Windows Server Reviews

We primarily use the solution for many things. It's an operating system. We use to run many different application servers like SAP exchanges, and applications in our environment.

Overall, we've been happy with the solution. 

The initial setup is pretty simple.

We can scale the solution if we need to.

The stability is decent. 

Technical support has been okay.

We're concerned about Windows vulnerabilities and how to manage those vulnerabilities ourselves. These are the main things that are tricky in Windows, the environment. 

The performance from time to time can be a bit suspect. 

I've used the solution for quite a long time. It's been something like 20 years or so that I have been using this product.

To a certain extent, I would say the stability is fine. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

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

The size of the company doesn't matter. It works for any size of organization from small to large.

Technical support was okay. We haven't really had any problems with them.

You do have to pay for licensing of the product. 

We are a customer and an end-user of Microsoft. We do not have any special business relationship with them. 

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We're mostly happy with its capabilities. 

I would advise potential users to secure it well and keep it up to date. 

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 primarily use the solution as a base layer for our software. Our developers decided they should create our products based on the Microsoft platform. We have to use the Windows Server as the applied model.

We have some solutions based on Linux, however, Microsoft Windows Server is the primary operating system.

The solution has improved our organization as we are able to sell our products with Microsoft. Without it, we can't make our business work. 

The solution is absolutely integral to our business processes. 

It's a widely used system.

The product is very stable.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

Technical support is very helpful.

I haven't had any experience with active data storage or high-level configuration. From my perspective, Windows Server can stay on this level without any development as it works for me how it is.

The price could be a little less. It's a bit expensive.

Maybe 10 or 15 years ago, there were some problems with stability, however, right now, we haven't needed to install any patches and we have not faced any problems. I'd describe it as quite stable at this point.

The solution is used widely across the company. However, I cannot speak to how many servers we have at this time. 

We do plan to increase usage as we continue to grow.

Microsoft technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. We are very happy with the level of support on offer. 

The initial setup is very straightforward and not overly difficult.

The pricing isn't the cheapest. For example, Linux would be a free option. People don't have to pay for it. With Microsoft, you need to pay to license it. 

We are a customer and end-user. We are also a Microsoft reseller. 

SQL Server 10 can't work without an operating system. It needs to be installed on the machine with an operating system, so it is dependent on it. A Windows Server needs to be installed as a first step before SQL will be installed.

We primarily use on-premies or private cloud deployment models.

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

I'd recommend the solution. It's a very good platform. 

We have many applications which require Windows Server, such as SQL Server and an application server that acts as a middle layer.

The solution is user-friendly, you do not need a command line technical team to operate it.

Windows Server could improve by having a faster browser, IE is too slow. There are better alternatives, such as Chrome.

I have been using this solution for approximately four years.

The solution is highly secure and stable with many policies. We did not have any issues with the performance.

We have approximately 2,000 users using the solutions.

The installation was straightforward.

We have a team that does the maintenance and policies for the solution.

There is not a license required for this solution.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We are using it mainly for Active Directory, Exchange Servers, and file services.

There are a lot of features. Active Directory is most valuable.

It should have more stability and fewer automatic updates. A CLI approach, similar to Linux, is missing right now.

I have been using this solution for 12 years.

It should have more stability.

I am quite satisfied with its scalability. We are an IT company, and we provide professional services to other companies, so we deploy a lot of services. Combined, we have a lot of users, but if you look at a specific company, we have between 200 to 500 employees.

I am satisfied with their technical support most of the time.

We have multiple types of licenses. Some of them are on a yearly basis, and some of them are prepaid.

I would rate Windows Server a seven out of 10.

We use the solution as a server OS. Due to security reasons, we have created some virtual machines instead of on-premise deployments and we are writing SQL queries.

The main feature of the solution is the ease of use.

There should be the ability to add other databases to be installed and configured instead of going to other virtual machines. They should be better integrated so they are all in one place.

I have been using this solution since I started my career, which is a long time ago.

The solution is stable. We created virtual machines with huge configurations and based on our volume of data or jobs it is running it has been performing very well.

It is not scalable because we are dealing with virtual machines. You just log in to the system and you can run the queries. It is not like a database, where you can integrate and process. You can only use it and let the query control the system.

We have five people using this solution in my organization.

If we have an issue we write a ticket to Microsoft and they are able to help us with a solution.

The installation is straightforward, it takes approximately 30 minutes.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution on our DNS network. It's the de facto operating system in our organization.

The solution is very stable. We haven't run into any performance issues so far.

It is very easy to use. The system is very user-friendly.

The solution allows for many applications to run on it.

The initial setup could be easier. Right now, it's more difficult than it needs to be.

The solution is rather expensive and could be more affordable.

I've used the product in many different places and therefore have used it for a long time by this point. It's been many years now, as far as I know.

We've found the stability of the product to be excellent over the years. It's reliable. There aren't really bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable.

The solution can scale quite well. If you need to expand it, you can do so. It works for companies of all sizes.

We have about ten servers in our organization at this time that are Windows Servers. We have two people that manage them for us.

We will continue to use Windows unless, at some point, something else comes along that is cheaper and easier to use.

I haven't really dealt with technical support much. I wouldn't be able to effectively comment on their level of service or their knowledgeability. 

I have some experience with Linux. However, I find it limiting in terms of the number of applications you can actually run on it.

The implementation process for Windows isn't exactly straightforward. It could be easier and more efficient. It can be a bit difficult sometimes.

The initial installation typically takes two to three hours or so.

I handled the implementation with a partner.

Of course, the solution itself is expensive. However, they are not many alternatives. There's very little choice on the market.

We have servers that range from 2012 to 2016 to 2019. We're using both the older and the newest versions of the solution currently.

I would definitely recommend this product to other organizations. If you look at Linux, for example, it's not really a viable option as very very applications run on Linux. In the case of Windows, you don't have that shortcoming. You can run many, many applications on it, which is a good selling point. Many people who have legacy products like to use Windows.

I would rate the solution six out of ten overall.

We primarily use the solution for the Arctic directory, SharePoint, or the Information System's company.

The operating system is the solution's most valuable aspect. Many people on the team are extremely familiar with it.

We haven't had any issues with the server whatsoever. It's been very reliable.

The patching could be better within the solution. There are many updates, however, if you compare it with other parts of Windows, the patching has a different management structure. 

The scalability could be improved a bit. 

I've worked with a company that has had the solution on and off over the course of maybe ten years or so. I've worked with them over the last two months.

The solution is quite stable. I consider it reliable. I don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good overall.

We have at least 2000 uses on the solution currently in my organization. About 60 of those are software engineers and data scientists and other related positions.

I find the scalability to be pretty good. We don't have any issues in that sense. However, it could be a bit better.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

Technical support is good however, you do need to sign a contract with premier support in order to get excellent service.

I don't deal with the pricing aspect of the solution and therefore can't really comment on how much it costs or if we are charged on a monthly or yearly basis.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We're using both the 2012 and 2016 versions of the solution right now.

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten.