Windows Server Reviews

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.

I use Windows Server for the deployment of applications for users.

This is only for the duration of the project; it is not for our personal use.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to be used in a virtualized environment.

I would like to see better integration with other solutions.

I have been working with Windows Server for five years.

Windows Server is a stable product.

Technical support is fine. They were helpful.

I have not worked with other similar solutions.

It's a software solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

It takes two months to deploy.

For deployment, we have an internal technical team of three people.

Because we are not using this solution for our needs, the ROI would be more applicable to our customers.

In terms of price, it's affordable.

There are additional fees to pay for support. This is more specifically to do with the license price.

I evaluated several products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux, in order to find a budget for a project solution, but the project was canceled.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it. 

Our company is a partner.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

 For the server-side deployment, we use Windows Server to run applications.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is the ease of use and the applications that are available.

Windows Server could improve by improving technology modernization.

I have been using Windows Server for a very long time.

The stability of Windows Server is an important feature.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution.

The support from Microsoft is good.

The initial setup of Windows Server was straightforward.

The implementation requires a full team to accomplish the task.

There is a license required to use Windows Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We're using Windows Server for its basic function. We use it to run applications, but there's a team who manages that, and they are certified. I'm not the one managing. I'm just a user.

The Windows Server interface is okay, though it would still depend on the usage perfective. The interface is what I like about this solution.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Windows Server is for it to have faster updates.

I've been dealing with Windows Server for five years now.

Windows Server is stable. I've had no issues or problems with it.

I've evaluated Linux.

I'm using both Windows and Linux operating systems.

We have a team who does the installation of Windows Server, so I'm unable to give information on whether it's easy or complicated to install. For deployment and maintenance, we have five to eight people in charge.

We have 30 to 50 end users of Windows Server within our company, and currently we don't have plans of increasing usage.

Whether the technical support for Windows Server is fast or is knowledgeable, it would depend. It's a case to case basis, but I'm not the one who's creating the tickets, so whenever we have any issues, we send it to our team who's in charge of creating the tickets for the Windows support team.

Windows Server is a solution I can recommend to others, if we're basing my recommendation on my satisfaction with it.

I'm rating Windows Server a five out of ten.

We do software services, and most of the time we use this for UAT and testing purposes.

The availability of resources that are aware of Windows is great. It's more than any operating system. 

The support that Microsoft provides for this is very good. If you have an issue with the Windows Server, you'll get a lot of support from Microsoft.

The integration is great.

The interface and dashboards are fine.

While I would say scripting needs improvement, I've noticed that they started to do this couple of years ago. They do have their own WSL and PowerShell Scripts.

Generally, there is always room for improvement. However, nothing comes on top of my head right now. 

For countries in the Middle East and Africa, their pricing is a little bit high. Microsoft is having unified pricing across the globe. That's an issue. They don't negotiate on that. It's very expensive for many countries in this region.

They have something called Windows Server Core, and it doesn't have a graphical user interface, which is fine. However, there should be a management console or something that you can hook up to Windows Server Core so you can manage it much easier if you need UI or something.

We have used the solution since the beginning of the company, about 12 years at this point.

Technical support is great. If a company needs assistance, Microsoft is great at helping assist in troubleshooting. We are satisfied with the level of support.

We use Windows and Azure, Google Cloud GCP, and many flavors of Linux. For the database, we also use SQL Server and MySQL.

The pricing is high in certain regions as they don't price adjust for certain countries. They also do not negotiate their pricing. The cost is the cost. 

We use various deployment models, including on-premises, on the cloud, and hybrid.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If the pricing was more flexible, it would be better for the customer.

We use this solution for our exchange, database and SQL servers. 

This solution is easy to use. 

The upgrade process for this solution could be simplified and made more straightforward.

I have been using this solution for 20 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward and took two to three hours. 

We are using Windows Server for running our applications. One of our use cases is in a financial institution.

Windows Server is user-friendly and it is simply to support.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately two years.

Windows Server has been stable in my usage.

The scalability of Windows Server is good.

We have approximately 3,000 users using the solution.

We have premium support with Microsoft, and it is good.

I have used Windows 10.

The installation is simple, and it takes approximately one hour.

We have a golden copy of Windows Server, and we only need to apply it to the systems. This does not take much time for us, approximately seven minutes and Windows Server will be ready. We do the maintenance, such as patching, antivirus, and all the security that we have been approved in the bank. However, it's virtual now. All our environment is virtual, we only need to apply the golden copy. 

Depending on the application or use case, we might use Windows 19, 16, or 12.

I can do the implementation of the solution.

We have 10 engineers and managers that support Windows Server.

We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the price for the license is bundled together. The solution is expensive but for the bank that is using it, the price is fine. We pay for a license every three years.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We login and run our personal and business applications on Windows Server. We have 50 users in our organization.

The performance of Windows Server is good.

The solution is old so it is not user friendly. I assume that he newer versions would be better than our current one.

We have been using Windows Server for five years.

Windows Server is stable, we have had no issues.

The solution has been installed for many years.

We pay a license to use Windows Server.

I would recommend Windows Servers to others who would like to start to use it. I would rate it an 8 out of  10.

The solution helps fulfill customer requirements. We use it for applications.

The solution is very stable. There isn't a lot of downtime.

The product can scale. 

The initial setup is very easy.

There was one instance in which, during an installation, I got an error I could not easily resolve.

The performance could be a bit better.

I've used the solution for around ten years or so.

We've found the stability to be reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. there are no bugs or glitches. 

Scalability is possible. If you need to expand it, you can do so. 

We have about 15 customers on the solution right now. 

I've never really had a problem with the solution, and I've worked with it for many years, I've never had to contact technical support in the past.

With ten years of experience under our belts, we've handled implementations many times over. It's not a problem at all for us. We find the process very straightforward, very simple. 

We have five or six engineers on our team that are able to easily handle deployment and maintenance. 

We can handle the implementation process for our clients. 

We are both a customer and a consultant. 

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I started to work as an engineer and I started working with the server in 2012. I've seen many user requirements met by this server, which is why I can confidently recommend it to others. It helps resolve a lot of issues with the infrastructure.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Window Server is for the front-end applications. It is on the client-facing side.

The biggest advantage of Windows Server is the services. It offers the ability to configure services, so your application can run on a Windows Server. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years. Since the company was founded, we've been using Windows Server and Linux. We're still using Red Hat. When I joined the company, I migrated all the databases over to Linux. Everything on the application side is on Windows Server.

Windows Server is stable as far as I know. 

I can't really say that it's scalable. At the application level, we only have about 20 users.

I'm not the one in charge of the platform. The person in charge takes care of things when there is a critical error and there are new updates or patches from the Microsoft site. They're the one who contacts the technical support team if needed.

Installing Windows Server is straightforward. We have a technical team to manage the solution, but I can handle the deployment by itself. 

I think it's a yearly license.

I rate Windows Server six out of 10. I would recommend Windows Server if you are working with .NET applications. But one issue I have with Windows Server is the limit on the number of concurrent sessions. You cannot have more than three simultaneous users unless you activate a license. You have to install it so that more people can access the applications simultaneously.