Windows Server Reviews

We use Windows Servers to manage user logins through Active Directory and facilitate VPN connections, supporting our researchers who are architecturally building on DSP DNS for enhanced security and access control.

I find Windows Server valuable for its flexibility and user-friendly interface.

In terms of improvement, performance could be enhanced.

I have been using Windows Server for 13 years.

Windows Server is very stable.

We have not had any issues with the scalability of Windows Server.

In large-scale environments with numerous simultaneous logins, Windows Server may not match the performance power of Linux. Linux tends to excel in handling extensive user loads, while Windows Server remains user-friendly for various tasks.

The initial setup is quite straightforward and the deployment only takes about 30 minutes.

We handled the deployment in-house without the need for a consultant or integrator. We manage it ourselves, and our subscription with Microsoft includes support, so whenever we have questions or issues, we contact Microsoft, and they assist us.

I would recommend Windows Server to others but the choice depends on the specific technology and applications you plan to use. It is essential to consider compatibility and performance factors, as some applications may work better or be recommended for installation on Linux. Overall, I would rate Windows Server as an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of Windows Server is running our business applications, such as ERP. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. 

One of the most valuable features of Windows Server is that it is easy to use. Also, with Windows, everything is integrated. 

Windows Server could be improved with cheaper licensing costs. 

We have been using Windows Server for more than 10 years. 

Windows Server is stable, and we have had no problems. 

The scalability of this solution seems good. 

We have more than 150 people in our organization using this solution. We don't currently have plans to increase our usage. 

Before implementing Windows Server, we used Oracle Linux. We switched to Windows Server because, when we upgraded, the integration was good with the FieldServer. 

For installation, 2016 took even less time than 2012. '16 takes maybe fifteen to twenty minutes, maximum. I can handle the installation myself. 

For deployment and maintenance, we have a team of one or two people. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

To use Windows Server, we pay for licensing yearly. The licensing cost should be cheaper—it is expensive and should not cost that much. 

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten. I would recommend Windows Server to others, but it depends on their requirements. We can meet our requirements with Windows because we have a Microsoft ERP. It has good performance with the Windows Server, which is why we use this solution. 

We use Windows Server for process control in process control systems. Right now, the operations team is the only one using the solution. They conduct day collection for our process control system.

Windows Server provides a robust operating system that keeps our processes running 24 hours a day without any downtime.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is its scalability and robustness. 

Windows could add more tools to monitor the health of the server.

I've been using Windows Server for 15 years. 

Windows Server is highly robust. We only have to do maintenance on the system once yearly.

Windows Server is very scalable, but we don't have any plans to increase our usage in the near term.

So far, we've only had good experiences with Windows support.

We were previously running Unix, but the manufacturer of our control system forced us to switch to Windows Server. We didn't have a choice.

We set up the servers ourselves. The time needed to deploy varies from server to server.

Windows could always lower the cost.

I rate Windows Server about a nine out of 10. It's very robust, but there is always room for improvement in monitoring and other features.

We are using this solution as a server operating system.

The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running.

I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line. 

When you work on the command line you can make scripts and then use them every time you want to complete a task. You can capitalize on past experiences by using a script to simplify them, such as when you need to install something or do configurations. Making those tasks faster and simplified. You end up saving a lot of time by using the command line which is best for administrators and the graphical interface is best for the end-user.

You can not do most of the automation on Windows that you can on Linux, it is not the same thing. Windows is improving but it is not at the same level as Linux.

When using a graphical interface it tends to have more bugs, vulnerabilities and weakens the server. Normally we install Linux on big servers that do not have any graphical interfaces inside. The fewer services you run the better it with be for security. We prefer most of the time installing Windows without the graphical interface. 

Overall Windows for us is more difficult and less efficient than Linux.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 25 years.

The solution is stable. However, when you start putting in some extra layers, such as data intelligence inside, then problems tend to start happening.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server solutions for a long time. We started with Windows NT then switched to Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and all the way up to this current version. Additionally, we work with Linux and Windows 10.

It is easy to do some types of deployments with Windows dedicated networks.

We have evaluated Linux and other Windows systems.

I recently started using my Windows 10 with the Linux Subsystem for Windows, to install and administer all my Linux servers worldwide. I can run a DBM on the Linux Subsystem for Windows, Ubuntu, or Kali Linux, and can access my servers worldwide. Having Linux Subsystem running inside Windows 10, I have been enjoying using the operating system much more.

I cannot install a virtual machine inside the Subsystems which I do very easily on any Linux distribution. Additionally, after installing a virtual machine on Linux, the virtual machine will be more powerful than the Linux Subsystem for Windows. If Microsoft was able to achieve the same level of a virtual machine, then it will be very good for us to start doing many more operations inside of Windows.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We are using this solution for all of our on-premise application servers. The latest version is Windows Server 2019, but we are using Windows Server 2016. We haven't felt the need to upgrade it.

It is easy to use, and its performance is good. 

When it comes to virtualization, VMware is a bit more advanced in terms of security. Hyper-V does provide facilities, but it probably has to do a bit more work in terms of encryption. People will normally go for VMware because of the features that it has as a server, particularly the virtualization feature.

I have been using this solution since 2012.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In terms of its usage, the license that we currently have is good enough for us. We will increase its usage, but we don't need to purchase anything in the foreseeable future. We have enough. 

We are also doing a PoC for moving the server that we have at each location to the cloud. After that is done, we will look at the cost and think about migrating to the cloud.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. The duration depends on how big the installation is in terms of the database and the domain you want to use. It can vary from about an hour to a couple of hours with updates, etc. It could be anywhere from 60 minutes to 3 hours.

All of our people are adept at handling its installation.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

What I like about Windows Server is that it is an effective and useful solution for my needs.

Windows Server could improve its integration with cloud and hybrid environments to better adapt to modern computing needs.

I have been using Windows Server for over 20 years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a six out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server at five out of ten. It is okay for basic upgrades, but it lacks the flexibility needed for more advanced scaling, especially in cloud or hybrid environments. It is not quite ready for those kinds of setups yet.

I would rate technical support directly from Windows at around three out of ten—it is not the best. However, if you go through a partner who sells or supports Windows, the support could be around seven out of ten, because Windows relies on these partners for assistance.

Neutral

I would rate the easiness of the initial setup as a seven out of ten. Deployment took a few hours.

I would rate the costliness of Windows Server as an eight out of ten. It is quite expensive.

Overall, I would rate Windows Server as a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for all the applications and Active Directory. We use it for enterprise management. We have different departments.

The product is secure.

The product’s performance is good. We have a good infrastructure.

The stability could be improved.

I have been using the solution for eight to ten years. I am using the latest version.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

We have more than 5000 users. The usage keeps increasing in our organization.

Whenever we face any issue, we contact our Windows team, and they improve it. The technical support is fine.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment was done in-house. We have a big team to deploy and maintain the product, including project and system managers.

I will recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

We use Windows Server to run our banking system.

Windows Server is a stable and scalable solution.

The solution's licensing cost is expensive and could be improved.

I have been using Windows Server for five years.

I rate Windows Server ten out of ten for stability.

Around 42 users in our organization use the solution on a daily basis.

I rate Windows Server ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is too complex.

We deploy the solution manually because we only have five servers. Around eight technical staff are needed for the solution’s deployment and maintenance.

We have seen value from using the solution, and that's why we deploy our systems using Windows Server.

We use a perpetual license for Windows Server, which is expensive.

I would recommend Windows Server to other users. Users should be trained or familiar with operating the solution before using it.

Overall, I rate Windows Server ten out of ten.