Windows Server Reviews

The product is stable. It's reliable. 

Microsoft is a trusted brand and I enjoy working with it.

The graphical user interface could be better. It's a little dated. 

I do not like Microsoft's intrusive policies. 

We've used Windows Server for quite a long time. We've used it since around the 2012 version at least. 

The stability of the product is relative. Certain services are better handled by the Microsoft system. For example, the active directory. Microsoft Hyper-V, we use in many, many cases. However, with Linux systems, we don't have the ability to use some features of these systems. For example, with the authentication server, we use the Windows Server in most cases. If we do that, it's stable.

We have 100 people, more or less, on the solution.

We have technical support. We pay in order to have access to them.

I'm also familiar with Linux, although I prefer Windows.

I wasn't a part of the initial setup. It was already in place when I arrived at the company.

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

We do pay for technical support. We have that until December and then we will need to re-subscribe. 

We are a public company, a government company, and, due to legislation, most of the time, we can't simply choose a vendor. If we need to acquire a contract solution, we make a technical study where the features are evaluated and the final specifications are always based on features, not on vendors, or manufacturers.

We are service providers. We are implementers and sometimes we do the plans of the implementation.

We are a customer of Windows Server. Our company has an active contract for technical support as well.

We use the current version and past versions too in a hybrid environment.

The local infrastructure is hybrid in the sense of we maintain a large spectrum of systems. For example, legacy systems are on the same infrastructure as a Windows Server 2019, for example. Basically, legacy systems are on the same network as the most recent system.

I'm note of a Windows guy than a Linux guy. I like this product.

I'd rate the solution at an eight 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 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.

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. 

The solution is used both as a security measure and basically for all operating systems which are mostly for the ERP systems. They need to be installed in a Windows Server so that it has a link to the domain. It makes it a secure network.

The Windows Server is mostly to host our SAP application. It's just that basic operating system. We are using the backend as a database, a Microsoft SQL Server is there also in front of them.

Over the ten years we have used the servers, we've never had a problem. They are robust and reliable. 

The solution is quite stable.

The product can scale very well.

We could always use more security on the product.

If it had more integration capabilities, that would be ideal.

We've been using the solution for about ten years now. It's been a decade or so. We've had it for a while.

The solution is reliable and the performance is great. We literally never have any issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales quite well. If we need to expand it, it has the capacity to do so.

Windows Server acts basically as the SAP application that is being hosted on this server. We have not given access to our internal employees. Basically, we give access of SAP to several of our clients and there are more than 200 people using SAP and the backend Windows Server.

Technical support is from the provider. So they are the ones who contact the Microsoft support team if there is an issue with the server.

We also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is handled by our service providers. I do not handle the implementation process myself. Everything comes pre-installed and ready to go.

Maintenance is being done by the hosting service provider. We don't maintain the operating system; they do it from their end.

The installation is done by the hosting service providers. They provide us the servers in which they pre-install Windows Server 2019. That comes as part of the servers which we take from the internet solution providers.

We don't pay for the license. That is as part of a contract in which we pay a monthly charge for having the servers in the hosted environment.

We have several servers. The oldest are the 2012 versions. The newest servers we have are from 2019.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. I cannot say enough that, over the decade of use, we have had zero issues. It's been great.

I'd definitely recommend the product to other users and companies.

We are using this solution as a server operating system.

The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running.

I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line. 

When you work on the command line you can make scripts and then use them every time you want to complete a task. You can capitalize on past experiences by using a script to simplify them, such as when you need to install something or do configurations. Making those tasks faster and simplified. You end up saving a lot of time by using the command line which is best for administrators and the graphical interface is best for the end-user.

You can not do most of the automation on Windows that you can on Linux, it is not the same thing. Windows is improving but it is not at the same level as Linux.

When using a graphical interface it tends to have more bugs, vulnerabilities and weakens the server. Normally we install Linux on big servers that do not have any graphical interfaces inside. The fewer services you run the better it with be for security. We prefer most of the time installing Windows without the graphical interface. 

Overall Windows for us is more difficult and less efficient than Linux.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 25 years.

The solution is stable. However, when you start putting in some extra layers, such as data intelligence inside, then problems tend to start happening.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server solutions for a long time. We started with Windows NT then switched to Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and all the way up to this current version. Additionally, we work with Linux and Windows 10.

It is easy to do some types of deployments with Windows dedicated networks.

We have evaluated Linux and other Windows systems.

I recently started using my Windows 10 with the Linux Subsystem for Windows, to install and administer all my Linux servers worldwide. I can run a DBM on the Linux Subsystem for Windows, Ubuntu, or Kali Linux, and can access my servers worldwide. Having Linux Subsystem running inside Windows 10, I have been enjoying using the operating system much more.

I cannot install a virtual machine inside the Subsystems which I do very easily on any Linux distribution. Additionally, after installing a virtual machine on Linux, the virtual machine will be more powerful than the Linux Subsystem for Windows. If Microsoft was able to achieve the same level of a virtual machine, then it will be very good for us to start doing many more operations inside of Windows.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.