Microsoft Azure Reviews

We use Microsoft Azure for application sourcing and migration.

We use the cognitive service, virtual machines, and customer DB.

We like that Microsoft Azure is scalable and easy to install as well.

The market place can be raised, and the CMT can be more sophisticated to create more opportunities for the end users. Nowadays, if I want to go and do a cloud management platform across private clouds and public clouds, then I would need something more out of the box and easy to use.

There's a huge need for platforms, like vertical platforms, where you've got to create the platforms out of the box to sell to those with particular domains. For example, aviation. They might be using their own platforms underneath CAPEX and OPEX that are not distributed. So it would be nice to address the security until you can provide a mutualized solution with CAPEX- and OPEX-based cloud platforms.

It would be good to have out-of-the-box modernization capabilities because the industry is always looking for modernization. So, it would be good to have an out-of-the-box AIML-based solution that would reduce the time needed for application modernization.

I've been using it for two years.

Scalability is out-of-the-box, and you need to design things, picking up the right service that is available. So, I don't see a challenge with scalability. It's all up to how you build it and fuse things together.

As for the initial setup, it's very straightforward. You can automate, create a blueprint, credit stack, etc. It's not complex.

Pay as you go pricing always helps, but you need to be very careful while considering the services. You would need to consider how it all works and how you will be charged. With adequate knowledge, I think you can come up with a good model where the pricing won't be a constraint.

There are a lot of good solution architect references on what Azure offers, so one should start looking at those. Then, you can correlate them to your problem and do a little mashup and create your solution by well-architected principles, like CAPEX, low cost, security, performance, and scalability.

I would rate Microsoft Azure at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We use this solution to build VMs and create databases. 

We absolutely plan to continue using Azure in the future. We actually plan on increasing our usage.

Azure allows us to bring applications to life quickly. 

Microsoft Azure is very dynamic. 

The cost is something that could be improved. There's not much clarity regarding the price range. We'll create a VM and then at the end of the month, we'll receive a bill with various costs from different locations — it's confusing. 

Integration with other cloud environments can be tricky at times. 

I have been using Microsoft Azure for three years. 

Microsoft Azure is very stable. 

The support could be improved. On a scale from one to ten, I would give their support a rating of six.

The initial setup is very complex because of the landing zone. Only Microsoft can create the landing zone. Implementation is very fast; it only takes a few minutes. 

We implemented Microsoft Azure ourselves. 

The licensing costs are quite reasonable. 

My advice is to keep an eye on your usage otherwise you could wind up with a hefty bill. 

The biggest lesson I have learned is that Microsoft Azure is very dynamic — the environment is very dynamic.

Microsoft Azure is absolutely great. On a scale from one to ten, I would give it a rating of eight because it's user-friendly and very simple to use. All of the basic features are covered. Some things can be tricky, but there is always a simple solution.

We are a solution provider and Azure is one of the products that we offer to our customers. However, there is a problem. It is impossible to sell a cloud-based model here in Venezuela because we have strong inflation and most of our clients are immigrating to on-premises solutions.

The most valuable feature is the virtual machine.

The pricing needs to be adjusted so that the strong inflation in Venezuela does not prevent customers from purchasing it.

I have a lot of experience with Microsoft. I started using Microsoft 25 years ago. I have used it in all aspects, both on-premises and soon in Azure cloud.

This is not strongly done on-premises, but we have several approaches with Microsoft Azure.

We have approached our clients about using Kubernetes or Docker because it's cheaper when inflation is considered.

We are researching how we can migrate all old legacy applications using Docker. In Venezuela, the software installed with all of our clients is legacy. 

We have clients with Windows Server 2003, 2008, and applications with older operating systems who need to move to the cloud, but it is impossible because the cloud doesn't support those operating system versions. For this reason, we are considering using Docker to encapsulate the applications to see if it is feasible to migrate to the cloud or if we require new equipment on-premises.

Most of their software is not updated and won't be able to migrate to the cloud.

In Venezuela, we are having some problems with the economy regarding the exchange control with our currency. 

The best Microsoft product in my opinion Azure Stack Hyper-Converged Infrastructure or Azure Stack HCI. It's for working in hybrid mode.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a ten out of ten.

Right now we're designing our desktop solutions. I need, for example, to use a virtual desktop and I need to use infrastructure as a service. I am looking for other infrastructure as a service solutions as well,

We really like the infrastructure as a service and the data center as a service solution functionality. 

The backup data center and the business compute solutions for Azure are good. There are a lot of good hybrid solutions with onsite and cloud solutions.

The solution is very easy to set up.

The solution is very stable for Windows setups.

The technical support on offer has been very good.

The pricing needs to be a bit lower. It's an expensive solution right now.

In future releases, I would like to see Microsoft offer personal desktop environments in a virtual solution. Citrix, for example, now offers this as an option.

I only have some limited experience with the product. I've only been using it for about six months or so. It hasn't been that long.

For the most part, the solution is stable. It's great with the Windows solution, however, with Linux and other operating systems, I hope that it's okay. I don't know for certain. I've never tried it with others. For Windows, it is very good. When the customer has all-Windows solutions everything is okay. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze.

The companies we usually sell to are typically medium-sized. When it comes to scaling, the cloud solution is an elastic solution. I can scale it well. The customer can go up however high they want to go. The solution allows for that flexibility. It's easy to expand with the solution.

I've reached out to technical support in the past. I understand that if I need them I can easily reach them. They are available and responsive. I'd say we are satisfied with our solution.

The initial setup is not difficult or complex. It's pretty straightforward. It's easy. A company shouldn't have any issue with the process.

We sell the solution to our clients and it takes six months to one year to deploy it.

We would like to see Microsoft lower its prices a bit for their customers. It's a costly solution.

I'm a Microsoft reseller.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using.

While we are currently using the on-premises deployment model, we are considering moving to the cloud.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and organizations. I'm already recommending it to various clients as a potential solution for them.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're quite satisfied with the solution.

I'm currently trying to build a new product for my company using Microsoft Azure. Prior to that, I was using Microsoft Azure on the cloud to deploy microservices using specific Azure services to host the microservices. But the most common Azure services that we're using is the App Service and relational databases. In terms of the application, the first one was just the Microsoft Azure application and the second one was an integration with Elastic Stack. I'm a software architect.

The user interface offers a good experience, it's better than Azure itself. The portal is great. Microsoft Azure has very good documentation for any kind of technical person.

Sometimes the Azure Calculator doesn't have a good way to do a higher estimate, because for any organization there are sometimes issues with the application sites, but I know that the logs are not the real time and there are issues with login synchronization. It cam sometimes take more than five minutes for that information to reach the Azure application side. I'd like to see integration with other lifecycle managing rules because with Azure DevOps, it's straightforward, but the system is painful sometimes. 

I've been using this solution for nearly five years, the last 12 months in this new company. 

In general, stability is good, but in the past month I had some issues with the connection to Azure resources, not just Microsoft Azure, but with Azure in general. Microsoft has an issue with its authentication system which has proved painful, because my applications were up and running, but I can't log in to make changes or see metrics. It's a lot better now, we've had the application down three or four times but it hasn't been critical. 

Scalability is good, I haven't had any issues with their configuration. I think we have around 600 concurrent users. 

I haven't used Azure support. They have good documentation, although I sometimes think that the examples on GitHub aren't updated. On the whole, documentation is good. 

We previously used AWS but we knew there was already a lot of experience with Microsoft Azure and their technologies and we wanted to use all the features for each service. Given that this is with government and the integration is with Microsoft Azure, we can use all the features and benefits of each service. Another issue is that they were using AWS with infrastructure as a service, but they redesigned this application to use software as a service and platform as a service. We dropped the use of infrastructure as a service and using the platform as a service, and it was estimated that it would cost less than with AWS.

I think the initial setup is straightforward. I have around 20 microservices, so deployment took probably two weeks. It took longer than a previous implementation which took several hours.

We did a quick check with cloud computing, but we didn't find anything really efficient outside of the Google Kubernetes Engine that was better than the Azure Kubernetes Service or the Kubernetes service in AWS. But it was just a quick check and it was documented.

I can sometimes see that Microsoft has poor training, but to be honest the whole training thing isn't good at a technical level. They are designed to be the entrance point and show the way you can create a web portal and database. But if they could offer an in-depth technical solution of Azure services that would be good. It's possible that Google has something about it and they can offer better learning than Microsoft sometimes does. Reading through their documentation can take some time. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We use it for various services and business applications. 

It is stable and scalable. It is useful for many applications and services, such as SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, and OneDrive.

They can add more documentation about the solution.

I have been using this solution for two years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 100 people in the organization.

Their technical support is good. There are no problems.

It is easy to set up.

I would recommend this solution. It is a good solution.

I would rate Microsoft Azure a nine out of ten.

Implementation of Cloud Backup and Disaster Recovery solution, where we used Carbonite Availability as the primary tool and Microsoft Azure as secondary/target location.

Real-time replication configured from one point to another for business continuity and high availability. 

Altogether, there are eight servers in the local premise which are entirely replicated to the cloud. The kept cloud servers are idle until a disaster happens with the on-premise servers. The project setup was successful even with real-time testing. It was done with automatic failover and failback.  

It has improved our organization. 

It was very user-friendly when setting up the virtual machines and console. It was an easy task for my team to create virtual servers and start replications. 

We able to manage resources wisely with a third-party tool.  

It should have cost optimization tools. Customers are required to use third-party applications to avoid usage complications. Also, charging on downloads is not a good option, especially when it moves to a production server. 

Two years.

Achieving business continuity was a nightmare. Project was done for a supermarket chain where they kept one machine in every branch directly connected to remote data center. The connection was done using VDIs. Whenever there is glitch at the remote data center, the entire infrastructure was in trouble, which in turns affected the business a lot. Setting up a disaster recovery data center was an expensive plan and maintenance was too heavy. Connecting Carbonite Availability with Azure was an easy options, as it reduced overhead and maintenance.

Monthly billing convenience reduced cost overheads up to 70 percent.

We are a service provider and Azure is one of the products that I use to assist my clients.

I like the ExpressRoute because that makes it easy to configure connectivity to Azure-hosted services.

Azure could be made more user-friendly. For example, the configuration wizard should be more intuitive for the users.

I have been using Microsoft Azure for about 18 months.

This product is stable enough.

Scalability-wise, we have not had any problems.

We have been in touch with Microsoft technical support and I would say that they are average.

I am also working with AWS and I find that it is more user-friendly. I am a fan of AWS and although it depends on the use cases and requirements, we generally implement AWS more often than Azure.

The initial setup was fairly simple. If we did have any issues then we would consult with Microsoft Professional Services, or some of our cloud architects, just to figure out how to resolve them.

We follow the Microsoft update paths. There isn't any maintenance required because it's a managed service and the providers take care of it.

For the most part, Microsoft Azure works well. They are constantly upgrading their services. That said, I don't think that it's perfect.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.