Microsoft Virtual Server Reviews

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.

We only use the VPN when we want to connect to our remote site. The VPN client or the branch will dial a VPN connection, and the connection is established. That's the time we have the link to connect to our branches.

Microsoft Virtual Server is a stable and easy-to-use solution.

The solution's user interface could be improved.

We have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for one year.

I rate Microsoft Virtual Server an eight out of ten for stability.

Microsoft Virtual Server is a very scalable solution.

The solution's initial setup is very complex.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. It took us four hours to deploy the solution. We follow basic procedures to deploy the solution.

Users should get formal training before using Microsoft Virtual Server.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Virtual Server an eight or nine out of ten.

We use the solution for virtual machines.

The tool is perfectly stable. It was the only mature option when we were looking for a solution.

The product must provide easier rollouts. The booting of virtual servers must be made easier.

I have been using the solution for many years.

Ten people from our company are using the tool.

The initial setup was not straightforward. It was a bit of a pain.

The deployment can be done in-house. We required two people for the deployment and maintenance of the product.

We have a perpetual license for a specific server. The solution is very expensive.

I do not have much experience with server infrastructure. I recommend AWS to others. Overall, I rate the solution a six 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. 

We use the solution for internal business purposes. 

The solution is stable. 

Microsoft Virtual Server needs to improve its stability. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

The tool is scalable. 

Microsoft Virtual Server's deployment can be done in-house. 

Some of the licensing costs are monthly, and others are yearly. 

I rate Microsoft Virtual Server an eight out of ten. 

In my organization, we have three physical servers running Windows Server 2015. We are also using Hyper-V to create virtual servers on these physical servers. We currently have seven virtual servers running on these three physical servers. These virtual servers are running properly and we have not had any issues with them. One of the advantages of using virtual servers is that we can back up a VM and restore it to any physical server in one to two hours.

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable. There is no issue there. Our customers are running two virtual terminal servers, one ERP server, and one antivirus server. All four servers are running properly, and a maximum of 60 users can log in.

The solution should be more user-friendly and cheaper. It will be charged through databases, which means that when I use the server, I will be charged, but when I don't use the server, I won't be charged. To use a physical server, you need to purchase one at a certain price. After three years, you need to purchase AMC for the server which is a recurring cost. Additionally, there are electricity and maintenance costs. Virtual servers in the cloud can be cheaper than physical servers, especially if the monthly cost is lower. Therefore, many clients and organizations will choose to use virtual servers.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for ten years.

The product is stable.

The product is not scalable. We have 60 primary users using this solution. Upon migration, it will be 100.

The initial setup is easy. To require a certain specification of the server, we need to clear the cloud first. We need at least a six-core server for our backup process. A Cisco server with 48GB of primary storage and two 1TB SSDs is sufficient for our needs for ERP. After six months, if the end of support is reached, we will move to our turn server and use the data server. The first step will be server migration, then it will be the terminal server migration.

The solution has a yearly license. If we switch to a yearly subscription plan for Microsoft Virtual Server, it would be cheaper in the long run. The price per month would be higher, but the overall cost for the year would be lower.

We want to move our ERP server to the cloud. We need to prepare our users and the ERP system itself, as well as develop a digital plan. We have two partners that we need to collaborate with, and we need to discuss the move with them. We believe that we can complete the migration within this year, and we plan to be fully operational in the cloud by January 2024. Around four technical staff is enough for maintenance. If a client is having a problem, they need to be able to contact the vendor (the end user) in order to provide support. Microsoft should have a portal or make it easy for customers to contact them if they are having any technical issues or addressing problems. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.