Windows Server Reviews

We use Windows Server to manage applications. 

The product helps with enterprise security. It becomes more stable with frequent updates. 

Windows Server should lower pricing. 

I have been using the product since 2020. 

I rate Windows Server's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has around 1000 users. 

The product offers reactive support. 

Positive

Windows Server's deployment is easy. It takes a few hours to complete. 

I rate the product's pricing an eight out of ten.

I rate the product a nine out of ten. 

Hyper-V and the updated PowerShell are among the best features that I have taken advantage of.

I have been able to support more VMs on Windows 2016 than on 2012 R2, using the same hardware. Additionally, the improvements in live migrations have been a plus in availability.

We plan to take advantage of the improved storage replication functionality in Q1 2018.

Some of the elements of the Windows Server UI from 2012 R2 are better than what is found in 2016, especially the patch management. While it is nice to have the configuration options more centralized than in earlier versions of Windows, the patch/update options in Windows Server 2016 are less flexible than those of earlier versions Windows, and downloads (from Microsoft Update or WSUS) can be more finicky.

One year.

None.

No. The stability has been stellar.

So far, scalability has not been a problem.

Customer Service:

We have not needed to use Microsoft support, but have utilized online forums for support. (We do have Microsoft support available.)

Technical Support:

We have not needed to use Microsoft support, but have utilized online forums for support. (We do have Microsoft support available.)

Not applicable.

Very straightforward deployment.

In-house.

ROI was not calculated for this project.

Pay close attention to the licensing, as there is a focus on core licensing under Windows 2016.

None.

Windows 2016 continues the trend of solid, stable, high-performing Windows Server products from Microsoft.

I use the solution to manage file servers. 

The tool is easy to access and manage. You don't have to take any backups. 

Windows Server needs to improve its speed and stability. 

I have been working with the product for 20 years. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

Windows Server is scalable, and my company has 2000 users. It is used extensively. 

I haven't contacted Microsoft support. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward and takes six months to complete. The product is overseen by a technical team of ten resources. 

Our consulting company helped with the deployment. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

Managing active directories and middle directories, including users and accounts, is of utmost importance for organizations. 

This entails implementing protective measures, enabling conditional access, and ensuring data security, among other essential aspects.

The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, security, and that it is easy to use.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years.

I would rate the stability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We have plans to increase our usage in the future.

I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have experienced a positive return on investment (ROI).

The cost is relatively high.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use Windows Server mainly for deploying high-end applications and databases.

The most valuable features are the ease of access and maintaining the solution.

The security could improve. If you are comparing the Linux operating systems and Windows Server, Windows Server is still way behind in terms of security. Microsoft can enhance security instead of having customers rely on third-party security tools.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

Windows Server is stable.

The solution is scalable and flexible to expend.

We have approximately 25 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support and local support from Microsoft are good and there is a large online community that can support us. If we ever have any problems or bugs with the solution we can reach out to those supports to help us. However, we have not encountered any issues at this time.

If it is a basic installation then it is pretty straightforward. However, if you need to do a lot of configurations you will need some technical knowledge.

We can do the implementation ourselves, but mostly we distribute the task to consultants because they know the timeliness and the amount of work that needs to be done.

We have our IT support team of administrators and technicians that needs to manage the resources and in some cases do patch management and maintenance. For server maintenance, we need an expert that understands how to scale up or scale down the server.

There is a one-time purchase for the license of Windows Server.

Technically we only have two options to choose from for a solution to our use case. One is red Hat Linux and the other is Windows Server. Some of the applications that the team needs to develop only work on Windows Server. Based on the use case and the ease of access we went for Windows Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for a variety of tasks including active directory servers, exchange servers, hosting applications, running insurance apps, and SQL databases. A whole gamut of things. 

The SQL version of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The solution is very easy to use and very easy to onboard. 

The solution, for the most part, is stable. The stability is actually pretty good in terms of availability.

The product's performance depends on the use case.

The solution is very scalable.

The initial setup isn't overly difficult.

It requires a lot of monthly maintenance in terms of vulnerability management, which is the downside. 

I would say the biggest improvement could be improvement in the vulnerability space. Every month we get critical vulnerabilities across the Windows Server fleet. If I could see the volumes come down there, that would be the biggest step forward.

I've been using the solution for 15 or more years at this point. It's been well over a decade. it's been a while.

The solution is pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

However, every release gets more stable and offers more performance with the exception of vulnerability management, which doesn't seem to improve. I would say, we haven't got that much experience with 2019, yet 2012 was a big advancement on 2008's version. 2016 advanced as well. Every newer version gets better in terms of performance and stability.

We tend to scale horizontally, and that'll scale up to quite a degree. We have some very large SQL Servers in particular that are scalable.

We have about 5,000 to 10,000 users on the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If I had to rate it against any industry standards, I would rate it at a six or seven out of ten. It's not as good as other providers I work with. Right now, Microsoft needs you to prove it's a Microsoft issue before they'll work on it.

We generate a custom build that's automated. Automating everything took quite a lot of effort, however, now that we have an automated build, implementing that for any new version probably takes, I'd say, a month, or maybe a bit more, which is not too bad. It's pretty straightforward.

We have a team of eight or nine individuals that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation by ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

We have enterprise agreements with Microsoft.

We are customers and end-users.

While the deployment models we use are mostly on-premises, we do sometimes use cloud deployment as well.

We use a variety of versions of the solution, including 2019, 2016, and 2012.  We actually use a lot of 2012.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's a step up from older versions.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies. However, it depends on the use case. If you were hosting SQL or Exchange server, certainly. However, in other circumstances, if it was between this and Red Hat Linux, you might choose Red Hat Linux.

We use it to implement and configure Active Directory environments for organizations. Projects can be related to running WS systems as well as implementing and performing System Center Configuration Manager, assisting the OM, Operation Manager, and monitoring.

The biggest and the most important services used in most of the organizations in the world is the Active Directory. The policy management feature is a great option for managing different policies in the domain environment. 

Also, integration with other Microsoft solutions like Exchange and System Center Configuration Manager has the great ability to manage all of the different features on system support, like upgrading, securing, and troubleshooting different Windows systems for clients.

I think integration with Linux operating systems would be a great idea, as well as focusing on the simplicity of running containers in the Linux environments. I think this would be a requirement for the next generation of applications running in .NET and Microsoft programming languages.

Microsoft should expand to integrate the Windows Server with Azure and Linux distribution to provide a simple container environment for running dockerized applications.

I've been using it for around 10 years.

It is scalable. We currently have around 30 engineers using the Windows Server, but we hope to increase this number.

The initial setup is very simple.

I implemented it myself.

One of the problems with Microsoft is the price of licensing, and volume licensing for educational systems is a great option to bequeath licensing for small businesses.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at nine.

For authentication and identity management, without a doubt, I would suggest using the Active Directory with Microsoft Windows Servers.

We use this solution to install and use applications on it.

This solution is very user friendly, easy to use for any system administrator, simple to deploy applications, has a wide range of applications available, great UI, and takes less technical skills to operate than some other competitors. Additionally, the active directory has great functionality, if we want to integrate any assets, then we can easily do it.

When it comes to the performance of this solution others are slightly better such as Linux. This solution promotes its services only, in some of the integrations, it does not support external ones. 

I have been using the solution for the last three years.

The solution is stable and the updates are done automatically. I have not had any major critical issue, but if there was, there is a big online community we can find a solution that is great. Otherwise, it is supported by Windows diagnostic within the software.

We have approximately 45 users using the solution in my company.

The support for Microsoft is very good.

We use Windows Server and Linux, they have different strengths and weaknesses in use cases. Linux feels a little lighter than this solution.

The installation is straightforward, there is not any difficulty and took approximately 35 minutes.

We did the implementation ourselves and a single person can do the deployment.

There is a license for this solution and the price could be cheaper.

We are going to continue to use the solution and I recommend it to others.

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.