Windows Server Reviews

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 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.

Our primary use case is for the SCADA system, for the ITS system, and for the station system. I'm a system programmer and we are customers of Microsoft.

The advantage of the product is that it's user friendly, it's compatible with the scalar product applications, it's well known to our own users as well as to our end-user clients. 

I'd like to see more features and more functionality to the Microsoft operating system. The solution should be able to connect remotely and create a safer channel between the user and cloud assets, or through the internet. It's one of the biggest challenges we've had this past year. There are a lot of companies competing with each other to apply these features due to the pandemic. 

For additional features, I'd like to see something like third-party applications that would create a hub to receive a connection from outside. It would handle all types of servers to enable remote access for the user from home, so they can safely connect to the system and check in if there is an emergency. You know that the SCADA system is a critical system and you can be considered on-call and notified at any time. It would enable a remote connection rather than the need for long procedures to connect to my network. It could have a third-party authentication so we could connect to the server safely.

We've used this product since 2008. 

The product is stable with the current application we are using for SCADA but I'm not sure of the impact if you were to use another application or another technology. For the appliances using the firewall, using switches, it's very stable, especially, the critical system which you configure once, and forget about until you need to make another vulnerability scan. For the critical asset, or for the entire system, you'll configure it once, and it's stable. 

Sometimes you need a huge number of firewalls to manage all the assets, so scalability depends on the assets you have in your network. In our case we sometimes only connect seven substations, that's three or four firewalls to manage everything. That includes interconnection with the member states, meaning six countries in the Gulf area that will receive information or data from them. The total number of data is very manageable requiring only three or four firewalls. In general, it is scalable and manageable. We have just under 100 users. We have around 10 technical teams in our control center and 10 engineers monitoring the system who deal with admin, modifications and monitoring the system.

Any patching is tested in Dubai before applying it to the production system. We have minimal contact with the IT technical team. Given that the system is very stable, we rarely talk to the Microsoft technical team. 

There is usually a factory acceptance test, but because of the pandemic we have an agreement with our vendor for the latest project that we will carry out the merger in Saudi Arabia.

We're engaged with a reseller who deals with licensing for us. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

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.

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.

It's a platform, so it brings on a system for the servers themselves. I have multiple services running over Microsoft Servers, for example.SAP, Exchange . All of my services already running are running over this platform.

I also using it occasionally for application access.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its operating system. It's just like Linux or UNIX. 

I'm using all the features within it and find them all quite helpful.

I love using it for the DHCP server, DNS services, and using a computer to map sites on our domain.

The security should be improved, specifically from port security & Allowed protocols,The improvement should retire all marked ports & protocols as a security breach to enhance platform risks & stability . 

Overall, from a security perspective, Microsoft needs to improve.

The Server platform GUI seems to take up a lot of resources unnecessarily.

I've been using the solution for twenty plus years for now.

While the solution hasn't always been stable, starting from the 2012 version, it's increasingly gotten more stable.

Since the 2012 version, we find it to be quite stable. The OS between the resources, between applicators, technical support, etc., is all very easy to handle. We don't have issues with it; it seems to be quite reliable.

The company here is using this solution. Sometimes it's for remote access, however, even if they don't use it for that, they already using is as it's implemented over the Windows Server.

I'm not sure if we'll be scaling any more as everyone is using it.

Registration is very easy, so we didn't need technical support for that aspect of the solution. However, it still requires continual study in order to use everything properly. In terms of speaking with someone directly, I don't have any information about that, and therefore can't comment on the quality of their service.

The initial implementation was not complex. I'd describe the setup as straightforward.

You have to sign off the approach of the planned service, make a timeline, and start to implement a POC. Once you're done with that, you can apply for it online. 

For Microsoft platforms, we have not needed any outside assistance. For the other services, like ERP,  we are already using consultants for implementation.

We're just a customers. We've been using multiple versions of the solution up to the 2016 version.

I would recommend the Microsoft platform and Windows Servers in particular. It's great for implementation into any environment and is easy to use. They have enhanced some security, however, there needs more done in that respect.

That said, from an efficiency, performance, business continuity, and integration standpoint, I'd highly recommend the Microsoft platform. While Linux has a better security layer, if that is your concern, be aware it will require investment in a lot of resources, training. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. To get higher marks, the solution really needs to do something about the GUI & its security, which currently consumes a lot of resources & allowing breaching. 

The main features that we are using are active directory, domain, and DNS. 

They can simplify the utilization and control of the system when you have a lot of setups. They provided something called Windows Center or Control Center in version 2019. It's a free tool that comes with the Windows Server. You can install it on your desktop and use it. 

This tool simplifies the control and monitoring of all servers. If I have 200 servers, I don't need to log in to each one to configure it. I can manage them from this tool. However, this tool needs quite a lot of improvements. It's difficult to use, and they need to improve it. 

I have been using this solution since 1990. Currently, we are using the latest version. We have the cloud and on-premises deployments. 

It is good.

We never contacted them.

The initial setup was straightforward. It took around 15 minutes. Usually, on the server, we don't do the physical installation. When we install initially, we install an image. You just create an image, and that's it. After that, we don't need to do an installation.

There are only two options in the market: Windows and Linux. It depends on your application. If you have an application that requires Windows, you go with Windows Server. Otherwise, you go for Linux. There are not enough choices to choose from and decide. 

They had an issue in version 2016 related to the slowness of update management, but they already solved it in version 2019. It was impacting batch management. The time that Windows required was a lot, but it was fixed in version 2019. That was the only issue we faced in Windows Server. Other than that, it's fine.

I would advise on the version, not on the solution itself, that is, whether to use Windows Server or not. If Windows Server is a required solution, you have to take it. It's not an option. However, I would advise to not use version 2016. 

I would rate Windows Server a ten out of ten. If your application is required on Windows, it's not comparable to any other solution. If an application can work with Windows or Linux, for sure, I'm going with Linux.

We are using Windows Server to run our business application.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

The stability of the Windows Server is good.

The scalability of Windows Server is okay, but it could be better.

The initial setup of Windows Server is simple, and the process took less than half an hour.

We did the implementation of Windows Server internally. We have one person that does the maintenance and support of this solution.

Windows Server needs to be more flexible with the minimum requirements with the license and options. We are on an annual subscription to use the solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.