Windows Server Reviews

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.

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 are using Windows Server as an operating system.

The solution is easy to use and it has good performance.

Windows Server can improve in patch management and security.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately three years.

Windows Server is stable.

We have not had any issues that we would need to contact the support.

Our in-house team of two technicians and one manager do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

We have purchased a perpetual license to use the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use Windows for its Single-Instance Storage, SIS, capabilities. The solution has deduplication default features. In respect of Windows security, the solution offers a GUI, graphical user interface, that is very convenient for the user. Linux, for its part, does not offer a graphical user interface. 

The solution's licensing price is on the expensive side. This is an issue which Microsoft should address right away. 

I have much experience with Windows Server, having used it my entire career, in excess of 15 years. 

The solution is stable. 

We do not have plans to increase usage for at least the coming two years. 

We did not use a different solution for our desktop prior to Windows Server, although for our server we used Linux. 

The installation is not difficult. I found it to be very straightforward. 

It lasted 35 minutes.

The installation can be done on one's own. Only one person is needed for the deployment. However, as we have a large scale data center, we have a team, consisting of five members, who are responsible for maintaining the entire infrastructure. 

The price of the solution's license is expensive and this an issue which demands Window's immediate attention. 

Our licensing fee is perpetual. 

I rate Windows Server as a nine out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution as our general operating system.

The only thing that is extremely valuable about the solution is that most applications run on it. That's where it brings the value in as we have the server to run our applications.

The product is stable.

I can't think of any improvements off the top of my head. 

There's always room for improvement. However, I'm not in the main IT department, and therefore, I'm not as close to the product as others on my team.

The company has used the solution for quite a while. They were using it well before I arrived at the organization.

The solution seems to be quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

To my knowledge, we have not dealt directly with Microsoft support. We haven't really had a need.

For the most part, we didn't do the initial setup on it. We either buy the product with Microsoft already installed or the system integrator will install it.

We have systems administrators that can maintain the solution. We have a few people on our team that can handle any tasks. 

Occasionally, we have a systems integrator that assists in the installation or it comes pre-installed.

I don't deal with pricing or licensing. I can't speak to how much the licensing costs. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall. We've been overall very pleased with the product.

We deploy our solution in Windows Server when our customers are working in Windows. So it depends on the customer's requirements.

Windows Server could always be more secure.

I've been working with Windows Server off and on for many years. I'm not an end-user, but my company deploys our product from time to time on Windows Server when our customers are using that environment. 

In my experience, Windows Server is pretty stable. Then again, I don't have much experience administrating that environment, so I can't really say. But, so far we haven't had any significant issues with Windows Server.

I think Microsoft support is probably pretty standard, but we haven't had any issues with the operating system that would require a ticket. Most of the time we use basic stuff for the operating system, so we're not facing any significant issues on that side.

Setting up Windows Server is pretty straightforward. It takes anywhere from a few hours to a day. One person can do it if it's not a complex environment. At our organization, it would only take a couple of technical experts. We have 100 plus specialists, consultants, and some field teams as well. 

We have a partnership, so we get all of the licensing through that.

I would rate Windows Server eight out of 10, but that's not an expert opinion. I don't specialize in that operating system.

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.

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.

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.