Windows Server Reviews

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.

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 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 Microsoft System Center to manage our Windows Server.

My organization benefits from the use of the product since it is a tool that offers security while being user-friendly and easy to manage.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance. My company currently uses Microsoft SCOM to monitor the performance of Windows Server. My company wishes to have some applications on QRadar or log management tools like ELK.

The product has certain shortcomings related to security capability in the area of incident response, making it the tool's component where improvements are required. My company uses QRadar to resolve our server-related issues quickly.

I have been using Windows Server for twenty years.

It is a stable solution. More than 15,000 people in my company use the solution.

My company has no plans to increase the use of the solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is deployed on the cloud model.

To start the deployment process in our company, we first need to make a request to the IT team. After that, the IT team looks at the requirements and deploys the server. In our company, we have a system to follow the deployment process.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of minutes since our company already has some idea and image about Windows Server. My team deploys the product in a couple of minutes every time there is a requirement in a department that is associated with our company.

Around three people in my company are required to take care of the product's deployment and maintenance processes.

My company has an enterprise agreement with Microsoft. I feel that the price of the product is okay.

Windows Server helps our company to install a virtual environment.

Speaking about the beneficial features of Windows Server for our company's IT infrastructure, I would say that my company uses Microsoft Active Directory, along with some other services like Office 365 and the cloud services offered by Microsoft.

There are product security updates, which serve as a security feature for our company.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it, but they need to use it based on their requirements.

My company did not face any problems while using the integration capabilities of the product with the existing systems in our environment.

The only problem with Windows Server stems from the area revolving around the software lifecycle since our company has to apply the latest version to our current system every couple of years.

I rate the 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 it for infrastructure. 

The capabilities and beta securities are important features. The IP directory is the most valuable feature. 

The user interface needs improvement. 

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years. 

The stability of the solution is improving. I rate the stability a 9 out of 10. 

Three thousand users are using the solution at present. 

The setup installation takes time and the first time to create the image. It might take you a day or so. But once you have the image, hard end, it's easy to deploy because now it's built to own. 

I rate the overall product a 9 out of 10. 

We use the solution for mass storage and application storage.

DFS is the most valuable feature of the product. The product is very transparent. Any changes to the underlying file servers are not visible to users. It is a huge benefit for us. 

The GUI is familiar. Anyone who doesn't know how to use a file server can be taught to use the product in a few minutes.

The solution should improve its stability. After some updates, one of the KBs faced issues while booting. On boot, it started boot looping randomly.

The solution is very rigid. Whenever we want to make changes that are slightly out of the ordinary, we have to do them manually.

I have been using the solution for four and a half years.

The solution is definitely scalable. Around 1,500 people are currently using the solution in our organization.

It is quite easy to maintain the product. We have deployed the solution across the whole company.

I have used all the versions from 2003 to 2022. You can change the host and IPs and switch on the whole configuration. The users do not notice anything as long as DFS is active and the file system is the same. The product is a good choice for small-scale environments. Overall, I rate the product 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.