Windows Server Reviews

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.

We upgraded to 2019 and use this as our operating system for our domain controller, for our file server, and for running our ERP. We're also run our ERP on  Microsoft Dynamics.

Windows Server is most commonly used and practiced. It is compatible with what we are running. You can run Dynamics on Linux or other operating systems, but our clients commonly use Windows Server, Microsoft products, and Office 365.

Often, we get updates that affect productivity. It's the way they do the updates.

After an update has been done, Microsoft notifies us that there is a problem.

It is not practical to have a test environment. There should be an easier process, as currently, it's a bit tedious. They should find a way of proving or revamping this procedure. It should be very fast.

When you are running Windows and Microsoft, you will see an error message regarding ransomware and suggest the security is up-to-date, but the update always affects the operating system. Most of the issues we have are when we apply security updates or critical updates, which will affect the operating system, the production environment, and your business.

It is recommended to have a test environment, run it on the test environment to make sure that it is working well then put it in the production environment. This is a tedious process. Most of the time, people just take a risk and just apply it without doing the test.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 10 years.

We are using Windows 2019, 2016, and 2012.

It's a stable solution.

Windows Server is scalable.

We are also using Exchange version 2016, and Windows 10.

With a proper deployment, Windows Server is good.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

A couple of years ago we migrated from the 2008 to the 2012 version and we are currently in the process of trying to migrate our applications to that of 2019. We use Windows 10 for OS. We're researching z/OS, which is actually Linux based, to see how well it works with Windows applications. 

When it comes to the SQL server, we have separate application and database servers, the latter which is also on Windows Server 2012. This means that we have a couple of applications in which we hosted in IIS and Windows Server 2012. Consequently, we have quite a collection of Windows 2012 that are currently running in our data center. 

For the moment, we are not making use of the solution in our environment but looking into how we can have a license free OS that can both work with lower machines and function very well.

We like the ease of use, stability and performance of Windows Server. The reason I was skeptical when it comes to moving to Windows Server 2019, which is currently the latest version that the market has to offer, is because the solution is easy to use and stable, something typical of any OS. While we are currently inspecting the compatibility of applications that are running on Windows version 2019, we're still using the 2012 version and everything is working fine. We have encountered no problems with the OS being used to run the applications. 

What could help in improving the footprint is if Microsoft could come up with several flavors or start providing containerized solutions for server systems. 

Say, for example, that I wish to host a web server online. I would pose the question whether I would really need to have a Windows Server OS for me to be able to do that on IIS. At the moment, the use of Kubernetes or Docker present the only solution. As there is a steep learning curve for one's team to acquire the skill-set and obtain the capabilities associated with these solutions, a relevant Microsoft version would make life much easier. 

As I have already paid for a license, I should have the option of requesting the containerized functionality from the OS to reduce the Windows Server OS footprint. This will save me from having to make constant installations as a condition of running my servers on it. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years, straight from the beginning. 

We have had no issues with Windows Server that required technical support, although we did have to call the Microsoft team concerning something on which we were working and had issues around the MS Teams and certain things relating to Azure. I can connect you to my system's administrator if you wish, who may have more information. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

I can easily replicate what I want. My environment allows me to clone servers in a matter of mere minutes, as I already have a startup which contains all of my standards. 

One must pay for a license for the solution. 

The number of users utilizing the solution averages slightly north of 500, since this is the application we use in running all our key activities. Each member of our organization's staff requires access to the solution for carrying out several functions, be it in respect of the application or of the need to log into the system as a consequence of this being where the employee management system is located. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

We are using Windows Server on virtual machines running off-premise.

This operating system for business can be useful for personal documents or any daily or routine stuff.

The features that I have found most valuable are its ease of use and the compatibility with most other products.

I would definitely like to see bolting monitoring tools. To monitor the server you usually have to install third party tools. I would like to be less reliant on third-party tools. They always create some sort of security issue regarding ports that need to be opened, that type of thing. Windows Server has internally monitorable software but remote monitoring software would be a great add-on.

In the next version I would like to see monitoring tools or maybe an easier way to figure out who were the last people that were working on the server, something that gives me better insights into the actions taken by different users who need to access the server. Our server is definitely not for everybody to access, but even if it had logging installed or activated, it's quite difficult to figure out who did what.

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

It is a stable solution.

Windows Server is definitely scalable.

We have 200 users using it in the network.

I was not part of the initial setup, I'm not part of the technical team. But I know from the people who did install it that it was quite easy.

On a scale of one to ten I would give Windows Server a nine.

I would recommend Windows Server for users who want to start using it.

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.

We use it for our servers. We have Windows 2012 and Windows 2016. We are not on the latest version, but we are almost there. 

It is pretty simple and flexible. It works with all kinds of software. That's why we are using it. We avoid using Linux and other platforms.

Its performance is also good.

It can have more integration with different platforms. Its installation could also be easier.

I have been using this solution for six years.

Currently, we have around 150 users. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

I don't have experience with their technical support.

Its installation is of medium complexity. It can be tricky.

Normally, the installation takes half an hour to one hour. The updates take more time than the installation.

Normally, I do it myself. Only when I have issues, I use a consultant.

We have a technical team of two engineers for deployment and maintenance.

Its price is fine. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

I would surely recommend this solution to others who want to start using it.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

The solution is basically an operating system for business. We use it for business purposes. that's it.

The performance of the solution is good.

It's very easy and user-friendly compared to any other operating system.

The stability has been good.

The scalability could be better.

I've been using the solution for the last five years or so. It's been a while at this point.

The stability has been good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. Even if we ran into trouble, we know we can rely on Microsoft to help us very quickly.

The scalability is limited. They could make it easier to expand.

I'm working with a startup and I would say there are about 50 people or so on the solution at this time. We don't have a big setup.

Likely, we plan to increase it in the future. By how much, I can't say.

Technical support is responsive. We know if we run into issues, they will respond quickly in order to help us resolve the issue. We are quite satisfied with their level of attentiveness. They are helpful.

We did not use a different solution before setting up this product.

I can't speak to the installation procedures. I've never participated in an initial setup and therefore cannot speak to the process or how easy or hard it was.

I can't speak to the maintenance requirements or how many people on staff look after the solution.

I'm not involved in the licensing aspect of the solution, I can't speak to the company's arrangement with Microsoft. I'm not sure how often we pay licensing fees or how much.

We are end-users and customers. 

We use multiple deployment models, including cloud and on-premises. 

I'm using the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall.

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies. It's worked well for us so far.

We are using this solution for all of our on-premise application servers. The latest version is Windows Server 2019, but we are using Windows Server 2016. We haven't felt the need to upgrade it.

It is easy to use, and its performance is good. 

When it comes to virtualization, VMware is a bit more advanced in terms of security. Hyper-V does provide facilities, but it probably has to do a bit more work in terms of encryption. People will normally go for VMware because of the features that it has as a server, particularly the virtualization feature.

I have been using this solution since 2012.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In terms of its usage, the license that we currently have is good enough for us. We will increase its usage, but we don't need to purchase anything in the foreseeable future. We have enough. 

We are also doing a PoC for moving the server that we have at each location to the cloud. After that is done, we will look at the cost and think about migrating to the cloud.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. The duration depends on how big the installation is in terms of the database and the domain you want to use. It can vary from about an hour to a couple of hours with updates, etc. It could be anywhere from 60 minutes to 3 hours.

All of our people are adept at handling its installation.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.