Windows Server Reviews

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.

The solution integrates well with other platforms.

The solution could improve by making it more secure.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 30 years.

The stability has been good.

We have approximately 100,000 customers.

The installation of the solution is becoming easier every year after new releases. The first installation can take an hour but you can use templates to make the installation very quick.

We have six to eight engineers that do the implementation and maintenance of the solution.

We are with Microsoft's Cloud Solution Provider Program and we pay for a monthly license for this use of this solution and we support our customer subscriptions. The overall price of the solution is good.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

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.

Mostly we use the product for file sharing, and then for database applications. That's about it. We're not running cloud services and other things. 

We're required to support it, however, for the most part, it works well and is reliable. 

Technical support is helpful. There's a lot of documentation and helpful information online as well.

The initial setup is not overly difficult.

The security needs to be improved. That's its weakest area. It's my understanding that they cannot do anything about it at this stage. We have to wait when they are able to, more or less, integrate with Ubuntu, or with Canonical. Then, we will have a server that is quite stable in terms of security. Maybe in five years or six years, then you could see a Window Server which is going to be very impressive.

I've been using the solution likely for 20 years. It's been two decades. I've used it for a while at this point.

The solution is reliable and the performance is good.

We have lots of users, especially those running Oracle. We have close to about 200 users for Oracle that are connected to Windows Server.

We don't have any issues when it comes to Microsoft and technical support. Most of the time it is straightforward. Right now, you can go to the internet, and there are many people who post helpful information for Microsoft products. In the same way for a Linux operating system, we have a lot of users that are posting tutorials for you to be able to learn. It's not something which is very, very hard. It's quite easy already.

I also use Unbuntu and find them comparable. It's like to be able to integrate them together.

The initial installation is pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex.

We have about 30 staff members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance.

Per installation, the deployment time, including the updates, is maybe about three or four hours.

We do have assistance when I'm using an HP serve. They have a way of making the installation much easier.

We do have to pay a licensing fee in order to use the servers.

We've got open licenses for the Windows Server OS, as well as the SQL Server database, and then we have to pay for the device CALs, client access license. 

In terms of versions, right now, we're hooked on OS. We have 2012, and I have 2016. I'm interested in 2019 as well.

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

I'd recommend the solution to others for business use cases. 

We are using Windows Server as an operating platform. It's an Operating system.

We host our products on the Windows Server.

The performance is good.

While it is easy to use, it could be easier. 

The performance is good but we have had some issues when we use virtual machines. Loading and processing a lot of data leads to memory-related issues. As such, while the performance is good, it could still be improved.

We are using version 2012 and it could be that other versions have improved this feature.

We are currently using Windows Server 2012. We have been using this solution for approximately 12 years.

I have no issues with the stability of the Windows Server.

It's scalable. I am satisfied with the scalability of this solution.

We don't have plans to increase our usage.

We don't deal with Microsoft support directly. Our service team is in contact with them if there is an issue.

Previously, I did not use another solution.

The installation was straightforward and easy.

We have a team of server maintenance and network engineers to maintain this solution.

We had help from the Server team to implement this solution.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I  would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We used Windows Server for file sharing and centralized authentication.

We stopped using Microsoft Server in 2012 due to hardware failure and licensing costs. For these reasons, we decided to move to open-source solutions.

Compared to other solutions, the ease of administration is great. 

In regard to the next release, I would like to see a more scalable solution. I would also like to see any future developments on the market because there was a time when most companies would run away from centralized authentication systems, like Active Directory — they moved to cloud solutions. If the service could be better integrated with the Azure Cloud, I think it would be a plus for Windows.

I used Windows Server from 2003 until 2012.

Windows Server is absolutely stable.

I can't comment on the scalability as we were only using two to three servers and we never attempted to scale out any further.

The technical support is okay. As I have a special relationship with them, It's quite easy for me to get a hold of them. 

I started with FreeBSD, then moved to Solaris. Right now I am only using and recommending Linux.

The installation was easy compared to other operating systems, but the documentation part took longer than usual because I typically specialize in Linux-based operations.

I usually handle the implementation myself. If I encounter a specific issue then I may have to apply for a consultant.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight. If your environment requires it, I would absolutely recommend Windows Server.

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.

I'm an ICT system engineer and we are customers of Microsoft. 

The most valuable part about nowadays Windows is PowerShell. They got serious and implemented a real console which was always lacking in Windows. 

Compared to Linux, Windows requires a lot of restarts. If you get a CU update every month, you have to restart. Linux is better in that regard. Sometimes the PowerShell has an overly complicated syntax. 

I'd like to see some more features in the Windows administration kit - the WAC. It's this new product you got on the server and if you have a website you can manage your entire machine. It's a pretty good product, but it's still lacking some features like reporting because it's always a problem to have a dashboard for all your Windows machines, because Microsoft wants you to buy SCCM and all their monitoring services. The WAC is pretty nice but it still lacks some features. It would be great if they would develop it further.

I've been using this solution for 20 years. 

It's pretty stable compared to the old Windows version, except sometimes there are problems with the CU updates. Maybe they should consider not employing so many updates and instead focus on the quality of the updates. 

From the numbers of CPU you can pop into your machine, it's really scalable, but you need to be aware that Windows still has problems with a lot of CPUs. Managing CPUs would likely be better in Windows compared to Linux. 

The initial setup is really straightforward, especially nowadays if you're using a WSUS server together with Microsoft deployment, you'll get it just perfect. It's faster than setting up the Linux box. 

I would recommend this solution but it depends on the software you are going to use it on.  When it's about a high performance web server, I would prefer Linux because you would choose to stick to engines as a web server and this product does not run very well on Windows, so you'd end up with Linux anyway.

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10.