Windows Server Reviews

We use Windows Server for endpoint security because there is an application we have working on it called Trend Micro.

Windows Server performance is very good for backups.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately six months.

Windows Server is a stable solution.

The scalability of Windows Server is very good.

We have five people in my organization using this solution. We plan to increase the usage in the future.

The support we have received from Microsoft has been quick.

The initial setup is simple for some but difficult for others.

We have two technicians that do the maintenance and deployment of the Windows Server.

I paid for a license to use Windows Server. It is a subscription-based license and it is purchased annually.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We login and run our personal and business applications on Windows Server. We have 50 users in our organization.

The performance of Windows Server is good.

The solution is old so it is not user friendly. I assume that he newer versions would be better than our current one.

We have been using Windows Server for five years.

Windows Server is stable, we have had no issues.

The solution has been installed for many years.

We pay a license to use Windows Server.

I would recommend Windows Servers to others who would like to start to use it. I would rate it an 8 out of  10.

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.

I just use Windows Server to install third party software, things like data integration tools and BI tools. One of the uses was to set up an on-prem Active Directory. So these kinds of things.

The feature that I have found most valuable is the Active Directory. I have had good experience with Windows Server. I haven't had any issues

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the Active Directory synchronization on Azure. This is something which was not easy to do. Using Azure Active Directory, I was trying to sync and this was not straightforward. This process could be more simplified.

I have been using Windows Server for the past eight, nine years.

It is a stable product.

In terms of the maintenance it requires, maybe there are some regular updates. We do make some backups as well. But this is a lab environment, we don't have much sensitive information stored here.

Windows Server is easy to scale.

We have 15 people using it.

I do have experience with Microsoft support in general, but not related to Windows Server.

In general, my experience with Microsoft support is good.

If we are talking about Windows like Windows 11 or Windows 10 versus Mac OS? For personal use, I believe Mac is overall simpler and has a better user experience. It is a little bit more robust. I just prefer the way the application installations are done and services are managed within the Mac OS.

But for work, I cannot compare Mac OS to a Windows Server. I can compare Mac OS to Windows 10 or Windows 11.

The initial setup was a simple one. It took maybe an hour.

I did it by myself and we had a bunch of engineers as well, who were working on it.

It is a fair price. For Microsoft overall, we have a subscription with Office. So there is also a bundle for Windows.

The price is good. It is cheaper than Mac OS. In this case, it's better in terms of price.

I would recommend Windows Server because it's just easier to use for some people than Red Hat. That's the main thing - it is easier to use and maintain versus other operating systems within the Linux space.

On a scale of one to ten, let's be generous and give Windows Server an eight.

Windows Server is easy to use. It's user-friendly for the admin guys.

Windows should add some more compatibility tools to Windows Server.

We've been using Windows Server ever since it was first released. 

Windows Server is quite stable.

We haven't had any issues with Microsoft support thus far. 

Installing Windows Server is quite easy. I'm not exactly sure how long it takes to deploy. My team does that. We have a team of two to three Windows admin guys who manage the solution.

I rate Windows Server nine out of 10. I would recommend it to others.

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 use this solution for many purposes, such as managing user accounts in Active Directory, storage, hosting applications, and remote server access.

The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, flexibility, and functionality.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 16 years.

The solution is stable.

There are five people using the solution in my organization.

I am currently still using Windows 10.

The installation is straightforward and it took 45 minutes.

I did the implementation myself and we have one engineer that does the maintenance of the solution.

The price of the solution is expensive, and there are many price options available, such as monthly or perpetual licenses.

I would recommend this solution.

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.

We use this solution for business applications.

It's user-friendly.

The security is not good. Windows Server has never been secure. You have put firewalls in place and do other things such as installing anti-virus software to secure Windows, otherwise, it won't work well.

Windows will never be secure, but it should be.

We have been using this solution for several years from 2008 to version 2015. We use it extensively.

Technical support is fair. It's okay.

It is very easy to install.

It doesn't take very much time at all, it's very easy, just click until it's finished.

I completed the installation myself.

It is priced very well and we pay an annual license fee.

It's not very expensive when compared to Linux.

We plan to continue to use this solution and would recommend it to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.