Windows Server Reviews

We use Windows Server for process control in process control systems. Right now, the operations team is the only one using the solution. They conduct day collection for our process control system.

Windows Server provides a robust operating system that keeps our processes running 24 hours a day without any downtime.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is its scalability and robustness. 

Windows could add more tools to monitor the health of the server.

I've been using Windows Server for 15 years. 

Windows Server is highly robust. We only have to do maintenance on the system once yearly.

Windows Server is very scalable, but we don't have any plans to increase our usage in the near term.

So far, we've only had good experiences with Windows support.

We were previously running Unix, but the manufacturer of our control system forced us to switch to Windows Server. We didn't have a choice.

We set up the servers ourselves. The time needed to deploy varies from server to server.

Windows could always lower the cost.

I rate Windows Server about a nine out of 10. It's very robust, but there is always room for improvement in monitoring and other features.

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.

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.

I use the solution for all my servers, for the domain, the file server and other applications with which it is compatible. 

I consider Bixby, DNS, Active Directory, File Servers, Print Servers, Windows Defender and a host of other features to be valuable. 

It would be nice if the the Windows Defender feature would be enhanced to be similar to that of other antiviruses or endpoint features on the market that have whole and individual features and are reliable. At present, Defender cannot be relied on independently. Another endpoint must be installed. It would be better could we rely on the more compatible endpoint features that already accompany Windows.

There should be inbuilt endpoints, such as we find with Linux, Unix, Apple Macintosh and other browsers, which don't require the installation of additional endpoints. 

Patch updates should be less frequent. Instead of them being put out daily, they should be put out weekly or monthly. 

If the storage is not installed on the SSD hard disk, it affects the performance. I am not referring to the processor, RAM or GUI, just the storage. Windows 7 worked fine on the HDD. 

The security should be improved. There are many services on the Windows Server which are enabled or started by default and this is unnecessary. Xbox would be an example of this. These should be removed. Only the minimum number of services needed to get the solution up and running should be included. The existence of services means open board and this opens one up to hackers and attackers. As an IT person, it should not be my role to come up with workarounds for such occurrences. This should be in Microsoft's domain. 

We have been using Windows Server for around 12 years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have never had need for Microsoft's technical support, as the solution is simple and easy to manage and maintain. There are also many communities and a host of references that can be found on the internet. The internet is very helpful and makes finding the relevant answers easy. 

The initial setup is very simple.

The solution is easy to install and to maintain. These processes are user-friendly.

There was no need for help from the vendor. I handled the installation on my own. 

The maintenance that is required involves the patching of the operating system with the latest fixes and security fixes, in addition to the updates which are downloaded by Microsoft.

The price needs to be reduced. Users find it prohibitive. It is exorbitant for the value one gets with the solution. 

There are around 300 users making use of the solution in my organization.

I would certainly recommend the solution to others. I must, as it simplifies the administration and operation. 

I rate Windows Server as a seven 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 primarily use the solution for our different applications.

We appreciate how many different applications can be on the server at any given time.

The solution is easy to learn. It doesn't take much training.

The implementation is simple.

The graphic interface is very nice.

The technical updates need to be improved upon. How they are delivered isn't ideal.

Technical support in and of itself needs to be better. The experience we have isn't very good. It's hard to get timely answers to our questions.

The system needs to offer better integration capabilities.

The solution's availability could be better in future releases.

We've subscribed to Windows for many years now. It's been at least over two, but probably longer.

The solution is stable. We don't have problems with reliability. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. We don't experience bugs either.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand, they can do so.

Currently, our organization has 3,000 users.

We may not continue with Windows. We're moving towards graduating to Linux instead.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and I can say that we are not satisfied with their level of service. They are slow to respond. They need to act faster to get us the help we need.

We have always used some form of Windows products before we began implementing Windows Server. We originally decided to implement the server as we felt it was simple and easy to use. It also had a good graphic interface.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It was rather simple. In terms of people getting trained on the system, it shouldn't take up too much time so a company can get up and running quickly. That said, the time it takes to deploy is directly linked to the training. However long it takes to get your team comfortable with it, that's how long it will take to deploy.

We had an IT staff of around ten people that assisted with the implementation. We also has a team that handles any maintenance as necessary.

As the implementation process was pretty straightforward, we handled it internally ourselves. We didn't need an external consultant or integrator to help us.

We've looked into Linux. We may move over to that in the future.

We're just a Windows customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

Overall, from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine.

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.