Windows Server Reviews

We are using Windows Server 2016 for our organization's backend applications which reside in a data center. HP provides us with our Windows platforms, and we also have Unix platforms from them as well.

We have been using Windows environments since I joined my organization, which is close to 20 years now. Currently, we're doing what you can call a hosted private cloud with colocation and we are running some huge workloads using Windows Server in this cloud.

From our side, the organization's 2800 end users are mostly running Windows 10 in a highly virtualized environment. So whenever we need more resources, it takes just a couple of minutes to get it up and running.

Overall, Windows Server 2016 provides a stable environment for some of the very large workloads that it is subjected to in our organization, and it is very easy to use.

There are lots of improvements that can be brought by Microsoft, although for us Windows Server works mostly as expected. For how we're using Windows Server, security is a top priority, so when talking security, it can always be improved upon, no matter what.

Then there's the performance side, which is not bad, but we are currently looking to increase capacity and we have found that we need to enhance the hardware to get the performance we are looking for. Because of this, we are going to be refreshing the hardware and moving to new infrastructure in the next few weeks.

I have been using Windows Server for many years now.

It is very stable. 

We have enterprise support with them which I cannot personally comment on.

We are running a form of Windows Servers, from our side, which are highly virtualized. So from where we're sitting, to provision Windows Server takes just a couple of clicks and it is up and running.

For the backend systems where we implement Windows Server at the data center, the entire IT team is around 120 people. Then, from a user perspective, much of it is self-service, meaning users can request to provision as needed from the pool of virtualized resources.

Our current license is an enterprise license agreement which gives you a whole lot of possibility, especially when you go through an R&D process. For example, you can provision everything, spread the service use over six months, and then wrap it up. It gives you a lot of flexibility.

Windows Server is a stable product and there's no way we will change it for something else.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

Work Folder Synchronization: This feature provides offline synchronization of users’ data whether it resides in a desktop, laptop or hand-held device. It also facilitates the BYOD policy if implemented in the company. Its single point of access provides users access to files in online and offline mode with convenience. When the device is connected to the network, data is synched to the storage point as per policies set by the user. The procurement department uses this feature for their purchase-related documents that are shared within department.

Storage Tiering and Pinning: This feature is designed by keeping the data usage frequency in mind. Data that is accessed frequently is stored on a faster hard drive by the operating system. Suppose if you have SSD and SATA or other type of drives, the system will move frequently accessed data to SSD.

Performance-related defaults should be set according to role of the server. Windows 2012 provides a thumbnail view of different roles that a server is configured for. Click on any role, check the event, services and log data for quick review and solution of any issue. These thumbnails of installed roles are pre-configured and disturbing them is not recommended. If any issue with the installed role is detected, the affected part is highlighted with a red-colored font.

I have been using it for about one year.

I have not encountered any stability issues at all.

I have not encountered any scalability issues at all.

Technical support is good.

We were using Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008. We were upgrading our hardware, so decided to upgrade the OS version as well.

Initial setup went through very smoothly.

Licensing is a complex issue when it comes to Microsoft. Read all the detail and assess your requirements before finalizing any licensing option.

Before choosing this product, I did not evaluate other options.

Plan according to your environment.

We are primarily using Windows Server for monitoring purposes.

The most valuable features are the file transfer protocol (FTP) and the secure file transfer protocol (SFTP). These are both used for file sharing.

The reporting, event logging, and event management functionalities need to be improved.

Windows Server needs more applications from the monitoring and backup perspective. These are not incorporated yet. In previous versions, the backup software was available, but not now.

I have been using Windows Server for 10 years.

There are bugs that appear but Microsoft provides updates that can rectify the bugs or expand the number of features.

Most of the features are scalable. Windows 2016 and 2019 may be more scalable, but we have not recently upgraded the infrastructure.

Our customer has a small number of people using Windows Server. 

We began with using Windows Server and we are still using it. We are looking to migrate to Linux as well, but it depends on the infrastructure and the types of licenses. Microsoft recently began including lots of applications that require licenses, where they were not needed previously.

We are also using Ubuntu Linux and CentOS, which are open-source solutions.

Certain tools are easier to use, depending on whether you are using Linux or Windows.

The initial setup is straightforward and our deployment was completed in three months.

When we implement this solution, we start in a development environment and then move it to production.

Our in-house team performed the deployment.

The number of staff required for maintenance depends on the environment, infrastructure, and the type of activity that is being done.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

The solution helps fulfill customer requirements. We use it for applications.

The solution is very stable. There isn't a lot of downtime.

The product can scale. 

The initial setup is very easy.

There was one instance in which, during an installation, I got an error I could not easily resolve.

The performance could be a bit better.

I've used the solution for around ten years or so.

We've found the stability to be reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. there are no bugs or glitches. 

Scalability is possible. If you need to expand it, you can do so. 

We have about 15 customers on the solution right now. 

I've never really had a problem with the solution, and I've worked with it for many years, I've never had to contact technical support in the past.

With ten years of experience under our belts, we've handled implementations many times over. It's not a problem at all for us. We find the process very straightforward, very simple. 

We have five or six engineers on our team that are able to easily handle deployment and maintenance. 

We can handle the implementation process for our clients. 

We are both a customer and a consultant. 

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I started to work as an engineer and I started working with the server in 2012. I've seen many user requirements met by this server, which is why I can confidently recommend it to others. It helps resolve a lot of issues with the infrastructure.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

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 typical server for our organization.

I have found the solution to be flexible and easy to use.

I believe the solution needs to be more secure in the future.

I have been using the solution for 10 years.

The solution has been stable.

The solution is scalable but not as much as some of their competitors. We have approximately 400 users using the solution in my organization.

The support is okay but it takes some time before you have someone on the telephone that is an expert that is needed for the issue.

I have previously used Linux and this solution is not as scalable.

The installation was straightforward.

The deployment is not a single-person job and we have used vendors in the past. For the deployment and maintenance of the solution, we have three technicians.

There is a license needed for this solution.

I would recommend using this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

Most of our computers have the Windows Server operating system, and all of our applications are running on it.

It's easy to use.

The stability could be improved.

The scalability could also be improved.

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

For the most part, we are using version 2015.

It's stable but could be better.

The scalability could be better, it's not very good.

We have approximately 1,000 users in our organization.

We have plans to continuing using this solution.

We have not contacted technical support for Windows Server.

We are also using Red Hat Linux.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It took one to two hours to deploy.

We have one or two people for the deployment.

We completed the installation ourselves.

We purchase licenses.

It's expensive, but we have a need for it and have to purchase it.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.