Windows Server Reviews

We primarily use the solution for many purposes, the Active Directory, SQL, web server, and many other features.

The solution is very scalable. 

The installation process is very straightforward. 

Technical support is good. 

The stability needs to be improved. I don't find it to be very stable. It's something they need to work on.

I've used the solution for many years at this point. it's been so long I've lost track of the exact amount of time, however, it's been a while. 

The solution isn't as stable as it could be.

The product scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have about 2,000 users on the solution at this time. I can't speak to if we have plans to increase usage or not.

I am satisfied with technical support so far. They've been helpful and responsive. 

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's straightforward and pretty easy to execute. 

The deployment is fast. It only takes us about 50 minutes to get everything up and running.

I handled the installation by myself. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant. It's a pretty simple process. 

Right now, we are not on the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. For the most part, we have been happy with its capabilities. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies.

Mostly we use the product for file sharing, and then for database applications. That's about it. We're not running cloud services and other things. 

We're required to support it, however, for the most part, it works well and is reliable. 

Technical support is helpful. There's a lot of documentation and helpful information online as well.

The initial setup is not overly difficult.

The security needs to be improved. That's its weakest area. It's my understanding that they cannot do anything about it at this stage. We have to wait when they are able to, more or less, integrate with Ubuntu, or with Canonical. Then, we will have a server that is quite stable in terms of security. Maybe in five years or six years, then you could see a Window Server which is going to be very impressive.

I've been using the solution likely for 20 years. It's been two decades. I've used it for a while at this point.

The solution is reliable and the performance is good.

We have lots of users, especially those running Oracle. We have close to about 200 users for Oracle that are connected to Windows Server.

We don't have any issues when it comes to Microsoft and technical support. Most of the time it is straightforward. Right now, you can go to the internet, and there are many people who post helpful information for Microsoft products. In the same way for a Linux operating system, we have a lot of users that are posting tutorials for you to be able to learn. It's not something which is very, very hard. It's quite easy already.

I also use Unbuntu and find them comparable. It's like to be able to integrate them together.

The initial installation is pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex.

We have about 30 staff members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance.

Per installation, the deployment time, including the updates, is maybe about three or four hours.

We do have assistance when I'm using an HP serve. They have a way of making the installation much easier.

We do have to pay a licensing fee in order to use the servers.

We've got open licenses for the Windows Server OS, as well as the SQL Server database, and then we have to pay for the device CALs, client access license. 

In terms of versions, right now, we're hooked on OS. We have 2012, and I have 2016. I'm interested in 2019 as well.

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

I'd recommend the solution to others for business use cases. 

We upgraded to 2019 and use this as our operating system for our domain controller, for our file server, and for running our ERP. We're also run our ERP on  Microsoft Dynamics.

Windows Server is most commonly used and practiced. It is compatible with what we are running. You can run Dynamics on Linux or other operating systems, but our clients commonly use Windows Server, Microsoft products, and Office 365.

Often, we get updates that affect productivity. It's the way they do the updates.

After an update has been done, Microsoft notifies us that there is a problem.

It is not practical to have a test environment. There should be an easier process, as currently, it's a bit tedious. They should find a way of proving or revamping this procedure. It should be very fast.

When you are running Windows and Microsoft, you will see an error message regarding ransomware and suggest the security is up-to-date, but the update always affects the operating system. Most of the issues we have are when we apply security updates or critical updates, which will affect the operating system, the production environment, and your business.

It is recommended to have a test environment, run it on the test environment to make sure that it is working well then put it in the production environment. This is a tedious process. Most of the time, people just take a risk and just apply it without doing the test.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 10 years.

We are using Windows 2019, 2016, and 2012.

It's a stable solution.

Windows Server is scalable.

We are also using Exchange version 2016, and Windows 10.

With a proper deployment, Windows Server is good.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

A couple of years ago we migrated from the 2008 to the 2012 version and we are currently in the process of trying to migrate our applications to that of 2019. We use Windows 10 for OS. We're researching z/OS, which is actually Linux based, to see how well it works with Windows applications. 

When it comes to the SQL server, we have separate application and database servers, the latter which is also on Windows Server 2012. This means that we have a couple of applications in which we hosted in IIS and Windows Server 2012. Consequently, we have quite a collection of Windows 2012 that are currently running in our data center. 

For the moment, we are not making use of the solution in our environment but looking into how we can have a license free OS that can both work with lower machines and function very well.

We like the ease of use, stability and performance of Windows Server. The reason I was skeptical when it comes to moving to Windows Server 2019, which is currently the latest version that the market has to offer, is because the solution is easy to use and stable, something typical of any OS. While we are currently inspecting the compatibility of applications that are running on Windows version 2019, we're still using the 2012 version and everything is working fine. We have encountered no problems with the OS being used to run the applications. 

What could help in improving the footprint is if Microsoft could come up with several flavors or start providing containerized solutions for server systems. 

Say, for example, that I wish to host a web server online. I would pose the question whether I would really need to have a Windows Server OS for me to be able to do that on IIS. At the moment, the use of Kubernetes or Docker present the only solution. As there is a steep learning curve for one's team to acquire the skill-set and obtain the capabilities associated with these solutions, a relevant Microsoft version would make life much easier. 

As I have already paid for a license, I should have the option of requesting the containerized functionality from the OS to reduce the Windows Server OS footprint. This will save me from having to make constant installations as a condition of running my servers on it. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years, straight from the beginning. 

We have had no issues with Windows Server that required technical support, although we did have to call the Microsoft team concerning something on which we were working and had issues around the MS Teams and certain things relating to Azure. I can connect you to my system's administrator if you wish, who may have more information. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

I can easily replicate what I want. My environment allows me to clone servers in a matter of mere minutes, as I already have a startup which contains all of my standards. 

One must pay for a license for the solution. 

The number of users utilizing the solution averages slightly north of 500, since this is the application we use in running all our key activities. Each member of our organization's staff requires access to the solution for carrying out several functions, be it in respect of the application or of the need to log into the system as a consequence of this being where the employee management system is located. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

We primarily use the solution for a variety of tasks including active directory servers, exchange servers, hosting applications, running insurance apps, and SQL databases. A whole gamut of things. 

The SQL version of the solution is its most valuable aspect.

The solution is very easy to use and very easy to onboard. 

The solution, for the most part, is stable. The stability is actually pretty good in terms of availability.

The product's performance depends on the use case.

The solution is very scalable.

The initial setup isn't overly difficult.

It requires a lot of monthly maintenance in terms of vulnerability management, which is the downside. 

I would say the biggest improvement could be improvement in the vulnerability space. Every month we get critical vulnerabilities across the Windows Server fleet. If I could see the volumes come down there, that would be the biggest step forward.

I've been using the solution for 15 or more years at this point. It's been well over a decade. it's been a while.

The solution is pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

However, every release gets more stable and offers more performance with the exception of vulnerability management, which doesn't seem to improve. I would say, we haven't got that much experience with 2019, yet 2012 was a big advancement on 2008's version. 2016 advanced as well. Every newer version gets better in terms of performance and stability.

We tend to scale horizontally, and that'll scale up to quite a degree. We have some very large SQL Servers in particular that are scalable.

We have about 5,000 to 10,000 users on the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If I had to rate it against any industry standards, I would rate it at a six or seven out of ten. It's not as good as other providers I work with. Right now, Microsoft needs you to prove it's a Microsoft issue before they'll work on it.

We generate a custom build that's automated. Automating everything took quite a lot of effort, however, now that we have an automated build, implementing that for any new version probably takes, I'd say, a month, or maybe a bit more, which is not too bad. It's pretty straightforward.

We have a team of eight or nine individuals that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation by ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

We have enterprise agreements with Microsoft.

We are customers and end-users.

While the deployment models we use are mostly on-premises, we do sometimes use cloud deployment as well.

We use a variety of versions of the solution, including 2019, 2016, and 2012.  We actually use a lot of 2012.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's a step up from older versions.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies. However, it depends on the use case. If you were hosting SQL or Exchange server, certainly. However, in other circumstances, if it was between this and Red Hat Linux, you might choose Red Hat Linux.

We primarily use the solution for our different applications.

We appreciate how many different applications can be on the server at any given time.

The solution is easy to learn. It doesn't take much training.

The implementation is simple.

The graphic interface is very nice.

The technical updates need to be improved upon. How they are delivered isn't ideal.

Technical support in and of itself needs to be better. The experience we have isn't very good. It's hard to get timely answers to our questions.

The system needs to offer better integration capabilities.

The solution's availability could be better in future releases.

We've subscribed to Windows for many years now. It's been at least over two, but probably longer.

The solution is stable. We don't have problems with reliability. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. We don't experience bugs either.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand, they can do so.

Currently, our organization has 3,000 users.

We may not continue with Windows. We're moving towards graduating to Linux instead.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and I can say that we are not satisfied with their level of service. They are slow to respond. They need to act faster to get us the help we need.

We have always used some form of Windows products before we began implementing Windows Server. We originally decided to implement the server as we felt it was simple and easy to use. It also had a good graphic interface.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It was rather simple. In terms of people getting trained on the system, it shouldn't take up too much time so a company can get up and running quickly. That said, the time it takes to deploy is directly linked to the training. However long it takes to get your team comfortable with it, that's how long it will take to deploy.

We had an IT staff of around ten people that assisted with the implementation. We also has a team that handles any maintenance as necessary.

As the implementation process was pretty straightforward, we handled it internally ourselves. We didn't need an external consultant or integrator to help us.

We've looked into Linux. We may move over to that in the future.

We're just a Windows customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

Overall, from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine.

Managing active directories and middle directories, including users and accounts, is of utmost importance for organizations. 

This entails implementing protective measures, enabling conditional access, and ensuring data security, among other essential aspects.

The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, security, and that it is easy to use.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years.

I would rate the stability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We have plans to increase our usage in the future.

I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have experienced a positive return on investment (ROI).

The cost is relatively high.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

I use Windows Server for the deployment of applications for users.

This is only for the duration of the project; it is not for our personal use.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to be used in a virtualized environment.

I would like to see better integration with other solutions.

I have been working with Windows Server for five years.

Windows Server is a stable product.

Technical support is fine. They were helpful.

I have not worked with other similar solutions.

It's a software solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward.

It takes two months to deploy.

For deployment, we have an internal technical team of three people.

Because we are not using this solution for our needs, the ROI would be more applicable to our customers.

In terms of price, it's affordable.

There are additional fees to pay for support. This is more specifically to do with the license price.

I evaluated several products, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux, in order to find a budget for a project solution, but the project was canceled.

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

Our company is a partner.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.