Windows Server Reviews

We use this solution for the deployment of virtual machines on Hyper-V.

We moved from having more than twelve physical servers to only five, reducing costs and improving the infrastructure during the process.

The most valuable feature of this solution is Hyper-V Live Migration for Critical applications.

It would be great to have support for direct USB recognition for the virtual machines. This will allow us to easily move files from a USB drive connected to our host to one of our VM's without having to mount and share a drive trough the network to move the files.

The solution is mainly used for personal tasks. A lot of the customers are working with Microsoft solutions. This product works well with Microsoft. That's why we provide the Microsoft Windows Server solution to a lot of our customers.

The solution is very stable.

The scalability has been good.

We find the initial implementation process to be quick and easy.

The interface is good.

We've found the level of security to be fine.

The technical support needs to be improved. 

I've been using the solution for eight years. It's been a while. I've used it for almost a decade. 

The solution is stable. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

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

We only have about 14 people on the solution currently.

Microsoft technical support isn't ideal. They could improve their services. We're not 100% satisfied. 

They could be faster, more knowledgeable, and more customer-friendly. They need to provide more direct answers. 

The installation process isn't too difficult. It's fairly straightforward. 

The deployment is fast and only takes about three or four hours or so. It doesn't take long.

In my organization, we have eight people that can handle deployment or maintenance tasks.

As integrators, we can set up the solution for our clients. I can handle a deployment myself. It's not overly complex. 

Customers do need to pay a yearly licensing fee.

I work with both the on-premises and cloud deployment models.

We're an integrator.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities. 

That said, in Thailand, they do not sell many Windows Servers, so it's difficult to use the product, Windows Server, a lot.

The product is primarily used for applications, data storage, and communications. We also use it for the directory.

The solution is very user-friendly. 

The scalability is very good.

You can deploy the solution either on the cloud or on-premises. 

The solution needs more integration capabilities. 

I've been using the solution for 15 years at this point. It's been well over a decade. I've used it for a long time. 

The scalability of the solution is good. It's not a problem to expand it. 

Likely the entire company is using the solution, however, I cannot speak to exact numbers that are on the solution right now. 

I've never been in touch with technical support in the past. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We did not previously use a different operating system.

I wasn't a part of the installation process. I can't speak to how straightforward or complex it was.

We have 12 to 15 team members that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. There are a manager, an admin, and engineers.

I don't handle the licensing costs. I don't have any visibility as to how much the company pays for licenses. 

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

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

I'd recommend using the solution to other companies.

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

We use this solution as our server application. Several applications are based on this operating system.

Windows server is easy to use.

Windows Server needs to introduce more dashboards.

A common user is not able to implement this solution. It could be simplified.

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

We are using version 2019.

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

We have 45 servers in our organization.

Technical support is good. We have no issues with the support of Microsoft.

We did not use any other solution.

It is quick and easy to install. 

The installation can take up to 45 minutes.

All technical people in our organization need to install Windows Server. Any IT engineer can deploy this solution. However, it cannot be set up by a regular user.

I completed the installation myself.

There is a licensing fee that is paid yearly. 

It is an expensive solution. 

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

It is very popular, I would rate Windows Server a ten 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 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 a system that we have in our company. We are using Windows Server 2016.

It is stable and scalable.

It is not easy to use. It can be more user-friendly to make our routine work a bit easy.

It could also be cheaper.

I have been using this solution for four or five years. 

It is stable.

It is scalable. We have around 1,000 users.

Support is handled by another department.

We didn't use any other solution.

I didn't handle its installation, but based on what I know, it was easy to install.

We install and maintain it with the help of another team in our company. They have three engineers for deployment and maintenance.

It could be cheaper. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

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

We have the product that my team works on and we need to, for example, deploy the solution on running servers. That way, the client can access it and the QAs in our team could test it.

Also, we have some database servers other than the Windows Server. We use it for servers - indicators for better pages for better performance. We create the databases actually. 

The remote session is really helpful due to the fact that we are using Windows on our machines. You can access the remote session easily on that server. There's also the database management tool that we use to run queries and show a relational database check. If there is some problem with the data we can see it. 

It's good for performance testing on the actual app.

The scalability it offers is great. We can upgrade for the internal services. If we want to increase storage, or our clients do, the solution can accommodate that.

Overall it's really easy to use. It's like using Windows, yet with many other features.

The initial setup is very easy.

Sometimes we face some overload on servers. You need to request one of the IT to assist as there is no way that you can do a remote session on it. They need to intervene directly on the server. It has to be done manually. We also can't intervene ourselves as there is no way to log in remotely to the servers. That's why IT needs to get involved. It's a pain point for us as all you can really do is wait.

In a future release, it would be helpful if there were more tools to help us do some performance testing. The last time we needed to look for tools online and choose some third-party tools to analyze how the application is performing. If they could instead provide us with pre-installed tools, that would be better. There are some but they don't really give you the information that we are looking for. 

We've been using the solution for the last 12 months. We use it pretty much daily.

The stability is good. It's extremely reliable. We are using it in both the development phase and in production whenever we have a release for a client. It doesn't crash or freeze. There are no bugs or glitches.
It also provides multiple metrics that help us supervise the overall performance of the server based on data collected over the lifetime.

For my own team, from our own premise, there are more than a hundred users at any given time on the solution. Sometimes there could be multiple deployments on one server. 

We do have plans to increase usage. It comes with a variety of good features and it's quite useful to us. 

I haven't personally worked with technical support in any capacity. However, I have colleagues that have opened tickets and they don't have any complaints. They are helpful and reliable when dealing with our team.

The initial setup was straightforward. There are some requests from the clients to use HTTPS and therefore we needed to test some certificates. The documentation thing for Amazon or Microsoft is really detailed at the center. It's easy to find the details you need.

We do have a license from Microsoft.

I can't speak to how the subscription works however it's my understanding that it's paid yearly due to the fact that it's a large-scale scheme.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

We have servers deployed within the company's headquarters right here in Tunis which we use for internal purposes. For other clients, it's deployed in other data centers, and they have access to them from our company.

I'd recommend this solution to other companies and users. There are some clients that require this particular server and there are some older solutions that require deployment on a Windows Server. That said, we've moved to .net code to support both Microsoft and Linux.

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