Windows Server Reviews

We do software services, and most of the time we use this for UAT and testing purposes.

The availability of resources that are aware of Windows is great. It's more than any operating system. 

The support that Microsoft provides for this is very good. If you have an issue with the Windows Server, you'll get a lot of support from Microsoft.

The integration is great.

The interface and dashboards are fine.

While I would say scripting needs improvement, I've noticed that they started to do this couple of years ago. They do have their own WSL and PowerShell Scripts.

Generally, there is always room for improvement. However, nothing comes on top of my head right now. 

For countries in the Middle East and Africa, their pricing is a little bit high. Microsoft is having unified pricing across the globe. That's an issue. They don't negotiate on that. It's very expensive for many countries in this region.

They have something called Windows Server Core, and it doesn't have a graphical user interface, which is fine. However, there should be a management console or something that you can hook up to Windows Server Core so you can manage it much easier if you need UI or something.

We have used the solution since the beginning of the company, about 12 years at this point.

Technical support is great. If a company needs assistance, Microsoft is great at helping assist in troubleshooting. We are satisfied with the level of support.

We use Windows and Azure, Google Cloud GCP, and many flavors of Linux. For the database, we also use SQL Server and MySQL.

The pricing is high in certain regions as they don't price adjust for certain countries. They also do not negotiate their pricing. The cost is the cost. 

We use various deployment models, including on-premises, on the cloud, and hybrid.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. If the pricing was more flexible, it would be better for the customer.

We used Windows Server to host a couple of virtual machines.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is that it is intuitive and easy to use.

The solution’s stability could be improved. The Windows server image was quite large and took some time to be installed.

We used Windows Server for a few months for demonstration purposes.

Windows Server is a stable solution, and I had no issues with its stability.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten for stability.

Around 160 users are using Windows Server in our organization.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team in two hours. To deploy the solution, we installed the Windows server image on the server.

Three technical staff members are involved in the deployment and maintenance of the solution. I would recommend Windows Server to other users.

Overall, I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use Windows Server to manage Active Directory.

The product is easy to use and adapt. It is known for GUI.

They could provide a lot of patches for the platform.

We have been using Windows Server for 10 to 12 years.

I need to ensure patches are updated on time. I rate its stability an eight out of ten. It could be improved.

We have 400 Windows Server users in our organization. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

It is an easy-to-install product. It requires two engineers to manage the infrastructure and takes three to four hours to complete.

We take help from third-party integrators, consultants, and resellers for implementing the product.

We have purchased Windows Server’s yearly license. I rate its pricing a four out of ten.

I advise others to ensure updating patches regularly for Windows Server. It is a flexible product. I rate it a nine out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for our different applications.

We appreciate how many different applications can be on the server at any given time.

The solution is easy to learn. It doesn't take much training.

The implementation is simple.

The graphic interface is very nice.

The technical updates need to be improved upon. How they are delivered isn't ideal.

Technical support in and of itself needs to be better. The experience we have isn't very good. It's hard to get timely answers to our questions.

The system needs to offer better integration capabilities.

The solution's availability could be better in future releases.

We've subscribed to Windows for many years now. It's been at least over two, but probably longer.

The solution is stable. We don't have problems with reliability. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. We don't experience bugs either.

The solution can scale. If a company needs to expand, they can do so.

Currently, our organization has 3,000 users.

We may not continue with Windows. We're moving towards graduating to Linux instead.

I've dealt with technical support in the past and I can say that we are not satisfied with their level of service. They are slow to respond. They need to act faster to get us the help we need.

We have always used some form of Windows products before we began implementing Windows Server. We originally decided to implement the server as we felt it was simple and easy to use. It also had a good graphic interface.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex. It was rather simple. In terms of people getting trained on the system, it shouldn't take up too much time so a company can get up and running quickly. That said, the time it takes to deploy is directly linked to the training. However long it takes to get your team comfortable with it, that's how long it will take to deploy.

We had an IT staff of around ten people that assisted with the implementation. We also has a team that handles any maintenance as necessary.

As the implementation process was pretty straightforward, we handled it internally ourselves. We didn't need an external consultant or integrator to help us.

We've looked into Linux. We may move over to that in the future.

We're just a Windows customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

We're using the latest version of the solution.

I'd recommend the solution to other companies.

Overall, from one to ten, I'd rate this product at a nine.

We use Windows Servers to manage user logins through Active Directory and facilitate VPN connections, supporting our researchers who are architecturally building on DSP DNS for enhanced security and access control.

I find Windows Server valuable for its flexibility and user-friendly interface.

In terms of improvement, performance could be enhanced.

I have been using Windows Server for 13 years.

Windows Server is very stable.

We have not had any issues with the scalability of Windows Server.

In large-scale environments with numerous simultaneous logins, Windows Server may not match the performance power of Linux. Linux tends to excel in handling extensive user loads, while Windows Server remains user-friendly for various tasks.

The initial setup is quite straightforward and the deployment only takes about 30 minutes.

We handled the deployment in-house without the need for a consultant or integrator. We manage it ourselves, and our subscription with Microsoft includes support, so whenever we have questions or issues, we contact Microsoft, and they assist us.

I would recommend Windows Server to others but the choice depends on the specific technology and applications you plan to use. It is essential to consider compatibility and performance factors, as some applications may work better or be recommended for installation on Linux. Overall, I would rate Windows Server as an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of Windows Server is running our business applications, such as ERP. 

This solution is deployed on-premises. 

One of the most valuable features of Windows Server is that it is easy to use. Also, with Windows, everything is integrated. 

Windows Server could be improved with cheaper licensing costs. 

We have been using Windows Server for more than 10 years. 

Windows Server is stable, and we have had no problems. 

The scalability of this solution seems good. 

We have more than 150 people in our organization using this solution. We don't currently have plans to increase our usage. 

Before implementing Windows Server, we used Oracle Linux. We switched to Windows Server because, when we upgraded, the integration was good with the FieldServer. 

For installation, 2016 took even less time than 2012. '16 takes maybe fifteen to twenty minutes, maximum. I can handle the installation myself. 

For deployment and maintenance, we have a team of one or two people. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

To use Windows Server, we pay for licensing yearly. The licensing cost should be cheaper—it is expensive and should not cost that much. 

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten. I would recommend Windows Server to others, but it depends on their requirements. We can meet our requirements with Windows because we have a Microsoft ERP. It has good performance with the Windows Server, which is why we use this solution. 

Windows Server is deployed both on-premises and on cloud.

The features that I have found most valuable are that it is quick with an easy installation and has good troubleshooting compared to Linux or any other operating system.

They provide updates and patches in a timely manner.

I would like to see better updates and for it to support other applications

I have been using Windows Server since the inception of the company.

Windows Server is stable. It is just that the updates and other things do sometimes break. The updates are fast so maybe everything is my issue with the legacy applications.

Windows Server is scalable. We have around 300 to 500 users on it.

Customer support is okay, but I believe it would be much better if they supported other applications. The challenge with them is they will say that you have installed some applications that they cannot support. So the blame game is there in that case and it is not a Microsoft issue or an application specific issue. So we have to fiddle around with that.

The initial setup is easy. It took 10 to 15 minutes.

We had a technical team of around 10 people for the deployment and maintenance.

You can do it by yourself or with the help of the consultant or integrator, it depends on the configuration you need.

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Windows Server an eight.

My advice to anyone considering Windows Server is, if they don't have any other choice then they can use it. If they have a choice then they should go for an alternate solution because in the longer run they can save a lot of money in licensing.

We are using this solution as a server operating system.

The most valuable feature is this solution integrates very well with all Microsoft and all other mainstream software solutions and the design is very good. Windows has an option now allowing you to just install the Windows Core with the PowerShell without any graphical services running.

I used to like the graphical interface and graphical philosophy in previous versions of Windows Server. I am not able to be as fast and efficient as I used to be using a graphical interface. However, Windows has moved to the PowerShell, it is powerful, but is still limited compared to what we do can do in Linux. Linux was built at the beginning of the command line interfaces which is why they have a very powerful command line. 

When you work on the command line you can make scripts and then use them every time you want to complete a task. You can capitalize on past experiences by using a script to simplify them, such as when you need to install something or do configurations. Making those tasks faster and simplified. You end up saving a lot of time by using the command line which is best for administrators and the graphical interface is best for the end-user.

You can not do most of the automation on Windows that you can on Linux, it is not the same thing. Windows is improving but it is not at the same level as Linux.

When using a graphical interface it tends to have more bugs, vulnerabilities and weakens the server. Normally we install Linux on big servers that do not have any graphical interfaces inside. The fewer services you run the better it with be for security. We prefer most of the time installing Windows without the graphical interface. 

Overall Windows for us is more difficult and less efficient than Linux.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 25 years.

The solution is stable. However, when you start putting in some extra layers, such as data intelligence inside, then problems tend to start happening.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server solutions for a long time. We started with Windows NT then switched to Windows Server 2000, Windows Server 2003, and all the way up to this current version. Additionally, we work with Linux and Windows 10.

It is easy to do some types of deployments with Windows dedicated networks.

We have evaluated Linux and other Windows systems.

I recently started using my Windows 10 with the Linux Subsystem for Windows, to install and administer all my Linux servers worldwide. I can run a DBM on the Linux Subsystem for Windows, Ubuntu, or Kali Linux, and can access my servers worldwide. Having Linux Subsystem running inside Windows 10, I have been enjoying using the operating system much more.

I cannot install a virtual machine inside the Subsystems which I do very easily on any Linux distribution. Additionally, after installing a virtual machine on Linux, the virtual machine will be more powerful than the Linux Subsystem for Windows. If Microsoft was able to achieve the same level of a virtual machine, then it will be very good for us to start doing many more operations inside of Windows.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.