Windows Server Reviews

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 use this solution as an operating system to run applications, such as Microsoft SQL.

Overall the solution has been functioning very well for us.

Security and vulnerabilities could improve.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately three years.

The stability is good in Windows Server.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution in my organization.

The installation is straightforward and took approximately 30 minutes.

I did the implementation myself.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server nine out of ten.

We are using Windows Server as an operating platform. It's an Operating system.

We host our products on the Windows Server.

The performance is good.

While it is easy to use, it could be easier. 

The performance is good but we have had some issues when we use virtual machines. Loading and processing a lot of data leads to memory-related issues. As such, while the performance is good, it could still be improved.

We are using version 2012 and it could be that other versions have improved this feature.

We are currently using Windows Server 2012. We have been using this solution for approximately 12 years.

I have no issues with the stability of the Windows Server.

It's scalable. I am satisfied with the scalability of this solution.

We don't have plans to increase our usage.

We don't deal with Microsoft support directly. Our service team is in contact with them if there is an issue.

Previously, I did not use another solution.

The installation was straightforward and easy.

We have a team of server maintenance and network engineers to maintain this solution.

We had help from the Server team to implement this solution.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I  would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We used Windows Server for file sharing and centralized authentication.

We stopped using Microsoft Server in 2012 due to hardware failure and licensing costs. For these reasons, we decided to move to open-source solutions.

Compared to other solutions, the ease of administration is great. 

In regard to the next release, I would like to see a more scalable solution. I would also like to see any future developments on the market because there was a time when most companies would run away from centralized authentication systems, like Active Directory — they moved to cloud solutions. If the service could be better integrated with the Azure Cloud, I think it would be a plus for Windows.

I used Windows Server from 2003 until 2012.

Windows Server is absolutely stable.

I can't comment on the scalability as we were only using two to three servers and we never attempted to scale out any further.

The technical support is okay. As I have a special relationship with them, It's quite easy for me to get a hold of them. 

I started with FreeBSD, then moved to Solaris. Right now I am only using and recommending Linux.

The installation was easy compared to other operating systems, but the documentation part took longer than usual because I typically specialize in Linux-based operations.

I usually handle the implementation myself. If I encounter a specific issue then I may have to apply for a consultant.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. If your environment requires it, I would absolutely recommend Windows Server.

We typically use the solution for hosting applications, which is more related to Visual Studio and other similar items.

The solution's usability is very good. It's very user friendly.

We've found the solution to be very flexible.

It's very useful for domain authentication and other tasks. 

It's great for hosting all kinds of applications.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution could have better security features.

The pricing is a bit high. Linux has better pricing. They should try to make their product more competitively priced.

We've been using this solution for about a decade. It's been ten years, so it has been a while.

The solution is very stable and reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

The solution can scale well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. There wouldn't be anything stopping them.

We have 20 or so people on the servers right now.

We do plan to continue using the product.

I've found the technical support from Microsoft to be quite good. We've been satisfied with the level of service provided to us so far. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten overall.

We found the initial setup to be pretty straightforward and simple. It's not complex. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment is very quick and takes about five minutes in total.

In terms of the size of the team you need, it depends on the application. The bare-bones operating system only two to five minutes, or maybe two to 10 minutes. The deployment, with respect to software and other things, such as security checks, et cetera, it can take a while to get everything on there. It can take up to four hours.

We handle the implementation ourselves. We didn't need an implementor or a consultant to help us. It was all handled in-house.

We pay the license on a yearly basis.

It's a bit expensive if you were to compare it to Linux. 

We're not currently evaluating other options at this time.

We are not using the latest version of the solution. We're using N-1, one solution behind the most recent release.

We use multiple deployment models - both on-premises and cloud.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten at this point. Overall, we've been pretty happy with it.

I've used it with government applications to integrate and install with Shine server and Fire servers, enabling remote access. For some clients, we have developed and installed an integrated solution for about 500 users and are usually 'anywhere applications.' One client is a government permit office, and they use it for GIS applications and keep track of services.

I'm quite satisfied with Windows Server. I find mutual authentication and the environment useful. Over the years, I've seen some very good improvements in the Windows Server's quality and functionality.

I find ethernet configuration and implementation difficult. I would also like to see more reliable updates.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 15 years.

When compared to the legacy Windows Server, stability has improved. 

Windows Server technical support is good. Over the last 15 years, I've used Microsoft technical support maybe 300 times or less, and those experiences were good.

For the most part, the initial setup is straightforward. In my experience, about 80% of the implementations were straightforward, and about 20% were a little more difficult.

It took us about six to eight months to deploy the Windows Server for my client at the government permit office.

In our case, we primarily use Microsoft, so the cost is a lot less. But some of our customers have spent approximately $12,000 a year on the operating system license.

Windows Server is a nice product, but it does have some small problems. I would recommend potential customers to do some research first. 

It's a little more difficult to implement this operating system with functionality in the cloud. Everything, including the files and interface, keeps us in a Microsoft environment, and when moving applications to the cloud, some people might find it challenging.

They have training for all the features that Microsoft offers. Technology is evolving quickly. Although I've been in this market for 25 years, I can see that I'm getting a little bit left behind because of a lack of formal training in the new functions that Microsoft and many other companies are implementing. 

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

The most valuable feature is its stability. We have had no problems with Windows Server and we plan to continue using it in the future.

This product has very good features.

I would like to see better integration with other operating systems. For example, when I migrate from services from Linux or Unix to Windows Server, it's hard to do. I expect it to be easier.

We began using Windows Server between 10 and 12 years ago.

This is a scalable product. We have more than 150 people in 20 different groups who use it. In my personal group, we have four people.

We have not faced any problems that we couldn't solve, so we have not needed to contact technical support.

I have worked with other operating systems such as Linux and Unix, and I find that they are more complicated.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes between two and four hours to deploy, depending on the type of service.

We installed it ourselves and we have an IT staff of about six people that use it regularly.

We have a corporate deal with Microsoft and pay licensing fees annually. It is an expensive product.

Overall, this is a good product that is easy to use, it has very good features, and I can recommend it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We're primarily using the solution mostly for the file server and communication and so on.

Every time they perform a new release, the solution gets better and better.

In the past year, Microsoft has done a lot of work around security. There have been a lot of improvements made in that respect.

Overall, the solution works well.

Right now what is needed on the server-side is an easier release process. Every year or every third year they are releasing a newer version and it could go smoother.

The solution lacks a few features here and there.

Although they've done a good job updating security, there's more to be done, and they should continue improving this aspect of the product.

We've been using the solution for what feels like forever. I can't recall a time we didn't actually use it.

The solution is reliable. I believe it to be stable. There aren't bugs or glitches that affect it. It doesn't seem to crash or freeze. It's good for the most part. I can't complain.

The solution is scalable. You can expand it if you need to, for the most part.

I don't have any experience with Microsoft's technical support. I wouldn't be able to speak to how effective they are at troubleshooting or solving issues. The solution works well, and we haven't had any issues, so there's been no reason to reach out. That probably speaks to how well the solution runs in general.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. You just click through, and it's pretty easy.

That said, some setups seem to have some more complex configurations. Most of the time, things are pretty straightforward.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We're using a standard out of the box deployment.

We always update the solution to the newest possible version. We update regularly.

I'd advise that new users learn about the solution before jumping in. It's always good to take a class or study up on it a bit so that you know what you can do with the server and how to navigate around in it. It's a good idea to take a certification course.

That said, users can always Google answers or use the Microsoft Flow tool.

I'd absolutely recommend the solution. I'd rate the solution nine out of ten overall. There's always room for improvement, of course. However, generally speaking, it hasn't given us any issues and does what we need it to do. There are always ways to improve security, stability, and scalability.