Windows Server Reviews

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 the product to manage databases for various projects.

The product offers in-house servers. It helps us update them and check any technical issues easily.

The product's user interface upgrades and firewall services need improvement.

We have been using Windows Server for seven to eight years.

The platform provides ease of access to databases in terms of migration.

It is a scalable product. We have more than 200 Windows Server users in our organization. We might increase usage in some of our departments, like support administration, in case the business expands.

We have an in-house technical support team.

The initial setup is easy if you have a basic knowledge of the process. We can deploy it on-premise or on the cloud, depending on the project requirements.

There could be a one-time cost for Windows Server and not every month. It is a huge amount for the companies to pay yearly.

I recommend Windows Server to users working on multiple projects and have an in-house team with enough resources. I rate it a seven out of ten.

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.

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.

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. 

Our primary use case of Windows Server is application support. We have applications such as SAP-based or web-based solutions that we use through Citrix-based solutions. We deploy it on Azure. 

A valuable feature of Windows Server has been the performance. We have done all the redundancy and fault tolerance things to protect our servers and, so far, so good.

As for additional features, we are very interested in the new feature released by Windows: Azure Virtual Desktop. We are currently exploring it so that instead of people depending on their own desktop, we could work on Azure Virtual Desktop. Integration with Azure Virtual Desktop would be cool. 

We recently began using Windows Server. 

This solution is stable and we're satisfied with the performance. 

We enabled scalability, but haven't scaled it much. We have a limited set of users, so the scalability feature is not really in use. 

There are many end users, but there are less than 10 people managing this solution. We don't currently have plans to increase our usage because we are happy with the current capacity. We may decide to increase our usage later, but it depends on the solution and new requirements. 

We have contacted Microsoft's technical support. We used to have weekly and monthly meetings with them, so we got up-to-date directly from Microsoft support, which were were happy with. 

We didn't use a different solution previously. We went directly for Microsoft because the solution is only supported by Microsoft, so we've never tried any other operating system. 

The installation was easy. We didn't do it directly because we have an Infrastructure as Code setup, with Terraform, so we were able to do it very easily. As for the time frame, if you go for a manual process, it will take five or ten minutes, but using code, you can deploy the solutions in less than a minute. We managed it ourselves, without any support. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

I'm not involved much in the payment part, but I believe that we pay a yearly subscription for licensing. 

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others who are considering implementation. 

I just use Windows Server to install third party software, things like data integration tools and BI tools. One of the uses was to set up an on-prem Active Directory. So these kinds of things.

The feature that I have found most valuable is the Active Directory. I have had good experience with Windows Server. I haven't had any issues

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the Active Directory synchronization on Azure. This is something which was not easy to do. Using Azure Active Directory, I was trying to sync and this was not straightforward. This process could be more simplified.

I have been using Windows Server for the past eight, nine years.

It is a stable product.

In terms of the maintenance it requires, maybe there are some regular updates. We do make some backups as well. But this is a lab environment, we don't have much sensitive information stored here.

Windows Server is easy to scale.

We have 15 people using it.

I do have experience with Microsoft support in general, but not related to Windows Server.

In general, my experience with Microsoft support is good.

If we are talking about Windows like Windows 11 or Windows 10 versus Mac OS? For personal use, I believe Mac is overall simpler and has a better user experience. It is a little bit more robust. I just prefer the way the application installations are done and services are managed within the Mac OS.

But for work, I cannot compare Mac OS to a Windows Server. I can compare Mac OS to Windows 10 or Windows 11.

The initial setup was a simple one. It took maybe an hour.

I did it by myself and we had a bunch of engineers as well, who were working on it.

It is a fair price. For Microsoft overall, we have a subscription with Office. So there is also a bundle for Windows.

The price is good. It is cheaper than Mac OS. In this case, it's better in terms of price.

I would recommend Windows Server because it's just easier to use for some people than Red Hat. That's the main thing - it is easier to use and maintain versus other operating systems within the Linux space.

On a scale of one to ten, let's be generous and give Windows Server an eight.

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.