Windows Server Reviews

I used the solution for my file server, music server, and document management system.

The solution is quite stable. It's very common, so finding applications and support is easy. The security is fine. The single sign-on makes it easy for the users, and the ability to automatically deploy software to everybody is good.

The administration interface should be more user-friendly. Some parts of the administration interface have been upgraded, while others are old-fashioned. The vendor must update everything with the same user interface and make it more modern.

I have been using the solution for 25 years.

I rate the tool’s stability a 10 out of 10.

The tool’s scalability is fine.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. Due to the Windows updates, it always takes me two days to install Windows Server.

I can do the deployment myself. I just had one server.

It's easy to get support. It's well known, so we can find answers anywhere. The tool supports many applications. It’s simple. It’s not cheap, but it works. The ROI is pretty good.

We had an annual license. The product was quite expensive.

I have also used Linux servers. Windows has better application compatibility, availability, and ease of use.

I have never used Microsoft's virtualization features. Windows is one of the most common operating systems. Many applications are available for it, so it's hard to go wrong if we have the money to pay for it. Overall, I rate the product a 9 out of 10.

We mainly worked with Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2016 as they were the go-to operating systems for applications like Excel Server and various other software. We occasionally used Linux servers, especially for databases and specific applications, but most of our work was on Windows servers.

When we deploy this operating system, we're primarily focused on managing virtual environments. There are different parts like the directory, data storage, and CPU usage which are really useful. We also compare it to other parts like group policy, all of which are related to users. Currently, I find that users are very involved when it comes to these applications or servers on the two other links.

I believe that Windows Server can be somewhat vulnerable compared to other options, but its security can be improved. I also think that the setup process can be somewhat complex, depending on the applications involved.

Regarding the security features of Windows Server, while it offers some built-in security measures, it's not sufficient to solely rely on them. Additional external devices such as firewalls may be needed for comprehensive protection. Deploying antivirus and firewall software on the server is advisable, but having an external firewall adds an extra layer of security.

When migrating to Windows Server from previous versions or other platforms, noticeable improvements were observed, particularly in the utilization of graphical interfaces. Windows offers robust graphical guidance, especially compared to Linux or other systems like Acronis, making it easier to navigate and manage various functionalities.

I have used Windows Server for a couple of months.

I found it somewhat lacking in responsiveness at times.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate Windows Server around a 5 or 6.

When it comes to recommending Windows Server to others, it depends on the critical applications being used. If you're installing an Oracle database, for example, I wouldn't recommend Windows Server. In such cases, Linux or similar platforms might be more suitable. However, for tasks closely related to Windows environments, like utilizing Microsoft products extensively, Windows Server could be a faster and more compatible option, especially when it comes to firewall capabilities.

I use Microsoft System Center to manage our Windows Server.

My organization benefits from the use of the product since it is a tool that offers security while being user-friendly and easy to manage.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance. My company currently uses Microsoft SCOM to monitor the performance of Windows Server. My company wishes to have some applications on QRadar or log management tools like ELK.

The product has certain shortcomings related to security capability in the area of incident response, making it the tool's component where improvements are required. My company uses QRadar to resolve our server-related issues quickly.

I have been using Windows Server for twenty years.

It is a stable solution. More than 15,000 people in my company use the solution.

My company has no plans to increase the use of the solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is deployed on the cloud model.

To start the deployment process in our company, we first need to make a request to the IT team. After that, the IT team looks at the requirements and deploys the server. In our company, we have a system to follow the deployment process.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of minutes since our company already has some idea and image about Windows Server. My team deploys the product in a couple of minutes every time there is a requirement in a department that is associated with our company.

Around three people in my company are required to take care of the product's deployment and maintenance processes.

My company has an enterprise agreement with Microsoft. I feel that the price of the product is okay.

Windows Server helps our company to install a virtual environment.

Speaking about the beneficial features of Windows Server for our company's IT infrastructure, I would say that my company uses Microsoft Active Directory, along with some other services like Office 365 and the cloud services offered by Microsoft.

There are product security updates, which serve as a security feature for our company.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it, but they need to use it based on their requirements.

My company did not face any problems while using the integration capabilities of the product with the existing systems in our environment.

The only problem with Windows Server stems from the area revolving around the software lifecycle since our company has to apply the latest version to our current system every couple of years.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I use the solution in my company for our applications and security.

Windows Server is similar to any other typical server, considering that there are multiple servers available in the market. The ease of administration that the product provides is one of the reasons why my company uses it.

The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required, considering that there has been an increase in the tool's licensing costs, especially the ones required for virtualization.

The scalability of the product needs to be improved, considering that organizations may have an increase in resource requirements.

I have been using Windows Server for a few years. I use the versions that were released in 2016 and 2018.

It is a stable solution. Compared to the stability offered by the product in the previous year, I feel that there have been improvements in the current year.

I have experience with the solution's technical support. My company is able to find solutions to our ratios with the help of the product's technical team. The product's technical team is neither good nor bad, meaning the support team offers normal support services.

My company uses IBM Power AIX and SUSE Linux Enterprise servers. My company has also tested some of the Linux servers' versions.

With the help of SentinelOne, Windows Server was installed and used for the management of the virtual environment. My company also uses a PAM solution along with a security-oriented product.

The product's installation phase is easy.

In my company, we know the product's deployment process. Due to the aforementioned reason, it doesn't take my company much time to deploy the product.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises and cloud model.

It is an expensive product. My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product.

My company uses Windows Server, considering the knowledge that my organization possesses about the product and the information concerning the integration capabilities the tool offers.

The security features offered by the product to protect our enterprise's resources are good. Though there is a scope for improvement in the product's security features, it is one of the most used solutions in the world when compared to the other tools in the market.

It is one of the cleaner systems available in the market that can be tailored to fit into your environment. Most people have experience using Windows Server in their environment. Windows Server is the easiest option my company chooses, considering the amount of experience we have with it in our environment.

I don't think that I have any special comments on how the product has improved our company's system performance area.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

I use Windows Server primarily as an Infra Server and Active Directory domain controller. It acts as a domain controller, chain email server, application server, and file server.

Windows Server offers good operational benefits. It is quite sustained, provides good support, and is quite reliable.

All features are required for managing my data center. The domain controller is for Active Directory, and if you need to include an email server, you can't ask about features individually since all features are necessary.

The price is very expensive. It would be excellent if Microsoft could reduce the price. Also, the support team is getting worse in terms of expertise. No cost-saving benefits have been observed.

I have been working with Windows Server for almost 20 years.

For stability, I rate Windows Server seven out of ten.

Scalability is rated eight out of ten.

The customer support team is not satisfactory. Their expertise has diminished. I rate them two out of ten.

Negative

The setup is easy. I would rate it a nine out of ten. Deployment takes about five minutes per server.

You need at least a team of two people for deployment to manage and support, especially when one person is unavailable.

There is no cost saving. I have not observed any cost-saving benefits.

The price of Windows Server is very expensive. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I rate it ten out of ten.

It's better to have your own internal server capabilities. Do not rely on the support; you need your team to manage and support the server.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use Windows Server for Active Directory (AD). We use the solution to manage user data and access through Active Directory. We use Windows Server to host and configure the mail servers.

Since Windows Server has a graphical user interface (GUI), it is easy to use and implement the services that we are using.

Compared to Linux, the solution is a bit difficult to deploy. The solution should have a faster deployment.

I have been using Windows Server for more than five to six years.

The solution has good stability.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 50 employees are using the solution in our organization. The solution is used extensively in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

The solution's installation process is a bit lengthy and hectic. It took more time than the Linux operating system used to take. Our in-house team follows the documentation part, and we do the deployment ourselves from scratch.

We use only the license versions of Windows Server.

We currently have our own data center where we host the services. Since we are a government-based R&D organization, we do not trust any cloud platform services like Azure, Google, and AWS.

We had to configure all the services and features that were available. We had to look for additional plugins that we could create and integrate for the security of our organization. I would recommend Windows Server for an organization dependent on the GUI part. Otherwise, I recommend using Linux servers.

The hardware requirement for Windows Server is very large compared to Linux. For that, we need to use or deploy the maximum hardware that is necessary.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use Windows Server for network management. 

The product is reliable. It is powerful and we can make a lot of tools to work with it. 

Windows Server needs to improve stability and pricing. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

The product is stable. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Windows Server is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The technical team is knowledgeable and responsive. 

Windows Server is easy to deploy. You only need to install the application. The deployment steps typically involve working with virtual environments. We use templates to set up the machines, specifying the number of interfaces, IP addresses, and routing information. After that, we shift to the system, and the process of putting on the applications is relatively fast. You need around 30 technical resources to handle maintenance and deployment. 

Windows Server is worth its money. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. We use Windows Server and Red Hat Linux, depending on the application. If the application is designed for Windows, we opt for Windows Server as it is easier to install and deploy.

It is used for day to day purposes. 

The simplicity of the solution is the most valuable aspect. 

They could make it more company-specific to some of the tools that we use.

I have experience using Windows Server. 

The stability is very high. 

Close to a thousand users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is an expensive solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.