Windows Server Reviews

I use Windows Server 2015.

We have data center and now we use the software to do the virtualization. We develop certain functions. 

While the solution is stable, it could be more so. There are times when there is a need to make corrections. 

It would also be nice to see more integration. 

I have been using Windows Server for awhile, at least for a couple of years. 

Although the solution is stable, this could stand some improvement. 

Owing to the distance which is sometimes involved, the technical support can stand improvement. 

Windows Server is very easy to install. There is no issue in this regard. It can be done on one's disc, if he has one. 

The deployment can be done with rapidity and much ease. 

While I have five people in my organization, the deployment can be handled by a single engineer in my company. 

There are no fees involved in the solution. 

The government directly pays the licensing fees for all public organizations, of which we are included. The organization's name is IDU, which does license development for the country in the computer science department. They give us the SQL Server and Microsoft Office to install in our public hospital.

I work in MS Office, Oracle and SQL Server. Our company primarily uses MS Office. 

We have, perhaps, 200 users. 

I would recommend the solution to others, as I have done so in the past. 

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten. 

We're using Windows Server for its basic function. We use it to run applications, but there's a team who manages that, and they are certified. I'm not the one managing. I'm just a user.

The Windows Server interface is okay, though it would still depend on the usage perfective. The interface is what I like about this solution.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Windows Server is for it to have faster updates.

I've been dealing with Windows Server for five years now.

Windows Server is stable. I've had no issues or problems with it.

I've evaluated Linux.

I'm using both Windows and Linux operating systems.

We have a team who does the installation of Windows Server, so I'm unable to give information on whether it's easy or complicated to install. For deployment and maintenance, we have five to eight people in charge.

We have 30 to 50 end users of Windows Server within our company, and currently we don't have plans of increasing usage.

Whether the technical support for Windows Server is fast or is knowledgeable, it would depend. It's a case to case basis, but I'm not the one who's creating the tickets, so whenever we have any issues, we send it to our team who's in charge of creating the tickets for the Windows support team.

Windows Server is a solution I can recommend to others, if we're basing my recommendation on my satisfaction with it.

I'm rating Windows Server a five out of ten.

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.

The product is stable. It's reliable. 

Microsoft is a trusted brand and I enjoy working with it.

The graphical user interface could be better. It's a little dated. 

I do not like Microsoft's intrusive policies. 

We've used Windows Server for quite a long time. We've used it since around the 2012 version at least. 

The stability of the product is relative. Certain services are better handled by the Microsoft system. For example, the active directory. Microsoft Hyper-V, we use in many, many cases. However, with Linux systems, we don't have the ability to use some features of these systems. For example, with the authentication server, we use the Windows Server in most cases. If we do that, it's stable.

We have 100 people, more or less, on the solution.

We have technical support. We pay in order to have access to them.

I'm also familiar with Linux, although I prefer Windows.

I wasn't a part of the initial setup. It was already in place when I arrived at the company.

I was not involved in the acquisition of the solution, so I do not have exact details about the pricing.

We do pay for technical support. We have that until December and then we will need to re-subscribe. 

We are a public company, a government company, and, due to legislation, most of the time, we can't simply choose a vendor. If we need to acquire a contract solution, we make a technical study where the features are evaluated and the final specifications are always based on features, not on vendors, or manufacturers.

We are service providers. We are implementers and sometimes we do the plans of the implementation.

We are a customer of Windows Server. Our company has an active contract for technical support as well.

We use the current version and past versions too in a hybrid environment.

The local infrastructure is hybrid in the sense of we maintain a large spectrum of systems. For example, legacy systems are on the same infrastructure as a Windows Server 2019, for example. Basically, legacy systems are on the same network as the most recent system.

I'm note of a Windows guy than a Linux guy. I like this product.

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

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 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.

Windows Server can be used for various mission-critical applications, such as SAP, web servers, SQL databases, and hosting. Various security applications, for example, Symantec or McAfee, all need Windows Servers as the back end to operate. Additionally, this solution can be used to build up a Failover Cluster.

If everything is configured correctly this solution provides high performance. Building a Failover Cluster is comparatively much easier in Windows Server than any of the Linux-based solutions.

They should release a command-line version of the solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately 15 years.

Windows Server is stable. However, there is some maintenance required for smooth operations.

The solution can easily scale.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately one hour.

If the server environment is large I would advise using an integrator. We have a team that does the maintenance of the solution which is important because it is used for mission-critical applications.

The solution could improve by changing the licensing model. In Windows Server 2008 they provided two versions, one regular and the other was free with no graphics. In Windows 2012 they stopped providing the free version. They should go back to the previous model and let customers have the choice whether they want to opt for a free version or have the Microsoft supported version or the OEM version.

If you choose Windows Server on-premises, you will receive a perpetual license and there is also a subscription license option. For the cloud version, there are several options available, such as a monthly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

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.