Windows Server Reviews

We primarily use the solution as our general operating system.

The only thing that is extremely valuable about the solution is that most applications run on it. That's where it brings the value in as we have the server to run our applications.

The product is stable.

I can't think of any improvements off the top of my head. 

There's always room for improvement. However, I'm not in the main IT department, and therefore, I'm not as close to the product as others on my team.

The company has used the solution for quite a while. They were using it well before I arrived at the organization.

The solution seems to be quite stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

To my knowledge, we have not dealt directly with Microsoft support. We haven't really had a need.

For the most part, we didn't do the initial setup on it. We either buy the product with Microsoft already installed or the system integrator will install it.

We have systems administrators that can maintain the solution. We have a few people on our team that can handle any tasks. 

Occasionally, we have a systems integrator that assists in the installation or it comes pre-installed.

I don't deal with pricing or licensing. I can't speak to how much the licensing costs. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten overall. We've been overall very pleased with the product.

We use Windows Server for process control in process control systems. Right now, the operations team is the only one using the solution. They conduct day collection for our process control system.

Windows Server provides a robust operating system that keeps our processes running 24 hours a day without any downtime.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is its scalability and robustness. 

Windows could add more tools to monitor the health of the server.

I've been using Windows Server for 15 years. 

Windows Server is highly robust. We only have to do maintenance on the system once yearly.

Windows Server is very scalable, but we don't have any plans to increase our usage in the near term.

So far, we've only had good experiences with Windows support.

We were previously running Unix, but the manufacturer of our control system forced us to switch to Windows Server. We didn't have a choice.

We set up the servers ourselves. The time needed to deploy varies from server to server.

Windows could always lower the cost.

I rate Windows Server about a nine out of 10. It's very robust, but there is always room for improvement in monitoring and other features.

The solution is mainly used for personal tasks. A lot of the customers are working with Microsoft solutions. This product works well with Microsoft. That's why we provide the Microsoft Windows Server solution to a lot of our customers.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability has been good.

We find the initial implementation process to be quick and easy.

The interface is good.

We've found the level of security to be fine.

The technical support needs to be improved. 

I've been using the solution for eight years. It's been a while. I've used it for almost a decade. 

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

The solution is very scalable. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem. 

We only have about 14 people on the solution currently.

Microsoft technical support isn't ideal. They could improve their services. We're not 100% satisfied. 

They could be faster, more knowledgeable, and more customer-friendly. They need to provide more direct answers. 

The installation process isn't too difficult. It's fairly straightforward. 

The deployment is fast and only takes about three or four hours or so. It doesn't take long.

In my organization, we have eight people that can handle deployment or maintenance tasks.

As integrators, we can set up the solution for our clients. I can handle a deployment myself. It's not overly complex. 

Customers do need to pay a yearly licensing fee.

I work with both the on-premises and cloud deployment models.

We're an integrator.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities. 

That said, in Thailand, they do not sell many Windows Servers, so it's difficult to use the product, Windows Server, a lot.

We use Windows Server mainly for deploying high-end applications and databases.

The most valuable features are the ease of access and maintaining the solution.

The security could improve. If you are comparing the Linux operating systems and Windows Server, Windows Server is still way behind in terms of security. Microsoft can enhance security instead of having customers rely on third-party security tools.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

Windows Server is stable.

The solution is scalable and flexible to expend.

We have approximately 25 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support and local support from Microsoft are good and there is a large online community that can support us. If we ever have any problems or bugs with the solution we can reach out to those supports to help us. However, we have not encountered any issues at this time.

If it is a basic installation then it is pretty straightforward. However, if you need to do a lot of configurations you will need some technical knowledge.

We can do the implementation ourselves, but mostly we distribute the task to consultants because they know the timeliness and the amount of work that needs to be done.

We have our IT support team of administrators and technicians that needs to manage the resources and in some cases do patch management and maintenance. For server maintenance, we need an expert that understands how to scale up or scale down the server.

There is a one-time purchase for the license of Windows Server.

Technically we only have two options to choose from for a solution to our use case. One is red Hat Linux and the other is Windows Server. Some of the applications that the team needs to develop only work on Windows Server. Based on the use case and the ease of access we went for Windows Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We are using Windows Server to run applications.

The solution could improve by being more secure.

I have been using Windows Server for a couple of years.

We have been using this solution for a long time and it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We are using virtualization servers, and on average we have installed approximately 200 servers.

We have not needed to contact the support.

The installation is straightforward.

We have two managers doing the maintenance of the solution and a team of five that handles the operations.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

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.

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. 

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.