Windows Server Reviews

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.

Windows Server is the operating system we run on our servers. We use it in the IT department, primarily as the OS for our servers.

Windows Server is the OS for servers in our IT environment. Its features depend on the servers we're running, such as web servers or file servers. It's a well-known server OS, making it suitable for all our needs. For security, we have no issues as we use several security applications like BlackPoint and Kaspersky, along with backup systems, and we keep the server up-to-date.

I think there is room for improvement in the stability of older versions. Additionally, Windows Server could be more power-efficient, especially for individuals doing labs or studies on personal computers or laptops.

I have been working with Windows Server for eight or nine years.

I have not faced any deployment issues.

The stability is better with the newer versions like 2019. Older versions like the 2008 servers had several issues. The current version is stable, and I rate it between eight and nine.

Windows Server is very scalable. We use it everywhere, and it serves approximately two thousand users in our company as a backend service.

I have never contacted customer service.

Positive

Windows Server has been my only experience.

The initial setup process for Windows Server is very straightforward and easy. There is plenty of documentation and tutorials available online to aid in the setup.

I did not evaluate other operating systems before using Windows Server.

Windows Server is a well-known and well-established OS, heavily used in organizations in Kuwait. It's the only option for companies, with a usage rate of 95 to 98 percent. Anyone wanting to work in a reputable organization should gain experience with Windows Server. I rate the latest versions of Windows Server at around eight or nine, providing room for improvement.

On-premises

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

I use the solution in my company for hosting websites. For the many roles my colleagues and I played in the organization, Windows Server 2016 and Windows Server 2019 were useful.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that every Microsoft product is scalable, flexible, secure, and available on a certain budget.

The UI of the product is an area of concern where improvements are needed to make it more user-friendly. Vulnerabilities are an area for Microsoft to look into so that improvements can be made. From a security perspective, sometimes, malware attacks and hackers take advantage of the tool's vulnerabilities. There is a need to have updates in the product to fill in the vulnerability gaps.

I have ten to eleven years of experience with Windows Server. I have been using Windows Server since 2013.

It is a stable solution.

Users can increase the hardware or virtual environment and memory, and it is scalable enough to meet the company's requirements.

Everybody in the organization uses the product. The HR department uses the solution for storage purposes and the website hosting from where the internal applications are made available for use within the company. The developers in our company also developed certain applications that can be hosted on Windows Server. In general, the solution has around 500 users in my company.

My company can increase the number of users of the product in the future, especially if we achieve the capability that can allow us to scale up.

My company did not use the support offered by the product since we have a technical expert who handles the server in our company.

The product's initial setup phase is simple.

For the product's installation phase, you just download the server on Hyper-V or any bare metal hypervisor and install the solution by clicking the next options provided.

The solution was deployed on an on-premises model. The solution can also be used on the cloud services offered by GCP or AWS. In short, the product is deployed on a hybrid cloud model.

If everything is ready and in place, meaning if the prerequisites for the deployment are met within a particular environment, then the installation process takes around an hour to be completed.

The product can be deployed with the help of our company's in-house team.

Only if I consider the fact that my company's technical team is capable enough to handle the vulnerabilities can I say that the ROI is good.

There is a need to make payments towards the licensing charges of the product since we used to purchase licenses for consumption in our company. Microsoft used to provide my company with the keys that can be directly put in to activate the server. If I look into the tasks my company does with the product, I would say that the tool is not that expensive.

There are only two or three options, like Linux or Unix, that can be considered against Windows Server.

My company did not use the support offered by the product since we have a technical expert who handles the server in our company. Every organization uses Windows Server. Most people opt for Windows when it comes to servers since no one can do any work without servers.

The tool is scalable, flexible, easy to use, user-friendly, handy, and easy to maintain, and authentication is good. The product can be integrated with any solution.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

On-premises

It's used for a variety of things, like Active Directory, DNS, cloud shares, and application hosting. We also have some third-party applications running on it and web services.

It would be nice if it was more user-friendly, especially for migrating applications.

I've been working with Microsoft for about 12 years now, since December 2004.

It's quite stable, probably an eight out of ten. It really depends on the specific business needs and applications running on it.

It can be scalable to a certain extent, but it depends on the resources you have available and the applications you're running. We have around a thousand end users using this solution.

I've worked with Unix and Linux before, but it was a long time ago.

The initial setup is quite easy for me, especially since I've been using it for so long. It usually takes just a few steps, depending on whether it's deployed in the cloud or on-premises.

We handle it in-house, no need for external help.

We've seen value in Windows Server because the systems work smoothly without any problems. And the additional benefit is the support we receive.

My main advice is to understand the business first. Then, see if the solution will work on that platform. Also, check which applications it supports. If they're using data and Microsoft, in some cases, we use applications verified by Microsoft. You can be sure they're compatible with Windows and find support from both ends. So, understand the business in terms of its goals, turnaround time, risk factors, and skill requirements. Consider if they have enough skilled people to support it, both for daily use and when issues arise. You need to know these things before making a decision.

Not every time is Microsoft the right choice. Some systems or platforms they want to run may not be supported by Microsoft. So, it's crucial to understand the business requirements first; then you know which platform or solution works best for you.

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

Hybrid Cloud

Our primary use case is for the SCADA system, for the ITS system, and for the station system. I'm a system programmer and we are customers of Microsoft.

The advantage of the product is that it's user friendly, it's compatible with the scalar product applications, it's well known to our own users as well as to our end-user clients. 

I'd like to see more features and more functionality to the Microsoft operating system. The solution should be able to connect remotely and create a safer channel between the user and cloud assets, or through the internet. It's one of the biggest challenges we've had this past year. There are a lot of companies competing with each other to apply these features due to the pandemic. 

For additional features, I'd like to see something like third-party applications that would create a hub to receive a connection from outside. It would handle all types of servers to enable remote access for the user from home, so they can safely connect to the system and check in if there is an emergency. You know that the SCADA system is a critical system and you can be considered on-call and notified at any time. It would enable a remote connection rather than the need for long procedures to connect to my network. It could have a third-party authentication so we could connect to the server safely.

We've used this product since 2008. 

The product is stable with the current application we are using for SCADA but I'm not sure of the impact if you were to use another application or another technology. For the appliances using the firewall, using switches, it's very stable, especially, the critical system which you configure once, and forget about until you need to make another vulnerability scan. For the critical asset, or for the entire system, you'll configure it once, and it's stable. 

Sometimes you need a huge number of firewalls to manage all the assets, so scalability depends on the assets you have in your network. In our case we sometimes only connect seven substations, that's three or four firewalls to manage everything. That includes interconnection with the member states, meaning six countries in the Gulf area that will receive information or data from them. The total number of data is very manageable requiring only three or four firewalls. In general, it is scalable and manageable. We have just under 100 users. We have around 10 technical teams in our control center and 10 engineers monitoring the system who deal with admin, modifications and monitoring the system.

Any patching is tested in Dubai before applying it to the production system. We have minimal contact with the IT technical team. Given that the system is very stable, we rarely talk to the Microsoft technical team. 

There is usually a factory acceptance test, but because of the pandemic we have an agreement with our vendor for the latest project that we will carry out the merger in Saudi Arabia.

We're engaged with a reseller who deals with licensing for us. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

Speed and ease with integrating into Microsoft Azure AD environment, security, being able to log in the 'Hello' service.

In my small development environment, speed and security are important, we actually make use of the Microsoft's Edge browser -- which is getting better with each update. Simplified management of Windows 10 machines is also nice.

Intrusive 'You have updates' notification can be annoying -- as it blocks the middle of the screen, but this can be turned off.

When setting a new machine up, users should be given a bit more of information in regards to creating a Microsoft account vs a local account, as being unaware of this can cause a user some confusion down the track if they install an application that needs 'local' user credentials to function.

Since it was released.

No, Windows 10 has deployed onto legacy systems fine.

Very stable, Haven't had any issues with instability whatsoever.

Being a Desktop operating system, scalability is really a function of the resources of the desktop or VM it's running in.

I'm on a 16GB system with a 500GB SSD and I can run multiple VM's on VirtualBox, client sessions, multiple displays and so forth without any issues at all.

Customer Service:

Very good, Microsoft makes it easy to get most things set up fairly easily.

Technical Support:

Very high, I had the need to contact Microsoft customer support on a matter, and their engineer was able to remotely assume control of the screen (with my permission and after following instructions) and in a few minutes had resolved the problem.

Windows 7, which had become old, bloated with patches and security updates, and was generally just getting slow.

Very straightforward. So far, the installer has identified all of our hardware and everything is running.

In-house.

Difficult to calculate, improved efficiency, less time to get things done, less downtime...can't put an exact dollar amount on it, but our environment is more efficient with Windows 10 installed.

I can't see any reason why anyone would want to downgrade a new machine (if that's even possible now) to Windows 7...

We looked at Remaining on Windows 7, but decided we would make the move to Windows 10.

TEST your applications, especially legacy applications. Most things work just fine on Windows 10, but very old applications that may have just worked under windows 7 may encounter problems.

If that's the case and there's an application you absolutely must have, then consider setting up a dedicated VM with Windows 7 on it just for that application or look at replacing the ancient software.

We only had one old 90's era application that wouldn't run on Windows 10, so we just replaced it and dealt with the change.

The benefits of moving to Windows 10 far outweigh the costs of replacing some old applications (that are probably no longer supported and may have serious security issues).

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