Windows Server Reviews

 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 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 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 user-friendly.

The Active Directory and the applications where the server is installed are the most valuable features.

The main features that should be improved are the security and it should have better performance.

We have been using Windows Server for nine years.

Windows Server is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

Every month technical support has a deployment every month making it very easy.

The setup was very easy.

There are software costs that are dependent on the CAL requirements. 

I would rate Windows Server a 9 out of 10. It is better than Ubuntu Linux.

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.

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.