I've used it with government applications to integrate and install with Shine server and Fire servers, enabling remote access. For some clients, we have developed and installed an integrated solution for about 500 users and are usually 'anywhere applications.' One client is a government permit office, and they use it for GIS applications and keep track of services.
I'm quite satisfied with Windows Server. I find mutual authentication and the environment useful. Over the years, I've seen some very good improvements in the Windows Server's quality and functionality.
I find ethernet configuration and implementation difficult. I would also like to see more reliable updates.
I have been using Windows Server for more than 15 years.
When compared to the legacy Windows Server, stability has improved.
Windows Server technical support is good. Over the last 15 years, I've used Microsoft technical support maybe 300 times or less, and those experiences were good.
For the most part, the initial setup is straightforward. In my experience, about 80% of the implementations were straightforward, and about 20% were a little more difficult.
It took us about six to eight months to deploy the Windows Server for my client at the government permit office.
In our case, we primarily use Microsoft, so the cost is a lot less. But some of our customers have spent approximately $12,000 a year on the operating system license.
Windows Server is a nice product, but it does have some small problems. I would recommend potential customers to do some research first.
It's a little more difficult to implement this operating system with functionality in the cloud. Everything, including the files and interface, keeps us in a Microsoft environment, and when moving applications to the cloud, some people might find it challenging.
They have training for all the features that Microsoft offers. Technology is evolving quickly. Although I've been in this market for 25 years, I can see that I'm getting a little bit left behind because of a lack of formal training in the new functions that Microsoft and many other companies are implementing.
On a scale from one to ten, I would give Windows Server an eight.
We are primarily using the solution for implementing some of our applications.
The applications that are running are very easy to handle. Most of the applications are on the Linux environment, as well.
The solution is very easy to use due to the fact that it has a broad base. It is very easy to use for the end-user.
The installation is straightforward.
Technical support has been very good overall.
A lot of attacks are monitored however, there are a lot of things coming into it. This is why we need to provide more security with respect to the Linux platform. There's more security on Windows and not enough on Linux.
The licensing for the solution is expensive.
I've used the solution for a very long time. I can't recall the exact number of years, however. I just know it's been a long while. I've definitely used it over the last 12 months.
We have around ten technicians and they are all using the product. However, the server itself is used across the organization.
We do plan to continue to use the server going forward. We have no plans to change just now.
Technical support is very helpful and supportive. They have been knowledgeable and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of support we get.
The initial setup is quite straightforward It's not too complex. It's easy to execute on both Windows and Linux.
The deployment was pretty quick and only took about one and a half hours.
We handled the implementation ourselves.
You do have to pay for licenses to use the solution. It's quite expensive in general. However, that's just for Windows. Linux is not supported right now.
We are using the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure what the version number is.
We have it deployed both on-cloud and on-premises.
I'd recommend the solution to others.
I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
The solution is mainly used for personal tasks. A lot of the customers are working with Microsoft solutions. This product works well with Microsoft. That's why we provide the Microsoft Windows Server solution to a lot of our customers.
The solution is very stable.
The scalability has been good.
We find the initial implementation process to be quick and easy.
The interface is good.
We've found the level of security to be fine.
The technical support needs to be improved.
I've been using the solution for eight years. It's been a while. I've used it for almost a decade.
The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.
We only have about 14 people on the solution currently.
Microsoft technical support isn't ideal. They could improve their services. We're not 100% satisfied.
They could be faster, more knowledgeable, and more customer-friendly. They need to provide more direct answers.
The installation process isn't too difficult. It's fairly straightforward.
The deployment is fast and only takes about three or four hours or so. It doesn't take long.
In my organization, we have eight people that can handle deployment or maintenance tasks.
As integrators, we can set up the solution for our clients. I can handle a deployment myself. It's not overly complex.
Customers do need to pay a yearly licensing fee.
I work with both the on-premises and cloud deployment models.
We're an integrator.
I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities.
That said, in Thailand, they do not sell many Windows Servers, so it's difficult to use the product, Windows Server, a lot.
It's there just hosting the SQL Servers and they're not using IIS or some Microsoft-specific technology. We're just hosting some MSSQL.
The solution is very stable.
The product is scalable.
The solution is pretty easy to install.
I can't speak to any missing features. I don't have any opinion on how to improve the product.
The solution needs container compatibility. Windows Server is not able via Docker, for example.
I've been using the solution for half a year.
The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.
The solution scales well. A company shouldn't have any issues if they want to scale.
That said, I didn't choose Windows Server for that kind of purpose. It's just there for hosting the SQL Server.
There is one user for the Windows Server itself. Everyone else is using just the database and not the Windows Server.
We haven't dealt with technical support yet. I haven't been in contact with them.
We're also using Linux Servers.
The solution is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex.
While I didn't handle the installation myself, I would estimate deployment takes about 20 to 30 minutes.
We have four team members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance.
We had a team member who handled the implementation in-house. We did not need a consultant or integrator.
I don't have any insights into the licensing.
We use the solution both on-premises and on the cloud.
I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. I'm neutral on it. It doesn't impress me. It just does what it does.
I'd advise those considering the solution that if they want to run some Microsoft-specific applications, then there's a lot of choices.
Our use cases are usually data and analytics. We are building platforms for our clients to exploit their data. We are building the data curation.
Also, the analytics for the front end, and the presentation of the data for the end-user.
The features that I like the most are that it's easy to use and the integration.
In terms of support, it's pretty complicated when you have to study the documentation.
It would definitely be helpful if the documentation could be more straightforward.
I have been working with Windows Server for eight years.
We are usually working with the latest version.
Windows Server is stable.
It's a scalable product. The number of users depends on our customers. Some customers have as many as 50 users while some others have 15 users. It really depends on the clients, but we're not in the thousands of end-users.
The technical support is pretty good. We have a good relationship with our vendor's specialists. We mostly work with Microsoft and some other vendors.
Overall, they are supportive.
The initial setup is straightforward.
It took approximately a month to deploy, but it depends on the number of installations we have. Some are larger and some smaller.
We need two or three staff members to deploy it. They are PDAs, they are infrastructure people who have the tech knowledge.
We have a team in our organization that we call specialists to configure the server. They are tech-savvy, and they know all about the backend.
We are integrators.
There are licensing costs for this solution, although it's not expensive. Microsoft is relatively inexpensive compared to other database platforms.
I would recommend this solution to others who want to use Windows Server.
I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.
It is very stable and easy to install.
Installation doesn't require a technical team.
Windows Server can be deployed anywhere, like on your desktop, laptop, cell phone, or on the cloud.
I would like Windows to come up lighter because the footprint itself can consume more than 300GB. It would probably take close to 100GB of space to install a Windows operating system because it has got so many features. It should be a core minimalistic addition, and users also should be allowed to add other features when needed. It should be more modular in nature.
The software should be minimalistic. Instead of offering so many options, it should be ideally the core system. Then, if a customer wants to have Active Directory, they should be allowed to do it separately.
There are hundreds of services which are running unnecessarily and slowing the system down or affecting the performance, and that wouldn't be there, which will be an advantage. It will only be the key services that the customer wants to run.
Microsoft technical support could be improved.
I've been dealing with this solution for more than 14 years.
You can deploy it anywhere, like on your desktop, laptop, cell phone, or on the cloud. I have mainly worked on-prem, but recently, I have had a few cloud instances for testing.
The Windows operating system is stable.
My experience with Microsoft technical support has been bad. Getting support from Microsoft is really tough, but if you have some skills around Microsoft, you can do the troubleshooting yourself.
It is easy to install.
It's very simple and doesn't require a technical team.
If you're buying an instance in the cloud, then you'll pay for it monthly. Otherwise, a normal purchase is always upfront; there is no subscription model with Microsoft, at least for the Windows Server licenses.
I would rate this solution at eight on a scale from one to ten.
We primarily use the solution as a database.
The product, overall, is very simple. It's easy to use and navigate. It's got a good design.
The implementation is very easy. It doesn't give you any trouble.
The stability is okay, however, it could be better. It's an area that they could improve on if they wanted to.
I've been using the solution for two years at this point.
The stability is somewhere in between good and bad. It's so-so. It could be better.
We have 15 people that use the solution, and five engineers that manage everything as necessary.
We do plan to continue to use the product going forward.
I don't really need the assistance of technical support. I'm an engineer. Typically, I can fix any issues that may arise. Therefore, I don't contact Microsoft. I can't speak to their support service and how helpful they are.
We found the initial setup to be very simple and straightforward. It's not complex. We didn't have any issues.
I can't recall how long the actual deployment took. It was a while ago now.
I handled the installation by myself. You only really need one person to deploy the product.
We have engineers that can handle maintenance on the solution in our company.
I handled the implementation myself. I didn't need to have the installation done by a consultant or integrator.
We only really use Windows Server for one thing. We don't have too complicated of a setup.
I would recommend the solution to other organizations. I've mostly been happy with the product overall.
I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.
Currently, we are trying to use the solution as the host for a specific system. Another use case is as NFS files sharing space.
The solution is deployed on-premise.
From the very beginning, I have been using a Windows-based OS so for me, it's very easy because it's GUI compared to command line or something Linux-based. I prefer GUI, so Windows is very good for me.
The only thing that could be improved is the price.
I just installed the evaluation because I got the license product key, so I need to activate it. But to my surprise, I cannot activate the evaluation version so I need to recreate the VMs using the ISO that Microsoft gives to me.
I have been using this solution for around two years.
We haven't had any issues with stability. We have about eight people using the solution.
I haven't had any issues with the scalability because I'm using virtualization.
When I wanted to activate the Windows Server using the product key that I have just purchased, I used Microsoft support in Malaysia. They wanted me to forward the problem to the Microsoft support machine. It's very fast and they will respond even at night.
I haven't used any other solutions because my IT career began with using Windows.
The solution was easy to install. It didn't take longer than 10 minutes. We have two engineers for maintenance.
The license is a one-time purchase. The cost could be less expensive. We have education pricing, so it's okay now because we pay less than other agencies.
I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. I recommend this solution.
