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 deploy our solution in Windows Server when our customers are working in Windows. So it depends on the customer's requirements.

Windows Server could always be more secure.

I've been working with Windows Server off and on for many years. I'm not an end-user, but my company deploys our product from time to time on Windows Server when our customers are using that environment. 

In my experience, Windows Server is pretty stable. Then again, I don't have much experience administrating that environment, so I can't really say. But, so far we haven't had any significant issues with Windows Server.

I think Microsoft support is probably pretty standard, but we haven't had any issues with the operating system that would require a ticket. Most of the time we use basic stuff for the operating system, so we're not facing any significant issues on that side.

Setting up Windows Server is pretty straightforward. It takes anywhere from a few hours to a day. One person can do it if it's not a complex environment. At our organization, it would only take a couple of technical experts. We have 100 plus specialists, consultants, and some field teams as well. 

We have a partnership, so we get all of the licensing through that.

I would rate Windows Server eight out of 10, but that's not an expert opinion. I don't specialize in that operating system.

We use this solution as our operating system.

It is very useful, and it is easy to use.

In the next release, I would like to see better pricing.

I have been using Windows Server since the beginning.

We are using the latest version.

Windows Server is stable.

It's an operating system, so scalability is not really applicable.

Everybody in our organization is using this solution. We have approximately 200 users.

We don't have any plans to increase usage.

I have not contacted technical support.

Previously, we had not used any other solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was easy.

It only took five minutes to deploy.

For 200 users, we need one engineer to maintain this solution.

We completed the installation ourselves, we did not use an integrator or consultant.

In general, the pricing can be improved.

Licensing fees are paid on a yearly basis.

I would recommend Windows Server to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate Windows Server a nine 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.

We use a variety of applications that are hosted on our Windows Server.

This product works well for the applications that we have hosted on it.

Stability-wise, there is room for improvement.

We have been working with Windows Server since it was first released.

This is a scalable product. We have thousands of users.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

We have an in-house team responsible for deployment and maintenance.

This is a product I can recommend and as far as I know, we plan to continue using Windows Server in the future.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

We started virtualizing servers to reduce the number of physical servers and to optimize the data center. We started with standalone installations of the Hyper-V server and synchronized with our virtual machine. After that, we built a cluster and all of the VMs were hosted in that environment.

The organization spent a lot of money buying a large number of physical machines, which made up the workspace. With a physical machine, it is easy to incur damage with hardware faults, such as the loss of a disk or another component. With a cluster environment, we obtain an HA solution.

We like all of the features connected with sharing resources, typical of a Hyper-V cluster manager. Several of these further stand out, including:

• The ability to Hot Add resources to the VM.
• The ability to work on the physical server without disconnecting services.
  
• Provides workspaces for the entire organization with fewer resources.

One area that needs improvement is the management console. It seems very easy to use but it is not as powerful as those of other vendors, such as VMware. Their solution allows for operation in a more granular and simpler way. For example, there is a wizard to migrate a VM from one node to another, or from one datastore to another.

I have found Active Directory a valuable feature. When comparing Windows Server and VMware, I prefer the Windows environment because it is very easy to use.

Resolving problems in the Windows environment should be improved. 

In an upcoming release, it would be beneficial to have result sharing with the Remote Desktop Service(RDS) Server from the network.

I have used Windows Server within the last 12 months.

The support from Microsoft is very good.

I have used VMware. The CPU licenses for Windows Server and VMware are different.

Windows Server is easy to deploy in any environment.

I have learned a lot and the Windows environment is very fast.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.