a license free OS that can both work with lower machines and function very well.

We like the ease of use, stability and performance of Windows Server. The reason I was skeptical when it comes to moving to Windows Server 2019, which is currently the latest version that the market has to offer, is because the solution is easy to use and stable, something typical of any OS. While we are currently inspecting the compatibility of applications that are running on Windows version 2019, we're still using the 2012 version and everything is working fine. We have encountered no problems with the OS being used to run the applications. 

What could help in improving the footprint is if Microsoft could come up with several flavors or start providing containerized solutions for server systems. 

Say, for example, that I wish to host a web server online. I would pose the question whether I would really need to have a Windows Server OS for me to be able to do that on IIS. At the moment, the use of Kubernetes or Docker present the only solution. As there is a steep learning curve for one's team to acquire the skill-set and obtain the capabilities associated with these solutions, a relevant Microsoft version would make life much easier. 

As I have already paid for a license, I should have the option of requesting the containerized functionality from the OS to reduce the Windows Server OS footprint. This will save me from having to make constant installations as a condition of running my servers on it. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years, straight from the beginning. 

We have had no issues with Windows Server that required technical support, although we did have to call the Microsoft team concerning something on which we were working and had issues around the MS Teams and certain things relating to Azure. I can connect you to my system's administrator if you wish, who may have more information. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

I can easily replicate what I want. My environment allows me to clone servers in a matter of mere minutes, as I already have a startup which contains all of my standards. 

One must pay for a license for the solution. 

The number of users utilizing the solution averages slightly north of 500, since this is the application we use in running all our key activities. Each member of our organization's staff requires access to the solution for carrying out several functions, be it in respect of the application or of the need to log into the system as a consequence of this being where the employee management system is located. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others.