TFS Reviews

We use TFS for volume control, source checking, and source control.

The most valuable feature of TFS is that it keeps the code secure while working collaboratively in a team of four or five individuals.

We have different teams working on different solutions using different technology sets. At the backend, it has good source control. We work with Microsoft technology stack, open source stack, as well as IBM stack. We have different teams working on the backend with TFS as our source control.

I would like to see TFS improve its web interface as there are some limitations with IDs and the integration behind it and with open-source tools like VS Code.

As a version control, we have found some inconsistencies related to updates from previous versions. If you set up the Git repository, and you want to change it back to TFS, it is a bit confusing now in the latest update. We were hung up when two repositories were intermingled together. We were confused about why the Git project was not converting to TFS. I believe Microsoft is supporting the Git repositories. 

The TFS TFVC is not user-friendly because, for Git repositories that you have already created to use the TFS repositories, you need to go back into the ID to Video Studio when the TFS repository comes up by default.

Using the web interface, by default you get the Git repository. For a team that is not familiar with this and is not using the ID as a video studio or VS, code management gets difficult. Even with VS Code as an open source ID, TFS at the backend as a repository is difficult and integration is complex.

I have been using TFS on a daily basis for five years.

So far, I have found TFS to be stable.

The solution is scalable, however, we do not need to scale because we do not have many people on each team. The administration part requires three or four people, and for development teams, we have about 15 team members who actively use VS Code.

The initial setup of TFS is really just a click. It is basic and not complex.

We deployed the solution in-house.

Our organization has an enterprise license with TFS.

We explored other sources before. We also used some open-source tools.

We are considering trying another solution as we don't find TFS assistance or community help when compared to Git.

TFS is a good solution once you get comfortable using it. If you are coming from TFS 2013 or TFS 2015, you are going to find the 2019 version different. I understand that TFS is moving towards the cloud, so all the features are designed with this in mind. In the 2019 version, you will see more DevOps-related tools and automated app tools.

The solution is easy and complex at the same time. If you are familiar with pipelines, you will find it interesting. You need a technical team to provide help and assistance to get the whole value from 2000 DevOps TFVC. If you are not actually fully exploring the feature set or using them, it is just another source control like any other open-source control.

If you gain experience with the iron value sets with TFVC DevOps, the whole project management will be smooth and stable. Releases will come out but all the hiccups between the teams, such as the development teams, QA teams, and deployment teams will smooth out. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten overall.

We use it for code archiving, complete CI/CD functionality, code propagation, code repository, etc.

Team Foundation Server (TFS) is easy to use, and we have a complete trail and traceability. We also like the access control part.

The price could be cheaper.

We're going for a cloud solution that will give us similar functionality and integration with our other products that we are customizing, like SFD. At present, those codes aren't many. 

I've been using it for more than eight years.

It is stable.

It's scalable. We have around 45 users.

We deployed it using an in-house team. You will need two to three people who are in the DevOps teams, who do all the testing, and programmers, who use it and check the code.

You will need to obtain server and account licenses.

TFS is a good product, and I would rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We use TFS for manual testing in our labs and as an automation tool., basically use TFS and we have the shared for that. 

The TFS was previously used for the build repository, but we have moved away from using it and we use other tools for builds. We are moving towards JIRA for other activities, such as cascade management, and test automation management.

The most valuable features of TFS are the test plans. We can reproduce reusable test plans in test automation. We have a lot of queries and this feature is very useful. 

I have been using TFS for approximately seven years.

TFS is highly stable. We have a lot of queries and the test plans can generate for automation purposes and runs very well. I prefer TFS over Jira in this area.

TFS is scalable with different Microsoft tools for test management but it is not scalable with other third-party tools.

We have more than 200 users using this solution.

We use JIRA in parallel with TFS and we are facing a lot of difficulties with JIRA because we do not receive the leverage and the same features in JIRA that we do in TFS. Our preference is TFS over JIRA.

There is some maintenance required from our team. For example, licensing and overall support. 

When the applications are developed in VideoStudio and other technologies. It's preferred to use TFS for all of the management solutions.

I rate TFS a nine out of ten.

We use it for software development, but we are moving to Jira.

We work with life science companies, and they need traceability. Because we have the capability of being able to provide the traceability that they require, it helps us with laying out what they need for their validation efforts.

The traceability is valuable. While managing the workflows, it was always nice to have that traceability from requirements and all the way through design. It integrates with Microsoft Test Manager (MTM), and you can have everything that is related to a requirement attached to it.

It has been really dated. When you start to work more in an agile environment, it is not really that flexible. They tried to replicate the look and feel of Jira, but it is not quite there. It was nice to use in the past, but it is not as flexible now with the changing development environments and methodologies.

It should have some of the things that Jira has, such as boards. We're focused on the scrum boards where you can actually drag and drop work from one queue to another. There should be more flexibility where you can just drag and drop as a user and have more visibility about what's active, what's not, and what's assigned to you through dashboards.

I have been using this solution for almost 14 years.

It was quite stable. We did not have a lot of issues over all those years. So, it definitely was a reliable solution for a long period of time. It just was not flexible when we started moving to a more agile model.

It was able to scale to meet our needs. It also allowed us to do our customization. I'm not sure if that ended up being a good thing, but it did allow us to do what we wanted it to do.

We have about 150 users, and they're developers, FQA, software quality engineers, business analysts, user experience team members, and architects. For its deployment and maintenance, in general, there are four or five people. They are from the DevOps team.

We don't plan to expand its usage. We're transitioning to Jira.

Their support was good. We had the support we needed for both TFS and Microsoft Test Manager.

We were not using any different solution. This company has been working with TFS for as long as I can remember. We're now transitioning to Jira.

It was fairly complex, but some of it was due to us. We did more configuration and customization, and because we customized the system, it made it more complicated.

In terms of duration, some of our previous upgrades took several days. Most of that was the actual deployment, but the preparation took several weeks.

We did use an integrator once or twice. Our experience with them was good. It was easier because we didn't have to worry about a lot of things. They took the burden of the effort, and we just had to give them information.

We haven't quantified that. In general, there has been a great time saving because with what we've done around validation artifacts, we've been able to build it right into the system. So, we can automatically generate it at the end of a release. Earlier, it would've taken us six weeks to put together a validation package. With what we've set up in TFS, it would take us a week at the max.

I was working with the engineering team, and that was not under my umbrella. From what I can remember, its license was yearly. They had the licenses on a per-user basis, and they included MTM.

I'm not really sure what they did. It was already in place when I joined the company.

I would advise Microsoft to update the tool. If a lot of users are starting to move to Jira because of the agile environment, Microsoft might want to adapt a little faster and provide similar or better functionality. It has been reliable for a very long time, and I've been really happy with it, but you've got to be able to change with the methodologies and the environments.

I would rate it a six out of 10 because it hasn't changed enough. I would've given it a much higher rating years ago, but because of the lack of evolution and not being able to adapt to the current business needs, its rating is not higher at this point.

It is mainly for the work item handling, which is the documentation for the development projects. We also use it for requirement handling and then following a project's progress with tasks or issues.

It doesn't improve the way our organization functions, but it supports the way we work. Instead of having separate Excel or other work item lists, we can just utilize the work items provided by TFS for record-keeping and monitoring the progress.

The work item feature is most valuable. It allows us to store all product requirements. We can also link the test cases to those requirements so that we know which feature has already been tested, and which one is waiting for testing. We can also couple the code reviews, unit tests, and automated tests into these requirements.

It is reliable. It has all the features and good performance. It also has reporting tools or analysis tools. 

Currently, we are looking for a solution with which we can incorporate third-party development sites or third-party project teams into the system. Because it is on-premise, it is a bit problematic because we need to have a VPN or something else in the system. A cloud-based solution would be better for us, and that's what we are looking for. Our biggest problem is the external connection, which, of course, is limited by our own IT. It would be good to have some kind of publishing service for this external connection. It might be there, and it might be that our IT is making it impossible for us.

Its template editor could be easier to use. Currently, customizing the project templates according to your needs requires some work.

I have been using this solution for 15 years. I have been using its latest version for a couple of years.

It is reliable.

I haven't actually used their support very much. I'm not really the one who is maintaining the system. 

You can find a lot of information by searching the web. There is also a community around it, and a lot of answers are available. Microsoft has its own support if needed.

I haven't been so much involved in building up the TFS server, but I think it is rather simple. The installation is simple. There are so-called project templates that you might need to adjust according to your needs. These require some work. If you can use the default templates, then no work is needed. We have managed to adjust everything for what we needed. There were no problems that we couldn't overcome. Its template editor could be easier to use.

It was done in-house. It is pretty easy to come up with an installer. There is nothing difficult there.

The Team Foundation Server is now called Azure DevOps. We are using an old product. I would advise others to consider whether they need an on-premises or a cloud solution. The on-premises solution requires external developers. They can also look at the cloud option and see which product offering is better for their needs.

It is a nice system to have. You get a managed system where you can manage your development tasks easily, and you don't need to keep your own bookkeeping for tasks and backup items. They are already there in TFS. You can just use the system monthly and produce reports out of the system. For me, it was nice to see that such a tool exists.

I would rate TFS a nine out of ten. I'm pretty happy with it.

With respect to all the Microsoft Stack development, we use TFS as a repository and source version control system.

TFS is very user-friendly. It is easy to use and has a smaller learning curve.

TFS should allow more integration with different platforms.

I have been using TFS for the past four to five years.

TFS is a stable and robust solution.

TFS is a scalable solution.

I have never used Microsoft’s technical support.

We used SSMS and Visual Studio before, but then we switched to TFS because it is a native product of Microsoft.

The setup was straightforward. It took only five to ten minutes to deploy.

We did it in-house. TFS is user-friendly. So we do not require much help to deploy. An administrator can implement it.

TFS is worth its money.

TFS is not cheap. We pay for monthly licensing at the enterprise level.

I use the 2022 version of TFS. Currently, we are integrating GitHub with Visual Studio. It is a better combination when compared to TFS. So our organization is leveraging it. I haven’t faced any issues with TFS’s performance. GitHub can be used on many different platforms. That is why we shifted from TFS to GitHub for version control.

For data integration projects, to deploy the integration solution, we need to prepare the files based on the specifications. Then it is deployed into the production or any other environment we want to deploy.

My organization has been using TFS for a long time now. From the time I joined the organization, I have been using TFS. Now we use GitHub because Microsoft has acquired GitHub. If required, we can also add more developers to TFS. I’m not a part of the purchasing department, so I do not know the exact price of TFS. I would rate TFS a nine out of ten.

The interface is good with TFS.

I am looking for some pull request features, like Git.  I do not see a pull request option for branching and merging. I would also like a true command prompt like Git.

I have been using TFS for the past fourteen or fifteen years.

TFS is definitely stable.

TFS is scalable because it is managed by Microsoft internally. 

Technical support is good. We have optional support with Microsoft.

We previously used VSTS however TFS is a far better product.

The initial setup was very easy and straightforward.

The overall price of TFS is good.

I think most people are working with Git. We feel comfortable with TFS because we are already used to it. TFS is a good product and you can continue working with it.

I am overall happy with TFS and would rate it a nine on a scale of one to ten. 

TFS can support multiple code repositories (example: Git, TFS, CVS, etc.) via plugins, which is really a nice feature.

As I mentioned, it supports multiple code repositories. You can also build CI/CDs out of it. You can instruct TFS to build your .jar, .war, and .ear files and deploy them to to certain environments based on your configuration. So you don’t have explicitly maintain another code repository and CI/CD tools for your continuous integration/build purpose. This also automatically reduces DevOp burden and the number of people maintaining that DevOp work.

It needs huge improvement on its Agile functionality.

For more than a year, until I left the company.

No.

No.

We had our own support member (so I can't rate their support).

Yes, I used to use VersionOne, HP AGM, and JIRA to track and monitor Agile practice in my previous companies. At Lennox they had only one option, TFS.

I wasn’t involved in this process.

I wasn’t involved in discussions of pricing or licensing for TFS at Lennox.

As far as I‘m aware, the company decided to use TFS without evaluating other options.

There are better tools for Agile and CI/CD in the market. TFS may be good for code repository purposes; however, it's not the best for Agile practice.