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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.