Windows Server Reviews

We are in the waste logistics industry and we are using this product as the central server for our file systems. The SQL server is running on top of this.

Windows Server could be more secure.

We have been using Windows Server for six or seven years.

This is quite a stable product.

Windows Server is scalable and we have six users in the company. We plan to increase our usage in the future.

I don't have any experience with technical support.

I did not use another similar product before this one.

The installation is quite straightforward.

We completed the deployment ourselves.

I was responsible for the deployment and also handle maintenance.

This is not an expensive product.

I can recommend Windows Server.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use Windows Server for Citrix desktops and domain controllers.

The domain controller features are useful.

The price should be reduced.

I have been using Windows Server for 10 years.

Windows server is a stable product and we will continue to use it.

Scalability has not been a problem. In one of the jobs I was doing, there were 700 users.

I have never had to log a case with Microsoft so I don't have any experience with technical support.

I have always used just only Windows.

The installation is straightforward and it takes about 20 minutes to deploy.

It is a manual installation and I handle the deployment myself.

The licensing fees are expensive.

This is a product that I can recommend.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

The solution can be used for remote access through the remote desktop.

The main feature of the solution is it has a graphical interface.

I have been using the solution for approximately five years.

The stability is not very good because you have to restart the system to keep the stability.

The solution is scalable.

The installation is very easy and the installation takes approximately 20 minutes.

I can do the implementation of the solution myself.

The price of the solution could be reduced and there is a license required.

I would recommend Windows Server if they are not able to use Linux.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

Most of the time we use it for user account access. We also deploy Microsoft on machines that must run on Windows. Beyond that, we use it for the remote desktop, and obviously for its mobile Microsoft features.

The active directory that the server provides is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The solution continues to improve and develop and we appreciate that it's always evolving. We've been working with the solution so long, we've seen a lot of changes for the better happen over time.

The pricing aspect of the solution needs improvement. It could be lowered. Over time, the pricing itself has fluctuated, and now, especially pricing around mobile aspects of the solution really seems to be driving everything up.

They also need to work on the license model for virtualization.

The solution could offer higher availability.

Users would benefit if the solution offered better management features.

I've been using the solution for 15 years. I've used it from version NT 4.4 to version Studio 1.6.

The solution is quite stable and continues to grow its stability reputation year over year. The latest version was much more stable than the previous versions.

The solution is easy to scale. If a company needs to expand this solution, they can do so easily. We have a variety of customers that may have as many as 1,000 users at any given time. We typically sell to medium-sized enterprises across three different localities.

Our company uses the solution quite extensively on a regular basis.

We have reached out to Microsoft's support for critical issues in the past to get their assistance.

When we get the support from Microsoft's Shanghai division, the support is very good. I would say, in the case is Iraq to the other regions, such as India, the support is not as good there.

We've used different solutions in the past, however, they don't really fit with most our use cases, and we feel much more comfortable with Microsoft.

The initial setup is easy. It offers a quick download time and easy deployment. I would describe the process as straightforward. It's not complex.

IN a physical environment, deployment wouldn't take more than an hour. On average it might take 30 to 45 minutes. The virtual deployment is much, much quicker.

You only need one person to deploy the solution.

We're resellers, and we sell IT products, so we're able to deploy the solution ourselves. If our clients need help, we can certainly help them deploy the service as well.

If you buy a standard license, you can only buy two towards your machine. If you need more than that, you need to buy another type of licensing. It changes the cost and makes it much more expensive.

We handle both on-prem and cloud deployments. We're in IT services, so we often sell these solutions to our clients. We use the Windows Server ourselves as well.

I'd recommend the solution. It works well, however, users still have to understand Windows and the Windows interface in order to use it correctly.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for Windows Server is to support applications and distribute them to all the company users.

The solution is invaluable, we need it for file and emails servers.

The solution has plenty of features.

I have been using Windows Server 

The solution is highly stable.

Windows Server is highly scalable.

The technical support could improve.

I have used Windows 10. If you compare Windows 10 to Windows Server they are very different. The Windows Server is supporting all the company users. While Windows 10 is a personal operating system.

The setup is very easy.

The price of the solution could improve.

I would recommend this solution to others, it can implement easily, it is very stable and reliable.

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.

What I like most about Windows Server is that it's easy to use.

I would like to see better performance and more integration options in the next release of Windows Server. 

I've been using Windows Server for quite a while now. I'm not sure how long.

Windows Server is stable.

I would rate Windows support five out of 10. 

Installing Windows Server is pretty straightforward. You don't really need much IT knowledge to deploy it.

We pay for a yearly license

I would rate Windows Server five out of 10. I would recommend it to others. 

We are using it for Windows Active Directory, DHCP Server, and application servers.

Its performance is very good, and it is stable. All applications are working perfectly, and there is no issue.

It can have more integration, which will be useful for the data integration process. More integration with different applications and different OS would be quite good.

We are using Windows Server for the last eight years.

It is stable.

We have three to four Windows Servers, and all users are connected to these servers.

They are customer-friendly.

Its initial setup is very simple and easy. It normally takes 20 to 30 minutes. After the installation is done, the configuration takes some time, but it depends on what type of configuration is required.

I did it myself. We have four technical guys who are connected to the deployment and maintenance of these servers.

We have perpetual licenses.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of 10.

We're using it primarily for domain control, additional domains, and servers. Everything is used under the Windows platform.

I like that it's simple and the users are happy. 

It could be more secure. We can't compare it to other products because they have their own security and all those things. When it comes to email security, there are issues. Microsoft products used to get hacked all the time, but we're still comfortable with that.

I have been using Windows Server for almost ten years, and we're still using it.

It was a straightforward installation.

My four-member team of engineers can install and manage it themselves.

I would recommend this solution to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Windows Server a seven.