Windows Server Reviews

We are using Windows Server to run applications.

The solution could improve by being more secure.

I have been using Windows Server for a couple of years.

We have been using this solution for a long time and it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We are using virtualization servers, and on average we have installed approximately 200 servers.

We have not needed to contact the support.

The installation is straightforward.

We have two managers doing the maintenance of the solution and a team of five that handles the operations.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server an eight 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.

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. 

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.

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. 

We are using this solution for some database applications.

The solution is mostly stable. 

The scalability is okay. We just need to get the correct edition of the Server.

The initial setup is easy and the deployment is fast.

There are some limitations around scalability.

The solution should be less expensive. Linux options are far less costly.

I've been using the solution for five years, at least, in this company.

The product, for the most part, is stable. I would say the hardware will cause some issues before the operating system.

In terms of hardware, it is scalable, if we can increase the hardware resources. We are not using the data center version of the OS. We're just using the standard version.

We have around 30 people using the solution.

I haven't dealt with technical support. So far we haven't escalated anything as our installation is very simple.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It is basically like any other Windows operating system. It's fairly straightforward.

The implementation only takes about 30 minutes. 

We have a team of three in the IT department that can handle deployment and maintenance. 

We did not need any integrator or consultant. it's very easy for a company to handle by itself. 

The pricing could be more competitive.

We only pay a one-time fee and do not have to continuously pay monthly or yearly.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are still using 2012, and we're planning to upgrade to 2019.

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

I would recommend the solution to other organizations. 

We use Windows Server as a business operating system.

The solution is easy to use and it supports multiple applications compared to other basic systems that are currently in a production environment. Many people prefer the Windows environment because they are used to it from previous experiences.

The solution could improve by having more integration and some of the new features that are being released in Windows 11.

We have been using the solution within the past 12 months.

Windows Server is highly stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have 100 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support from Microsoft has been good.

The installation is easy and it takes approximately 10 minutes.

I did the implementation of the solution.

There is a license required for Windows Server and Microsoft the cost is based on the number of ports that you have on the production server.

I would recommend this solution for enterprise use.

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.

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. 

We work mostly on the banking organization segment. In banking organizations, they are using around 40% of Windows Servers. If there is any database they will be using MySQL. Including enterprise segments. 80% of people are using Windows Server and SQL or Exchange though, actually, now people are migrating to the cloud. Groups of companies, including enterprise pharmaceuticals, are mostly using Microsoft.

The ease of use is great.

The installation process is great.

We've had a lot of problems from day one.

The security could be better. One of the banks suffered ransomware attacks and they were able to penetrate the servers. 

There's a short availability that could be much better.

The performance is not up to snuff. They need to work on increasing resources. 

I've used the solution since the inception of our company, which has been about seven years.

The performance is not ideal. It could be a lot better. 

We have around 200 clients and most of them are using Microsoft in one way or another.

Most of the time, we've noticed that customers can go and troubleshoot issues on their own. It seems rare to raise a ticket on Microsoft support. Due to the fact that it's so rare to need to raise issues, I can't really speak to having any direct experience dealing with them. That said, sometimes, if a patch is needed, they do need to go to Microsoft and get it. 

The installation is very straightforward and it is not overly difficult or complex. With a certain level of experience, anyone can install and configure it. It's not a problem. 

You likely just need one person to handle deployment and maintenance. You can handle this solution with a minimal number of technical staff. 

The license is perpetual. Once you buy the server, you don't have to continue to renew the license itself. 

Microsoft is a popular and necessary addition to any company. Most companies can't run at all without Microsoft being used at some level. 

If a customer has more than 100 workstations installed in Microsoft then I recommend them to use this sort of solution. If a customer is using .NET applications then by default the choice is Windows, however, if they are using Java or Oracle I recommend that they use Linux due in large part to the security.