Windows Server Reviews

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.

Most of the time we use it for user account access. We also deploy Microsoft on machines that must run on Windows. Beyond that, we use it for the remote desktop, and obviously for its mobile Microsoft features.

The active directory that the server provides is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The solution continues to improve and develop and we appreciate that it's always evolving. We've been working with the solution so long, we've seen a lot of changes for the better happen over time.

The pricing aspect of the solution needs improvement. It could be lowered. Over time, the pricing itself has fluctuated, and now, especially pricing around mobile aspects of the solution really seems to be driving everything up.

They also need to work on the license model for virtualization.

The solution could offer higher availability.

Users would benefit if the solution offered better management features.

I've been using the solution for 15 years. I've used it from version NT 4.4 to version Studio 1.6.

The solution is quite stable and continues to grow its stability reputation year over year. The latest version was much more stable than the previous versions.

The solution is easy to scale. If a company needs to expand this solution, they can do so easily. We have a variety of customers that may have as many as 1,000 users at any given time. We typically sell to medium-sized enterprises across three different localities.

Our company uses the solution quite extensively on a regular basis.

We have reached out to Microsoft's support for critical issues in the past to get their assistance.

When we get the support from Microsoft's Shanghai division, the support is very good. I would say, in the case is Iraq to the other regions, such as India, the support is not as good there.

We've used different solutions in the past, however, they don't really fit with most our use cases, and we feel much more comfortable with Microsoft.

The initial setup is easy. It offers a quick download time and easy deployment. I would describe the process as straightforward. It's not complex.

IN a physical environment, deployment wouldn't take more than an hour. On average it might take 30 to 45 minutes. The virtual deployment is much, much quicker.

You only need one person to deploy the solution.

We're resellers, and we sell IT products, so we're able to deploy the solution ourselves. If our clients need help, we can certainly help them deploy the service as well.

If you buy a standard license, you can only buy two towards your machine. If you need more than that, you need to buy another type of licensing. It changes the cost and makes it much more expensive.

We handle both on-prem and cloud deployments. We're in IT services, so we often sell these solutions to our clients. We use the Windows Server ourselves as well.

I'd recommend the solution. It works well, however, users still have to understand Windows and the Windows interface in order to use it correctly.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the product to manage databases for various projects.

The product offers in-house servers. It helps us update them and check any technical issues easily.

The product's user interface upgrades and firewall services need improvement.

We have been using Windows Server for seven to eight years.

The platform provides ease of access to databases in terms of migration.

It is a scalable product. We have more than 200 Windows Server users in our organization. We might increase usage in some of our departments, like support administration, in case the business expands.

We have an in-house technical support team.

The initial setup is easy if you have a basic knowledge of the process. We can deploy it on-premise or on the cloud, depending on the project requirements.

There could be a one-time cost for Windows Server and not every month. It is a huge amount for the companies to pay yearly.

I recommend Windows Server to users working on multiple projects and have an in-house team with enough resources. I rate it a seven out of ten.

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 are using Windows Server for our business applications, ERP and everything else.

Windows Server is running well, the performance is good, there are no issues and it is stable.

Because we are using it a very long time and all our applications need Windows OS to run, so by default, we are using Windows OS.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 20 years.

In terms of the versions we are using, it is mixed - we are using 2016 and 2019. A few of our servers are still using the 2012, also.

In terms of scalability, in one server we need to install only one OS. So if you want to install more OS's in more servers, then we can install it.

The quality of support depends upon the Microsoft products. Sometimes they will provide quick support, sometimes it takes time, so I cannot comment exactly on their support.

Sometimes we are getting very quick support, sometimes it takes time.

We are using Windows Server as well as a few open tool Linux.

Windows Server typically takes around 30 minutes to install.

We need very few people for deploying the Windows Server.

Without a license we cannot use Windows Server. The price depends on the people and their budget. We have our enterprise EA agreement with Microsoft and based on that we are doing the licenses.

Everyone knows how the graphic user interface looks with Microsoft Windows Server.

In terms of whether I would recommend Microsoft Windows Server, it depends on their use case. If their application is running only in Windows Server, they should use the server.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Microsoft Windows Server an eight.

It is very stable and easy to install.

Installation doesn't require a technical team.

Windows Server can be deployed anywhere, like on your desktop, laptop, cell phone, or on the cloud.

I would like Windows to come up lighter because the footprint itself can consume more than 300GB. It would probably take close to 100GB of space to install a Windows operating system because it has got so many features. It should be a core minimalistic addition, and users also should be allowed to add other features when needed. It should be more modular in nature.

The software should be minimalistic. Instead of offering so many options, it should be ideally the core system. Then, if a customer wants to have Active Directory, they should be allowed to do it separately.

There are hundreds of services which are running unnecessarily and slowing the system down or affecting the performance, and that wouldn't be there, which will be an advantage. It will only be the key services that the customer wants to run.

Microsoft technical support could be improved.

I've been dealing with this solution for more than 14 years.

You can deploy it anywhere, like on your desktop, laptop, cell phone, or on the cloud. I have mainly worked on-prem, but recently, I have had a few cloud instances for testing.

The Windows operating system is stable.

My experience with Microsoft technical support has been bad. Getting support from Microsoft is really tough, but if you have some skills around Microsoft, you can do the troubleshooting yourself.

It is easy to install.

It's very simple and doesn't require a technical team.

If you're buying an instance in the cloud, then you'll pay for it monthly. Otherwise, a normal purchase is always upfront; there is no subscription model with Microsoft, at least for the Windows Server licenses.

I would rate this solution at eight on a scale from one to ten.

It's there just hosting the SQL Servers and they're not using IIS or some Microsoft-specific technology. We're just hosting some MSSQL.

The solution is very stable.

The product is scalable. 

The solution is pretty easy to install.

I can't speak to any missing features. I don't have any opinion on how to improve the product.

The solution needs container compatibility. Windows Server is not able via Docker, for example.

I've been using the solution for half a year.

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution scales well. A company shouldn't have any issues if they want to scale. 

That said, I didn't choose Windows Server for that kind of purpose. It's just there for hosting the SQL Server.

There is one user for the Windows Server itself. Everyone else is using just the database and not the Windows Server.

We haven't dealt with technical support yet. I haven't been in contact with them.

We're also using Linux Servers.

The solution is pretty straightforward. It's not overly complex. 

While I didn't handle the installation myself, I would estimate deployment takes about 20 to 30 minutes. 

We have four team members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance. 

We had a team member who handled the implementation in-house. We did not need a consultant or integrator. 

I don't have any insights into the licensing. 

We use the solution both on-premises and on the cloud. 

I'd rate the solution at a five out of ten. I'm neutral on it. It doesn't impress me. It just does what it does. 

I'd advise those considering the solution that if they want to run some Microsoft-specific applications, then there's a lot of choices.

We have an asset management system from a vendor that requires Windows Server. That's where the old content of customers is being stored.

The solution is perfect for Microsoft applications.

The stability is okay.

The solution is scalable.

The installation process is easy.

I don't like it. However, I'm forced to use it, due to the applications, or the vendor supply, that need to run on it. Many of the applications only support Windows Server.

The solution is less stable than Linux.

We've used the solution for a while. We use it constantly.

The solution is pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's pretty reliable. That said, Linux is even more reliable. 

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so easily.

We also use Linux. We're 50% Linux, 50% Windows. 

The installation process is very straightforward. It's very easy. It's not too complex. A company shouldn't have any problems handling the process.

We use various versions of the solution, including 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2019.

We're a service provider. I have colleagues who are MSP-certified. They are the consultants to our customers.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. it's okay. However, it's not my first choice. I find Linux, for example, more stable. 

I would only recommend the solution to a user if they really needed to use it for specific applications. I would not advise it if you needed to install it. I'd only advise it if your application requires Windows. If that's the case, then, of course, you should use it.