It is being used both in my company as well as in my client's companies. We work on the basis of customer demand and whether they go for Windows or Linux. 60% of users use Microsoft since it's user-friendly and if they want the capability of maintaining the servers over the CLI then they tend to prefer Windows.
The centralized management and merging capabilities are useful. Windows users can switch from open access to data from the Linux servers.
The various security updates are good for the users as well as the organizations it helps keep the solution safe.
The performance has been okay.
Technical support is responsive.
It can scale.
A few bugs need to be figured out for the security side. A few of the bugs are not even fixed completely on a full scale, and sometimes that will be tough. If a client is not maintaining proper network security, their data will be breached. The security updates need to be released regularly from Microsoft so that there won't be any loopholes in the OS.
The initial setup may be a bit difficult for beginners.
The solution is costly.
When we shift onto the graphical user interface, there'll be a bit of a lack of processing speed as there are a number of graphics included in the OS when we shift to the GUI. We'd like CLI and GUI to be equally responsive. Many users prefer the GUI, yet then they suffer from less performance due to the graphics.
The performance is okay. I would rate it seven out of ten in terms of stability. There sometimes are bugs in the product.
The solution can scale.
We have medium-sized to enterprise-level organizations. We also use the solution for smaller organizations that would like the cloud to save costs on IT infrastructure.
We work with 250 or more companies that use this solution.
Technical support responds spontaneously if you raise any tickets or queries regarding to the products. I raise a fewer number of queries to technical support since we are the engineers. We tend to go to the client and fix issues. In the case of major issues, we'd reach out to technical support, and they respond spontaneously within 24 hours.
We previously used Linux servers. We switched based on client requirements as they wanted a user-friendly service even with engineers assisting them.
For beginners, it might be a bit complex to set up the solution. However, with well-experienced guides like engineers, it would be easy for them to fix the infrastructure and deploy these Windows servers.
It is a bit expensive.
The cost would be taken care of by my accounts team, so I'm not that involved in licensing. That said, to my knowledge, it's a bit expensive. If any clients want to implement their infrastructure to be run on Microsoft, then they need to purchase every license for each service. If the client wants to go for a Windows server, they need a license for the client machines and a license if they want to operate a Mail Exchange server. If all this could become bundled into one thing where small-scale industries and medium-scale industries can buy it as one item, that would be ideal.
I'm a consultant as well as a Microsoft-certified system engineer. We are Microsoft partners.
Most likely, all my clients would prefer an on-premises deployment. They want the data to be secure as they likely have confidential data regarding their users, as well as the company's data, would be on their servers.
That said, a few clients would prefer cloud services like AWS. It totally depends upon the clients and what they would like to go for and whether they be like to invest on the on-premises or if they would like to go for a cloud to cut costs.
Most people are moving onto the Linux side, where they feel more secure, however, compared with the admin agents who are not well-versed at the CLI level, many prefer the Windows server, which is the alternative. People should remember that though there is a graphical user interface for Windows Server, they can still operate in CLI mode, which would be very fast, and very similar to a Linux OS.
I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.