Windows Server Reviews

All our IT infrastructure is Windows. We run our banking applications on Windows Server, along with Oracle databases. In addition, our digital banking section utilizes AI and Copilot to enhance processing in the bank and serve customers.

Windows Server meets our needs; no one works without Microsoft these days. We run applications on top of Windows Server, and all our banking applications use Windows Server. Although we have some Oracle databases and Unix systems, most of our servers are Windows Server, totaling around seven hundred. Our strategy is to move everything to the cloud, decreasing the operational cost.

I don't know exactly how to enhance Windows Server, but it meets our requirements. We can work with both virtual and physical setups. If there are new features from Microsoft, we are happy to test them.

We have had an enterprise agreement with Microsoft since 2008 for Windows Server.

Windows Server is stable.

I would rate the scalability nine out of ten. It has supported our organization's growth well.

Support is okay, but sometimes it takes time to get assistance unless it is opened as a security issue. I would rate Microsoft tech support seven out of ten.

Neutral

For me, it's only Windows Server. Our organization's database admins use other systems, but I have only used Windows Server.

We are familiar with Windows Server. There are no hassles, especially with virtual machines, which take about ten to fifteen minutes to set up.

We observe cost savings through virtualization and the use of Microsoft Cloud, which decreases running costs.

Previously, server licenses were purchased. Now, it's core-based licensing, which costs more. This is now Microsoft's licensing approach.

Without the need for recommendations, everyone uses Windows Server. I rate Windows Server nine out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Other

The complete setup is running on the Microsoft platform, including Active Directory and Azure, and servers which are running various applications for business purposes.

In my opinion, the ease of use of Windows Server is the most effective feature. The recent versions of 2009 and 2002 show valuable enhancements, making Windows Server highly effective and reliable.

I find the recent versions of 2009 and 2002 to be good. Currently, I do not have any suggestions for improvement.

I have about fifteen years of experience with Windows Server.

I find Windows Server to be very stable. Very rarely do I see any blue screens or crashes.

Windows Server is highly scalable; I can upgrade the hardware capacity or storage capacity smoothly. I rate the scalability nine out of ten.

I find technical support to take some time, and the answers or resolutions are not straightforward. Sometimes necessary people may not join, and I end up needing someone else. I rate support between seven and eight.

I find the initial setup to be straightforward.

Based on my overall experience, including the service support, I rate Windows Server between nine and ten. I definitely recommend Windows Server to others.

On-premises

I primarily use it for my day-to-day business tasks. 

As an end-user, the experience of the solution is that it's very reliable. It just works. As long as it doesn't affect my daily operation and we can work safely and securely with each other, that's all I care about.

The solution has a sufficient amount of stability and performance that meets my needs. 

I can work securely and all the files are easily accessible.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. 

The scalability potential is quite good. 

The cost to use the solution is quite high.

Our main problem is the Citrix environment we're still in. However, we're migrating from that to the Windows 10 environment, so Citrix will be out within two or three years. Therefore,  performance is not really an issue - on the operating system at least. 

I've used the solution for more than three years at this point, It's been a while now. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. I've found it to be reliable. It doesn't give me trouble. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale if you need it to.

We have about 70,000 users on this product currently.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We did not previously use a different solution. It's always been Windows, although we may at some point have also used Unbuntu Linux.

The initial implementation is easy. It's not overly complex or difficult. It's just pushed with the build we have and that way it doesn't affect the end-user. It's just ready to go. We find that the installation is simple and efficient.

While we have a technical team of about 5,000 or 6,000 users, I'm not sure how many were involved in the initial deployment. 

The initial setup was handled internally. They did it themselves. There's sufficient knowledge of the Windows Server products to do it in-house. We have a rather large IT department. It's over 5,000 people.

The pricing is quite high on Microsoft products. It would be ideal if they were made to be more affordable. 

With the magnitude of our organization, every three years, a proper review of the contracts would be handled.

Although it's my understanding that we have some special deal with Microsoft, I cannot speak to the exact cost or the licensing agreement that was reached. 

We are customers and end-users of the product.

In general, if you're asking me if I'm happy with Windows Server, yes, I am.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight. I'm satisfied with its overall capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

On-premises

We use Windows Server to host all of our Windows-specific applications, such as Active Directory. We also use it for our systems that are running Microsoft SQL Server, since it used to be dependent on Windows. That is no longer necessary because we have an option to run it on Linux, as well.

Our infrastructure includes systems from Microsoft, Linux, and IBM.

Windows Server is well-integrated into what we do. It even integrates well with remote working tools like Teams.

The most valuable feature is Active Directory.

Microsoft Exchange is very valuable for us.

I am quite satisfied with the user interface.

Recently, they added a new terminal window where you can SSH into Linux machines easily. The Linux packages that are now installed with the Microsoft Store can support a miniature version of Ubuntu and Linux integration tools. When installed, it can easily connect remotely to other operating systems.

Better integration with more platforms would be useful.

I have been using Windows Server for perhaps 15 years.

It is easy to scale up and scale down Microsoft products. Expanding can be done by adding more servers, or just adding resources to a single server. For example, if I want more processing power then I can add RAM or upgrade the CPU. Then if the load on a single server becomes overwhelming then more nodes can be added.

Another case where adding more nodes is done is to have replication between data centers for Exchange or Active Directory.

We have approximately 2,000 users that access their email and we plan to continue using it in the future.

Once in a while, we contact Microsoft for support on the product and they have responded well. There have been cases where the problem is too complicated to easily correct over the phone, so they sent a local technical from their support team to assist us in troubleshooting.

Overall, I would say that the support is quite good.

We have always used Windows Server, although, with respect to email and Exchange, we switched to Windows from another product.

Setting up Windows Server is quite straightforward and easy to follow, compared to other operating systems. The GUI makes it very easy to install both the operating system and applications.

The length of time required for deployment depends on the applications that are running. In most cases, we're deploying a single application and it will take perhaps a day or two. If we are deploying infrastructure like Exchange then it may take a week or two weeks to set up the whole Exchange infrastructure.

We used a local Microsoft certified consultant to assist us in setting up our servers. We had internal skills as well, so it was quite easy to follow.

We have a team of ten system administrators who handle maintenance, although they are not specific to Windows Server. Rather, they take care of all of the products in our data center. Given that we also have Linux and IBM infrastructure, I would say that we have three personnel who take care of our Microsoft systems.

This is quite a good product and one that I recommend. I wouldn't recommend anything that does not integrate well with remote working tools, as most people are now working remotely. We are able to manage our systems from home.

Overall, deployment is quite straightforward, the technical support is quite good, and we are happy with the product. That said, nothing is perfect.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

On-premises

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.

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.

Hybrid Cloud

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.

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.