Windows Server Reviews

We use the solution as a server for our information at our company.

The most valuable features I have found to be the flexibility and wide range of support training available.

In the future, there should be better protection for this solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately 20 years.

The solution is stable. However, you can receive a lot of cyberattacks. We need to invest more in security when we are using Windows. It tends to be the target of attacks and hacks compared to other operating systems, such as Linux. 

We have approximately 400 users using the solution in my organization.

We used Ubuntu Linux previously.

The installation of the solution is easy. The time depends on what you are going to configure on the server. The install itself can be done in approximately 10 minutes.

We did the implementation ourselves and we use a team of two developers and three administrators for maintenance.

I would recommend this solution. However, I would advise investing in more security measures. We plan to continue using the solution in the future.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

Most of the time we use it for user account access. We also deploy Microsoft on machines that must run on Windows. Beyond that, we use it for the remote desktop, and obviously for its mobile Microsoft features.

The active directory that the server provides is the solution's most valuable aspect.

The solution continues to improve and develop and we appreciate that it's always evolving. We've been working with the solution so long, we've seen a lot of changes for the better happen over time.

The pricing aspect of the solution needs improvement. It could be lowered. Over time, the pricing itself has fluctuated, and now, especially pricing around mobile aspects of the solution really seems to be driving everything up.

They also need to work on the license model for virtualization.

The solution could offer higher availability.

Users would benefit if the solution offered better management features.

I've been using the solution for 15 years. I've used it from version NT 4.4 to version Studio 1.6.

The solution is quite stable and continues to grow its stability reputation year over year. The latest version was much more stable than the previous versions.

The solution is easy to scale. If a company needs to expand this solution, they can do so easily. We have a variety of customers that may have as many as 1,000 users at any given time. We typically sell to medium-sized enterprises across three different localities.

Our company uses the solution quite extensively on a regular basis.

We have reached out to Microsoft's support for critical issues in the past to get their assistance.

When we get the support from Microsoft's Shanghai division, the support is very good. I would say, in the case is Iraq to the other regions, such as India, the support is not as good there.

We've used different solutions in the past, however, they don't really fit with most our use cases, and we feel much more comfortable with Microsoft.

The initial setup is easy. It offers a quick download time and easy deployment. I would describe the process as straightforward. It's not complex.

IN a physical environment, deployment wouldn't take more than an hour. On average it might take 30 to 45 minutes. The virtual deployment is much, much quicker.

You only need one person to deploy the solution.

We're resellers, and we sell IT products, so we're able to deploy the solution ourselves. If our clients need help, we can certainly help them deploy the service as well.

If you buy a standard license, you can only buy two towards your machine. If you need more than that, you need to buy another type of licensing. It changes the cost and makes it much more expensive.

We handle both on-prem and cloud deployments. We're in IT services, so we often sell these solutions to our clients. We use the Windows Server ourselves as well.

I'd recommend the solution. It works well, however, users still have to understand Windows and the Windows interface in order to use it correctly.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for Windows Server is to support applications and distribute them to all the company users.

The solution is invaluable, we need it for file and emails servers.

The solution has plenty of features.

I have been using Windows Server 

The solution is highly stable.

Windows Server is highly scalable.

The technical support could improve.

I have used Windows 10. If you compare Windows 10 to Windows Server they are very different. The Windows Server is supporting all the company users. While Windows 10 is a personal operating system.

The setup is very easy.

The price of the solution could improve.

I would recommend this solution to others, it can implement easily, it is very stable and reliable.

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.

The solution is very useful if the company doesn't want open storage, OS. In those cases, we usually recommend customers to use Microsoft services. Most of the time it's actually the client who gives us advice on what kind of OS they want to use and they will just ask for the quotation. 

The solution is very flexible.

We find the solution to be easy to use and simple to navigate. 

The stability is very good.

The security on the server has been great. It's much more secure than, for example, other open-source operating systems.

We find the solution very easy to install. 

Technical support is very helpful.

The solution could be more reasonably priced.

We've been dealing with the solution for a couple of years at this point. It's been a while now. We've had some time with it. 

The stability of the product is good. The product doesn't crash or freeze and there are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable. 

There is no need to scale the solution. It's not the type of solution that really needs to scale.

I'm not sure the exact number of people using the solution. It's my understanding that it's over ten at this time. 

Technical support is very fast when it comes to replying. They were able to solve any issues we raised with them. We're satisfied with their level of service. 

The initial setup is not complicated to set up. It's pretty simple and straightforward. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process. 

The deployment process may take about 30 minutes or so, as long as you don't run into any errors.

You only need two technical people to manage the deployment process. You don't need a very big team.

The pricing could be a bit more competitive.

The solution offers a permanent license. You don't have to pay a monthly or yearly subscription. 

We are Windows Server consultants. 

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We've been quite satisfied with its capabilities. 

I would recommend the product to other users and companies, especially those that don't want to use an open-source option. 

The solution is primarily used to deploy applications into the cloud and as remote information storage. Additionally, it is useful for test purposes. 

I find the solution to be easy to use, flexible with overall great performance.

The solution would be better by implementing more security and integration. 

Among some of the additional features, I would like to see in the next release are more integration and security.

I have used the solution for a few years.

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable. We have approximately 20 people using the solution. 

The installation was straightforward and took approximately one hour. 

I have deployed the solution by myself. 

The solution requires licencing. 

I will continue using and recommend the solution. 

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten. 

We use it for the operating system.

I like its simplicity. 

It would be better if they had more security features and fewer bugs. They can also improve their technical support.

I have been working with Windows Server for about ten years.

Windows Server is a stable solution.

Windows Server is scalable.

Technical support isn't very good. I would rate it somewhere in the middle.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It could be cheaper. 

I would tell potential users that it depends on the solution and the setup. If it's related to security, maybe it's better to go for Linux. If they're looking for usage and administration, they can go for Windows.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Windows Server a seven.

We use this solution for virtualization and the remote desktop.

We like the performance. 

We use this solution because we need Microsoft. It's not a choice about the other operating systems.

I have been using Windows Servers for approximately five years.

We are not yet using the latest version. We are using version 2016.

We have approximately 80 users in our company and we have a range of a couple of customers to 1,000 customers who are using this solution.

Technical support is okay.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Depending on the size of the infrastructure, you need one single person single-handedly to four or five people to maintain this solution.

The price could be better and the licensing model could be easier to understand.

Our customers prefer lifetime licenses.

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

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We're using it primarily for domain control, additional domains, and servers. Everything is used under the Windows platform.

I like that it's simple and the users are happy. 

It could be more secure. We can't compare it to other products because they have their own security and all those things. When it comes to email security, there are issues. Microsoft products used to get hacked all the time, but we're still comfortable with that.

I have been using Windows Server for almost ten years, and we're still using it.

It was a straightforward installation.

My four-member team of engineers can install and manage it themselves.

I would recommend this solution to potential users.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Windows Server a seven.