Windows Server Reviews

We have many brands that we use here in our firm. As an example, we use Dell for our Laptops, we use Lenovo, we use IBM for our computers, Cisco for our switches, and Microsoft.

It's important to us that it is easy to use and has easy maintenance because we don't have specialists. It is necessary for us to have very simple maintenance procedures.

The initial setup could be simplified.

We have been using Windows Server for more than two years, maybe five or more.

It's a stable solution. We have not had any issues with stability.

We have 200 users in our organization who are using Windows Server.

We have plans to keep using this solution.

We have not contacted technical support. 

I only use the support online.

We use Windows Server, and Windows 10 for our laptops and PCs.

The initial setup depends on the preparation of the units.

If it is prepared by a specialist then the installation is easy.

We have to make sure that it has been configured properly.

We have a team of 20 for the deployment and maintenance of this solution.

It is important to have the cheapest price for all of the material and licenses.

We have so many customers with Windows Servers that we are obliged to use the same technical path.

We don't have any significant issues with Windows. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We use Windows Server as a mandatory tool to host applications, specifically for robotics process automation (RPA). It provides an efficient output and allows multiple users to access the same machine simultaneously.

The product helps us manage user credentials and daily passwords for various applications.

We encounter issues related to the product's UI when multiple users access the same machine. Additionally, sometimes it doesn't work while upgrading patches from Microsoft. This particular area needs improvement.

We have been using Windows Server for five years.

It is a stable platform. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. We have around 1000 Windows Server machines in our organization.

We communicated with the technical support services for problems related to corrupted computing resources. 

The initial setup is easy. I refer to the documentation available on the internet to understand the implementation. It takes 20 minutes to complete the process.

Windows Server has medium pricing.

I recommend Windows Server to others and rate it an eight out of ten. I advise using Windows Server or Linux, depending on the specific needs and compatibility of the applications.

We use Windows Server to run our banking system.

Windows Server is a stable and scalable solution.

The solution's licensing cost is expensive and could be improved.

I have been using Windows Server for five years.

I rate Windows Server ten out of ten for stability.

Around 42 users in our organization use the solution on a daily basis.

I rate Windows Server ten out of ten for scalability.

The solution’s initial setup is too complex.

We deploy the solution manually because we only have five servers. Around eight technical staff are needed for the solution’s deployment and maintenance.

We have seen value from using the solution, and that's why we deploy our systems using Windows Server.

We use a perpetual license for Windows Server, which is expensive.

I would recommend Windows Server to other users. Users should be trained or familiar with operating the solution before using it.

Overall, I rate Windows Server ten out of ten.

Managing active directories and middle directories, including users and accounts, is of utmost importance for organizations. 

This entails implementing protective measures, enabling conditional access, and ensuring data security, among other essential aspects.

The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, security, and that it is easy to use.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years.

I would rate the stability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We have plans to increase our usage in the future.

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

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have experienced a positive return on investment (ROI).

The cost is relatively high.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

 For the server-side deployment, we use Windows Server to run applications.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is the ease of use and the applications that are available.

Windows Server could improve by improving technology modernization.

I have been using Windows Server for a very long time.

The stability of Windows Server is an important feature.

We have approximately 200 users using this solution.

The support from Microsoft is good.

The initial setup of Windows Server was straightforward.

The implementation requires a full team to accomplish the task.

There is a license required to use Windows Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use this solution for our exchange, database and SQL servers. 

This solution is easy to use. 

The upgrade process for this solution could be simplified and made more straightforward.

I have been using this solution for 20 years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. 

The initial setup was straightforward and took two to three hours. 

I use the solution for all my servers, for the domain, the file server and other applications with which it is compatible. 

I consider Bixby, DNS, Active Directory, File Servers, Print Servers, Windows Defender and a host of other features to be valuable. 

It would be nice if the the Windows Defender feature would be enhanced to be similar to that of other antiviruses or endpoint features on the market that have whole and individual features and are reliable. At present, Defender cannot be relied on independently. Another endpoint must be installed. It would be better could we rely on the more compatible endpoint features that already accompany Windows.

There should be inbuilt endpoints, such as we find with Linux, Unix, Apple Macintosh and other browsers, which don't require the installation of additional endpoints. 

Patch updates should be less frequent. Instead of them being put out daily, they should be put out weekly or monthly. 

If the storage is not installed on the SSD hard disk, it affects the performance. I am not referring to the processor, RAM or GUI, just the storage. Windows 7 worked fine on the HDD. 

The security should be improved. There are many services on the Windows Server which are enabled or started by default and this is unnecessary. Xbox would be an example of this. These should be removed. Only the minimum number of services needed to get the solution up and running should be included. The existence of services means open board and this opens one up to hackers and attackers. As an IT person, it should not be my role to come up with workarounds for such occurrences. This should be in Microsoft's domain. 

We have been using Windows Server for around 12 years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. 

I have never had need for Microsoft's technical support, as the solution is simple and easy to manage and maintain. There are also many communities and a host of references that can be found on the internet. The internet is very helpful and makes finding the relevant answers easy. 

The initial setup is very simple.

The solution is easy to install and to maintain. These processes are user-friendly.

There was no need for help from the vendor. I handled the installation on my own. 

The maintenance that is required involves the patching of the operating system with the latest fixes and security fixes, in addition to the updates which are downloaded by Microsoft.

The price needs to be reduced. Users find it prohibitive. It is exorbitant for the value one gets with the solution. 

There are around 300 users making use of the solution in my organization.

I would certainly recommend the solution to others. I must, as it simplifies the administration and operation. 

I rate Windows Server as a seven out of ten. 

We primarily use the solution in order to manage clients, the CRM, or ERP (such as SAP), or such applications as Microsoft Dynamics. We use it for a variety of things. 

The product is a good operating system. The features fit our needs very well. For example, with Windows Server, you can use a machine for printing, accessing the internet, or using some applications. You can do it all with one server. You don't need several servers. One is enough. 

For those with a bit of technical know-how and have a level of comfort with Microsoft, it's not too difficult to implement.

The solution can scale if you need it to.

I've found the product to be stable. 

The product integrates well with Sophos. 

It's incompatible sometimes and doesn't communicate with all applications. When you need to share some data, communication is difficult between the server and the app.

A typical user will find implementing it on their own difficult. 

We've used the solution for about ten years or so. It's likely been a decade. We've used it for a long time at this point. 

I personally have 20 years of experience working with a variety of Microsoft products.

The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The solution can scale if you need it to. 

I also use Windows 10.

The initial setup is neither overly difficult nor very simple. It's somewhere in the middle. There's a moderate level of difficulty, however, it's not too hard. For a common user, it may come across as complex, however, with my level of knowledge, I don't find it too bad. 

I have enough experience with the solution that I can handle it myself. 

We are just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We tend to use Windows Server 2012 or 2016, depending on the enterprise applications.

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten. I've been please with its capabilities so far.