Windows Server Reviews

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. 

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.

We primarily use the solution in order to manage clients, the CRM, or ERP (such as SAP), or such applications as Microsoft Dynamics. We use it for a variety of things. 

The product is a good operating system. The features fit our needs very well. For example, with Windows Server, you can use a machine for printing, accessing the internet, or using some applications. You can do it all with one server. You don't need several servers. One is enough. 

For those with a bit of technical know-how and have a level of comfort with Microsoft, it's not too difficult to implement.

The solution can scale if you need it to.

I've found the product to be stable. 

The product integrates well with Sophos. 

It's incompatible sometimes and doesn't communicate with all applications. When you need to share some data, communication is difficult between the server and the app.

A typical user will find implementing it on their own difficult. 

We've used the solution for about ten years or so. It's likely been a decade. We've used it for a long time at this point. 

I personally have 20 years of experience working with a variety of Microsoft products.

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if you need it to. 

I also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is neither overly difficult nor very simple. It's somewhere in the middle. There's a moderate level of difficulty, however, it's not too hard. For a common user, it may come across as complex, however, with my level of knowledge, I don't find it too bad. 

I have enough experience with the solution that I can handle it myself. 

We are just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We tend to use Windows Server 2012 or 2016, depending on the enterprise applications.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. I've been please with its capabilities so far.

We use Windows Server as the endpoint solution and for hosting our enterprise applications.

It makes an ideal tool for certain solutions. Most applications are compatible with this operating system.

The security suffers the same issues as our Windows 10 for endpoint deployments. It could be more secure.

The support could be more straightforward.

I have been using Windows Server since its existence. It's been more than twenty years.

We use versions 2012Rs and up.

Windows Server is a stable solution. 

It is a scalable product. We have approximately 300 users in our organization who are using Windows Server.

Technical support is a bit varied. Depending on the type of technical support that you need, most are very responsive and usually, they are quite knowledgeable.

There is definitely room for improvement, especially with more complex and less straightforward questions. It tends to stay in the area of data gathering.

We have just a few applications running on the SUSE Linux platform. These applications are few and far between and we are moving away from that platform.

We use Marketplace VMs from Azure or templated solutions from our on-premise Hypervisor. Deployment takes less than 10 minutes.

Setting up the environment where this service solution can be deployed takes a little bit longer. But we can do that ourselves with no problem.

They are the same type of licensing for the Windows 10 endpoint solutions. 

We pay these on an annual basis. 

It is also dependant on your relationship with Microsoft as a company.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We have many applications which require Windows Server, such as SQL Server and an application server that acts as a middle layer.

The solution is user-friendly, you do not need a command line technical team to operate it.

Windows Server could improve by having a faster browser, IE is too slow. There are better alternatives, such as Chrome.

I have been using this solution for approximately four years.

The solution is highly secure and stable with many policies. We did not have any issues with the performance.

We have approximately 2,000 users using the solutions.

The installation was straightforward.

We have a team that does the maintenance and policies for the solution.

There is not a license required for this solution.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

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.