Microsoft Virtual Server Reviews

We are a bookmaking firm. The solution is quite good for collaboration across multiple teams.

The product is reliable.

The product must provide better data analytics.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

The tool is stable and accessible. It’s a robust and reliable solution.

The tool is scalable. We have 15 users. We use it every minute of the day.

The initial setup is simple. It is a cloud solution. Our operating system is server-based. To deploy the tool, we spoke to our software provider and linked up with a company that offers hosting services to deploy it on the cloud.

A third-party vendor helped us implement the solution. They also help us with maintenance and support.

The product’s reliability and accessibility are valuable to us.

I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use this product for virtualizing all of our environment.

We have between 80 and 85 apps that run our core services. We are an insurance company and we have a lot of internal apps.

This solution helps us because our data center is in another part of the country, and we do not have to travel to work on it. I can do things remotely from my desk.

The most valuable features are monitoring, and the self-service that they have for a customized environment. 

The administration is very good.

The response time from technical support could be faster.

The price of this product could be better.

Our offices began using Microsoft Virtual Server about five years ago.

This is a stable product and we use it on a daily basis. For the most part, it works very quickly.

For our environment, the level of scalability is fine. We have approximately 50 users.

I would rate technical support a nine out of ten. If the response time were quicker then it might be perfect.

The initial setup was really easy.

We hired an integrator to assist us with the implementation and deployment.

It is a one-time cost and there are no licensing fees. 

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to hire external, trained professionals with the correct skills for these specific products.

In summary, this is a good product and although it has issues, they are minimal. From my perspective, I think that everything is going well.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

I use the solution for application virtualization. We have deployed the tool in multiple locations.

The solution is easy to manage. It can be deployed easily. The product has improved our operational cost and efficiency.

Customization must be improved. The tool must provide more freedom to the customer.

I have been using the solution for 5 years.

I rate the product’s stability a 9 out of 10.

The product’s scalability feature has supported our growth well. We have different numbers of users on different sites. We have around 200 users. I rate the scalability a 9 out of 10.

The customer support is fine.

Positive

We have used physical servers before. We switched to Microsoft Virtual Server due to its cost and ease of management.

The initial deployment was complex. Now, it is straightforward. I rate the ease of setup an eight out of ten. The deployment can be done in days. The time taken for deployment depends on the infrastructure.

Microsoft Virtual Server is a low-cost solution. 

I will recommend the tool to others. My advice depends on the infrastructure someone is using. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

In our operations, Microsoft Virtual Server is crucial for managing virtual machines in testing and development. We utilize cloud databases in the Amazon Partner Network for efficient data handling, integrating web servers, and web services. Third-party Internet services and the APN connector system enhance our connectivity, providing a robust network infrastructure.

Microsoft Virtual Server's standout features are its seamless network integration, robust data restoration capabilities, and versatile computing functions. These qualities are invaluable for cloud computing and networking, enhancing the overall flexibility and scalability of our operations.

While I am generally satisfied with the solution, it could slightly improve its stability.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for two years.

I would rate the stability as a seven out of ten. It could improve by adapting to new features and changes occurring every three months.

I would rate the scalability at a seven out of ten. We have over 100 users of the solution.

I would rate the technical support as a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Setting up and deploying can be a bit complex, and the time it takes depends on different factors. We have various environments, like development and production. If everything goes smoothly, it is quick, but if there are issues, it takes time to fix them. The deployment process involves moving through different stages, checking for problems like missing incidents or security issues.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Virtual Server as an eight out of ten.

It is a good solution. If a company must have 100 physical servers, it can virtualize all those servers using Virtual Server. From a hundred physical servers, they can come to four physical servers. We can reduce the consumption.

The product helps with server management. It adds value to the business. It improves security and server management and reduces the cost of handling data filters. We can also add space for doing other things. The dashboard is valuable to us. It provides flexibility in the management of multiple servers. The tool provides flexibility in the configuration of different servers.

The solution must improve its pricing.

I have been using the solution for years.

The tool is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The tool is very, very scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Our clients are small, medium, and large enterprises. The solution fits any requirement.

The technical support is good.

Neutral

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward. The deployment takes four hours.

The product must reduce the cost by 40%.

Microsoft is better than Linux.

People who want to use the product need to make a good assessment of their needs, build the right licensing program, and hire a great team to implement and support the solution. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company depending on our client's problems. My company has used Visual Studio Code based Modeler along with Microsoft Virtual Server.

In my company, we have been using Microsoft SQL Server on virtual machines to help us decide if we want to use the tool as a PaaS solution offering or if we want to use it as an offering meant for virtual machines. Microsoft SQL Server on a virtual machine is known as Microsoft Virtual Server.

Microsoft Virtual Server has already been improved since Microsoft Fabric is available. Microsoft SQL's data warehouse is available as a component within Microsoft Fabric.

Microsoft Virtual Server's cost was an area of concern. Microsoft Fabric and the shared costing structure have already mitigated the price-related shortcomings of Microsoft Virtual Server.

I feel Microsoft Virtual Server will be stopped in a couple of months or a couple of years, and it will be completely replaced with SQL Server data warehouse and Microsoft Fabric. Microsoft Fabric has unified all the technologies, like real-time analytics, with data warehouses and then with the use of Power BI on top of data warehouses. Microsoft plans to get rid of all the separate components and start pitching Microsoft Fabric as an alternate solution to all its different or related services offered, but it could take some time, and it will not be an overnight switch. The long-term plan for Microsoft is to unify all its services under Microsoft Fabric.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for more than a year. My company has a partnership with Microsoft.

It is a stable solution.

The performance and scalability offered by the tool meet our company's expectations.

My company deals with small, medium, and enterprise-sized companies that use the tool.

The support provided for the product is satisfactory. If the product team gets involved, I rate the support a ten out of ten, but otherwise, I rate it seven or eight.

Positive

The product's initial setup phase was easy because of the documentation.

The time required to deploy the product depends on the requirements of the tool's customers. From site to site, requirements may vary, but I can say that the product can be deployed in a couple of minutes to a couple of hours.

The cost of the tool was an area of concern since users were forced to buy licenses for Microsoft Virtual Server and ADF separately. The tool's cost has been taken care of with the help of Microsoft Fabric and with a consolidated or unified interface, where the entire product serves as a SaaS offering for the user.

Amazon Redshift was a product that my company had tried, but it can't be compared with Microsoft Virtual Server.

The product is used for testing and development. The effectiveness of the product in the area of testing and development is something that depends on the problem faced by our company's client. Nowadays, our company prefers to do everything on Microsoft Fabric because it also includes Synapse Data Warehouse, which is Azure SQL Data Warehouse's alternative.

The most beneficial area of the product for virtualization needs stems from the fact that one of our company's customers could deploy it on an on-premises system. The tool had always caused issues in areas like security and maintenance, but the product's virtualization has helped as it offers a layer of protection on top of the virtual machines, making it easy to maintain, and in the future if a user wants to move away to a different offering, it is easier to do that on Microsoft Virtual Server.

When it comes to the integration capabilities, similar to the data warehousing capabilities offered by any other solution, the tool offers connection strings, and you have the ability to connect and pull the data, which is usually something that depends on the ETL tool, but Microsoft Virtual Server is quite compatible with the ETL tools, like ADF.

One person can maintain the entire solution.

If people plan to use Microsoft Virtual Server or any other services by Azure, they need to look into Microsoft Fabric since it is a tool with some nice offerings.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We are embarking on a virtual environment for our disaster recovery before embarking on our production. We tested several virtual servers. When they are successful during the DR environment, we plan for our production environment with a very small-scale noncritical production environment.

When everything stabilizes after a few months, we return to the production environment for critical systems. We migrate from the physical to the virtual. It takes about one and a half years to do that with help from our local vendor.

The solution provides easy monitoring and easy troubleshooting.

The solution’s pricing could be improved. When embarking on a virtual environment, the sizing is not done properly. Capacity planning should be comprehensively done before embarking on any virtualized environment.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for 11 years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Around ten users use the solution in our organization.

Microsoft Virtual Server is a scalable solution.

A feasibility study needs to be done properly for the solution's deployment.

Microsoft Virtual Server’s licensing is expensive.

Users must read everything about their virtual environment before they go for any enhancement on the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

The tool's most valuable feature is its workload. Its integration with Microsoft products is good. 

Microsoft Virtual Server needs to improve its patching. It should offer us a review before updates. The solution should also improve its pricing. 

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable. 

The product is scalable. 

The tool's support is prompt. 

Microsoft Virtual Server's deployment is not so complex.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten.