Windows Server Reviews

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. 

We are using Windows Server for our business applications, ERP and everything else.

Windows Server is running well, the performance is good, there are no issues and it is stable.

Because we are using it a very long time and all our applications need Windows OS to run, so by default, we are using Windows OS.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 20 years.

In terms of the versions we are using, it is mixed - we are using 2016 and 2019. A few of our servers are still using the 2012, also.

In terms of scalability, in one server we need to install only one OS. So if you want to install more OS's in more servers, then we can install it.

The quality of support depends upon the Microsoft products. Sometimes they will provide quick support, sometimes it takes time, so I cannot comment exactly on their support.

Sometimes we are getting very quick support, sometimes it takes time.

We are using Windows Server as well as a few open tool Linux.

Windows Server typically takes around 30 minutes to install.

We need very few people for deploying the Windows Server.

Without a license we cannot use Windows Server. The price depends on the people and their budget. We have our enterprise EA agreement with Microsoft and based on that we are doing the licenses.

Everyone knows how the graphic user interface looks with Microsoft Windows Server.

In terms of whether I would recommend Microsoft Windows Server, it depends on their use case. If their application is running only in Windows Server, they should use the server.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Microsoft Windows Server an eight.

Windows Server is deployed both on-premises and on cloud.

The features that I have found most valuable are that it is quick with an easy installation and has good troubleshooting compared to Linux or any other operating system.

They provide updates and patches in a timely manner.

I would like to see better updates and for it to support other applications

I have been using Windows Server since the inception of the company.

Windows Server is stable. It is just that the updates and other things do sometimes break. The updates are fast so maybe everything is my issue with the legacy applications.

Windows Server is scalable. We have around 300 to 500 users on it.

Customer support is okay, but I believe it would be much better if they supported other applications. The challenge with them is they will say that you have installed some applications that they cannot support. So the blame game is there in that case and it is not a Microsoft issue or an application specific issue. So we have to fiddle around with that.

The initial setup is easy. It took 10 to 15 minutes.

We had a technical team of around 10 people for the deployment and maintenance.

You can do it by yourself or with the help of the consultant or integrator, it depends on the configuration you need.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Windows Server an eight.

My advice to anyone considering Windows Server is, if they don't have any other choice then they can use it. If they have a choice then they should go for an alternate solution because in the longer run they can save a lot of money in licensing.

We primarily use the solution as a base layer for our software. Our developers decided they should create our products based on the Microsoft platform. We have to use the Windows Server as the applied model.

We have some solutions based on Linux, however, Microsoft Windows Server is the primary operating system.

The solution has improved our organization as we are able to sell our products with Microsoft. Without it, we can't make our business work. 

The solution is absolutely integral to our business processes. 

It's a widely used system.

The product is very stable.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

Technical support is very helpful.

I haven't had any experience with active data storage or high-level configuration. From my perspective, Windows Server can stay on this level without any development as it works for me how it is.

The price could be a little less. It's a bit expensive.

Maybe 10 or 15 years ago, there were some problems with stability, however, right now, we haven't needed to install any patches and we have not faced any problems. I'd describe it as quite stable at this point.

The solution is used widely across the company. However, I cannot speak to how many servers we have at this time. 

We do plan to increase usage as we continue to grow.

Microsoft technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. We are very happy with the level of support on offer. 

The initial setup is very straightforward and not overly difficult.

The pricing isn't the cheapest. For example, Linux would be a free option. People don't have to pay for it. With Microsoft, you need to pay to license it. 

We are a customer and end-user. We are also a Microsoft reseller. 

SQL Server 10 can't work without an operating system. It needs to be installed on the machine with an operating system, so it is dependent on it. A Windows Server needs to be installed as a first step before SQL will be installed.

We primarily use on-premies or private cloud deployment models.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I'd recommend the solution. It's a very good platform. 

I primarily use it for my day-to-day business tasks. 

As an end-user, the experience of the solution is that it's very reliable. It just works. As long as it doesn't affect my daily operation and we can work safely and securely with each other, that's all I care about.

The solution has a sufficient amount of stability and performance that meets my needs. 

I can work securely and all the files are easily accessible.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. 

The scalability potential is quite good. 

The cost to use the solution is quite high.

Our main problem is the Citrix environment we're still in. However, we're migrating from that to the Windows 10 environment, so Citrix will be out within two or three years. Therefore,  performance is not really an issue - on the operating system at least. 

I've used the solution for more than three years at this point, It's been a while now. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. I've found it to be reliable. It doesn't give me trouble. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale if you need it to.

We have about 70,000 users on this product currently.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We did not previously use a different solution. It's always been Windows, although we may at some point have also used Unbuntu Linux.

The initial implementation is easy. It's not overly complex or difficult. It's just pushed with the build we have and that way it doesn't affect the end-user. It's just ready to go. We find that the installation is simple and efficient.

While we have a technical team of about 5,000 or 6,000 users, I'm not sure how many were involved in the initial deployment. 

The initial setup was handled internally. They did it themselves. There's sufficient knowledge of the Windows Server products to do it in-house. We have a rather large IT department. It's over 5,000 people.

The pricing is quite high on Microsoft products. It would be ideal if they were made to be more affordable. 

With the magnitude of our organization, every three years, a proper review of the contracts would be handled.

Although it's my understanding that we have some special deal with Microsoft, I cannot speak to the exact cost or the licensing agreement that was reached. 

We are customers and end-users of the product.

In general, if you're asking me if I'm happy with Windows Server, yes, I am.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight. I'm satisfied with its overall capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

We primarily use the solution for hosting applications. We have six applications, which are VMs.

The stability and performance are great. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

The solution can scale. 

Technical support is great.

We've had a few minor compatibility issues.

We have been using Windows Server for 20 to 25 years at this point. It's likely been over two decades. We've used it for quite a while. 

The solution is extremely stable and the performance has been great. The product doesn't crash or freeze. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It's a reliable system.

The scalability is good. We moved from the 2012 version to the 2019 version and found that the scalability has improved. 

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

Technical support has been fine. We are satisfied with the level of support we get.

We previously used the 2012 version and have since moved to the 2019 version of Windows Server. 

The initial setup was very straightforward for us. We didn't run into any issues and didn't find any complexities or difficulties. We upgraded from the 2012 to the 2019 version and that took us about one day. It was pretty fast.

We have a team of about 15 technicians that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We did not use a consultant or integrator when we did the implementation. We handled it ourselves, in-house. We were quite capable of handling the process internally.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. 

We are using the 2019 version of the solution, which is the latest.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies. 

Windows Server is very useful and easy to install.

It has been stable after 2002, so versions 2016 and 2019 are stable.

It is not fast and is very slow. Versions before 2002 are not stable.

It is not easy to use, and it could be cheaper as well.

Windows Server could use low resources and have automation abilities.

Automation and implementation could be changed to work better with other systems. It needs be easy to integrate with other cloud and open source systems. Generally, people want to use open source systems because Windows Servers don't integrate easily.

I have been using Windows Server since 2003.

It is stable, particularly after 2002.

If you use Microsoft application servers and if you use Microsoft products, you can generally get good technical support.

I used Linux operating systems.

It is easy to install and takes about half an hour.

I installed it myself.

Windows Systems use more resources than Linux systems and can be very costly. If you use a Linux system, two CPUs are enough, but if you use a Windows system, you need eight CPUs. You should use a minimum of eight CPUs, and CPU resources are very expensive.

We have enterprise agreements regarding licensing.

I would rate Windows Server at seven on a scale from one to ten.