Windows Server Reviews

We use these servers for databases and applications.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ESRP that is used with the Windows Platform.

Windows Platforms become rather complicated. We started with the Windows Platform because they simplified it, but now, it has become quite complicated.

The administration has become quite heavy and also the specialization. 

We are a rather small factory, not a big system. We are small with a thousand employees, and we need a simplified environment.

In the next release, I would like to see the administration simplified.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 20 years. 

The version we are using is quite new, 2020.

Windows Server is stable.

It is scalable, but the administration becomes quite complicated.

We have not used the technical support, we have had contact with the third-party partners.

The initial setup of Windows Server is straightforward.

In our country, the Windows platform is widespread, which means there is a high amount of usage. We primarily use Windows Solutions. Some also use Linux, but Linux is the minority.

I would rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

We are in the waste logistics industry and we are using this product as the central server for our file systems. The SQL server is running on top of this.

Windows Server could be more secure.

We have been using Windows Server for six or seven years.

This is quite a stable product.

Windows Server is scalable and we have six users in the company. We plan to increase our usage in the future.

I don't have any experience with technical support.

I did not use another similar product before this one.

The installation is quite straightforward.

We completed the deployment ourselves.

I was responsible for the deployment and also handle maintenance.

This is not an expensive product.

I can recommend Windows Server.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for common management and group policy management. Within our organization, there are between 300 to 400 people using this solution and we intend to expand and continue using Windows Server in the future.

The user interface could be simplified. Sometimes I feel like there are too many things going on at once. It should be easier to navigate and find the functions that I am trying to implement. 

I have been using this solution for roughly 20 years.

Windows Server is reasonably stable.

The technical support is okay. Sometimes Microsoft cannot answer our questions quickly or precisely. There are times when we need to trouble-shoot on our own.

The initial setup was straightforward. We had it fully installed within one or two hours.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

I primarily use Windows Server as a hypervisor, running Hyper-V.

I would like to see the security features improved in the future.

I have been using Windows Server for about 15 years.

This is a stable product and we plan to continue using it in the future.

There are more than 10,000 users for the services that we have running.

I have not needed to contact technical support for Windows Server.

We only use Microsoft products, so we did not use another product before this one.

The initial setup with Microsoft products is always straightforward. The length of time for deployment depends on the services that are being implemented.

In some cases, I use a consultant to assist with deployment. However, this is not always the case because our in-house team can also do it.

We have about five people in our team for deployment.

We did not evaluate options by other vendors. Microsoft is a well-known brand and the only company to use for some services.

This is a good product and one that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We primarily use Windows Server for Citrix desktops and domain controllers.

The domain controller features are useful.

The price should be reduced.

I have been using Windows Server for 10 years.

Windows server is a stable product and we will continue to use it.

Scalability has not been a problem. In one of the jobs I was doing, there were 700 users.

I have never had to log a case with Microsoft so I don't have any experience with technical support.

I have always used just only Windows.

The installation is straightforward and it takes about 20 minutes to deploy.

It is a manual installation and I handle the deployment myself.

The licensing fees are expensive.

This is a product that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Windows Server is very easy to use.

The command-line interface should be improved. Using the command line is less-resource intensive so we use it sometimes. The additional RAM and CPU usage needed by the GUI is something that we were not used to after using Linux. When I switched to the command line, I found it more difficult than Linux.

I have been working with Windows Server for several years, since 2013.

Windows Server is a stable operating system and I haven't had any problems with it in that regard. For example, I had ransomware on my computer and even when I was logged in as an administrator, it did not affect the server.

I have not needed to contact the Microsoft technical support team.

I am currently learning about different Linux servers and I am finding it very difficult compared to Windows Server.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for the deployment of virtual machines on Hyper-V.

We moved from having more than twelve physical servers to only five, reducing costs and improving the infrastructure during the process.

The most valuable feature of this solution is Hyper-V Live Migration for Critical applications.

It would be great to have support for direct USB recognition for the virtual machines. This will allow us to easily move files from a USB drive connected to our host to one of our VM's without having to mount and share a drive trough the network to move the files.

We started virtualizing servers to reduce the number of physical servers and to optimize the data center. We started with standalone installations of the Hyper-V server and synchronized with our virtual machine. After that, we built a cluster and all of the VMs were hosted in that environment.

The organization spent a lot of money buying a large number of physical machines, which made up the workspace. With a physical machine, it is easy to incur damage with hardware faults, such as the loss of a disk or another component. With a cluster environment, we obtain an HA solution.

We like all of the features connected with sharing resources, typical of a Hyper-V cluster manager. Several of these further stand out, including:

• The ability to Hot Add resources to the VM.
• The ability to work on the physical server without disconnecting services.
  
• Provides workspaces for the entire organization with fewer resources.

One area that needs improvement is the management console. It seems very easy to use but it is not as powerful as those of other vendors, such as VMware. Their solution allows for operation in a more granular and simpler way. For example, there is a wizard to migrate a VM from one node to another, or from one datastore to another.