Windows Server Reviews

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

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.

On-premises

We use the product as an application and SQL server.

The platform’s most valuable features are performance and centralization of operating systems. We can use one standardized system to host all applications.

The product's pricing needs improvement. 

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

We have more than 100 Windows Server users in our organization. It is a scalable product.

We contact the technical support team for a few queries.

We used Linux before. In some cases, it works better than Windows in terms of administration tools, especially for small companies.

From a centralization standpoint, Windows Server is a good technology that allows IT staff to consolidate their expertise on a single product, avoiding the need to manage different sources for Linux and Windows.

Windows Server is highly priced. They offer bundled licenses to be purchased yearly. Also, we need to pay extra for support services while utilizing different sources such as Linux.

Windows Server’s integration with Active Directory enabled a single technology to manage multiple applications. Additionally, the feature for centralized management has proven beneficial in enhancing overall efficiency and meeting evolving requirements compared to Linux.

It is primarily suitable for enterprises as the cost would be a concern for smaller organizations. 

It is a user-friendly platform. I rate it a nine out of ten.

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.

On-premises

We use the solution for deployments, troubleshooting, Active Directory policies, and Windows patching.

We use Active Directory and IIS to host different kinds of web apps. We have also used the FTP feature for our FTP server.

FTP functionality does not require additional payment because Windows Server already includes the feature, reducing the costs of these tools. Windows Server also includes IIS, a web server hosting applications. This allows us to build and test applications directly on the server from scratch.

Active Directory should have groups and policies. It could probably provide a better overview of how Active Directory is built.

I have been using Windows Server as a consultant for ten years. We are using the 2022 version of the solution, as well as the 2008, 2016, and 2018 versions.

We have various security measures, such as antivirus software and firewalls. Additionally, on the network side, we utilize different types of firewalls to manage and enhance the security of the infrastructure itself.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight 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.

Hybrid Cloud

We use Windows Server to manage Active Directory.

The product is easy to use and adapt. It is known for GUI.

They could provide a lot of patches for the platform.

We have been using Windows Server for 10 to 12 years.

I need to ensure patches are updated on time. I rate its stability an eight out of ten. It could be improved.

We have 400 Windows Server users in our organization. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

It is an easy-to-install product. It requires two engineers to manage the infrastructure and takes three to four hours to complete.

We take help from third-party integrators, consultants, and resellers for implementing the product.

We have purchased Windows Server’s yearly license. I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

I advise others to ensure updating patches regularly for Windows Server. It is a flexible product. I rate it a nine out of ten.

On-premises