Windows Server Reviews

We use the solution for mass storage and application storage.

DFS is the most valuable feature of the product. The product is very transparent. Any changes to the underlying file servers are not visible to users. It is a huge benefit for us. 

The GUI is familiar. Anyone who doesn't know how to use a file server can be taught to use the product in a few minutes.

The solution should improve its stability. After some updates, one of the KBs faced issues while booting. On boot, it started boot looping randomly.

The solution is very rigid. Whenever we want to make changes that are slightly out of the ordinary, we have to do them manually.

I have been using the solution for four and a half years.

The solution is definitely scalable. Around 1,500 people are currently using the solution in our organization.

It is quite easy to maintain the product. We have deployed the solution across the whole company.

I have used all the versions from 2003 to 2022. You can change the host and IPs and switch on the whole configuration. The users do not notice anything as long as DFS is active and the file system is the same. The product is a good choice for small-scale environments. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.

A couple of years ago we migrated from the 2008 to the 2012 version and we are currently in the process of trying to migrate our applications to that of 2019. We use Windows 10 for OS. We're researching z/OS, which is actually Linux based, to see how well it works with Windows applications. 

When it comes to the SQL server, we have separate application and database servers, the latter which is also on Windows Server 2012. This means that we have a couple of applications in which we hosted in IIS and Windows Server 2012. Consequently, we have quite a collection of Windows 2012 that are currently running in our data center. 

For the moment, we are not making use of the solution in our environment but looking into how we can have a license free OS that can both work with lower machines and function very well.

We like the ease of use, stability and performance of Windows Server. The reason I was skeptical when it comes to moving to Windows Server 2019, which is currently the latest version that the market has to offer, is because the solution is easy to use and stable, something typical of any OS. While we are currently inspecting the compatibility of applications that are running on Windows version 2019, we're still using the 2012 version and everything is working fine. We have encountered no problems with the OS being used to run the applications. 

What could help in improving the footprint is if Microsoft could come up with several flavors or start providing containerized solutions for server systems. 

Say, for example, that I wish to host a web server online. I would pose the question whether I would really need to have a Windows Server OS for me to be able to do that on IIS. At the moment, the use of Kubernetes or Docker present the only solution. As there is a steep learning curve for one's team to acquire the skill-set and obtain the capabilities associated with these solutions, a relevant Microsoft version would make life much easier. 

As I have already paid for a license, I should have the option of requesting the containerized functionality from the OS to reduce the Windows Server OS footprint. This will save me from having to make constant installations as a condition of running my servers on it. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years, straight from the beginning. 

We have had no issues with Windows Server that required technical support, although we did have to call the Microsoft team concerning something on which we were working and had issues around the MS Teams and certain things relating to Azure. I can connect you to my system's administrator if you wish, who may have more information. 

The installation is pretty straightforward. 

I can easily replicate what I want. My environment allows me to clone servers in a matter of mere minutes, as I already have a startup which contains all of my standards. 

One must pay for a license for the solution. 

The number of users utilizing the solution averages slightly north of 500, since this is the application we use in running all our key activities. Each member of our organization's staff requires access to the solution for carrying out several functions, be it in respect of the application or of the need to log into the system as a consequence of this being where the employee management system is located. 

I would definitely recommend the solution to others. 

We primarily use the solution on our DNS network. It's the de facto operating system in our organization.

The solution is very stable. We haven't run into any performance issues so far.

It is very easy to use. The system is very user-friendly.

The solution allows for many applications to run on it.

The initial setup could be easier. Right now, it's more difficult than it needs to be.

The solution is rather expensive and could be more affordable.

I've used the product in many different places and therefore have used it for a long time by this point. It's been many years now, as far as I know.

We've found the stability of the product to be excellent over the years. It's reliable. There aren't really bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable.

The solution can scale quite well. If you need to expand it, you can do so. It works for companies of all sizes.

We have about ten servers in our organization at this time that are Windows Servers. We have two people that manage them for us.

We will continue to use Windows unless, at some point, something else comes along that is cheaper and easier to use.

I haven't really dealt with technical support much. I wouldn't be able to effectively comment on their level of service or their knowledgeability. 

I have some experience with Linux. However, I find it limiting in terms of the number of applications you can actually run on it.

The implementation process for Windows isn't exactly straightforward. It could be easier and more efficient. It can be a bit difficult sometimes.

The initial installation typically takes two to three hours or so.

I handled the implementation with a partner.

Of course, the solution itself is expensive. However, they are not many alternatives. There's very little choice on the market.

We have servers that range from 2012 to 2016 to 2019. We're using both the older and the newest versions of the solution currently.

I would definitely recommend this product to other organizations. If you look at Linux, for example, it's not really a viable option as very very applications run on Linux. In the case of Windows, you don't have that shortcoming. You can run many, many applications on it, which is a good selling point. Many people who have legacy products like to use Windows.

I would rate the solution six out of ten overall.

Hyper-V and the updated PowerShell are among the best features that I have taken advantage of.

I have been able to support more VMs on Windows 2016 than on 2012 R2, using the same hardware. Additionally, the improvements in live migrations have been a plus in availability.

We plan to take advantage of the improved storage replication functionality in Q1 2018.

Some of the elements of the Windows Server UI from 2012 R2 are better than what is found in 2016, especially the patch management. While it is nice to have the configuration options more centralized than in earlier versions of Windows, the patch/update options in Windows Server 2016 are less flexible than those of earlier versions Windows, and downloads (from Microsoft Update or WSUS) can be more finicky.

One year.

None.

No. The stability has been stellar.

So far, scalability has not been a problem.

Customer Service:

We have not needed to use Microsoft support, but have utilized online forums for support. (We do have Microsoft support available.)

Technical Support:

We have not needed to use Microsoft support, but have utilized online forums for support. (We do have Microsoft support available.)

Not applicable.

Very straightforward deployment.

In-house.

ROI was not calculated for this project.

Pay close attention to the licensing, as there is a focus on core licensing under Windows 2016.

None.

Windows 2016 continues the trend of solid, stable, high-performing Windows Server products from Microsoft.

What I like about Windows Server is that it is an effective and useful solution for my needs.

Windows Server could improve its integration with cloud and hybrid environments to better adapt to modern computing needs.

I have been using Windows Server for over 20 years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a six out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server at five out of ten. It is okay for basic upgrades, but it lacks the flexibility needed for more advanced scaling, especially in cloud or hybrid environments. It is not quite ready for those kinds of setups yet.

I would rate technical support directly from Windows at around three out of ten—it is not the best. However, if you go through a partner who sells or supports Windows, the support could be around seven out of ten, because Windows relies on these partners for assistance.

Neutral

I would rate the easiness of the initial setup as a seven out of ten. Deployment took a few hours.

I would rate the costliness of Windows Server as an eight out of ten. It is quite expensive.

Overall, I would rate Windows Server as a seven 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. 

We are using this solution for some database applications.

The solution is mostly stable. 

The scalability is okay. We just need to get the correct edition of the Server.

The initial setup is easy and the deployment is fast.

There are some limitations around scalability.

The solution should be less expensive. Linux options are far less costly.

I've been using the solution for five years, at least, in this company.

The product, for the most part, is stable. I would say the hardware will cause some issues before the operating system.

In terms of hardware, it is scalable, if we can increase the hardware resources. We are not using the data center version of the OS. We're just using the standard version.

We have around 30 people using the solution.

I haven't dealt with technical support. So far we haven't escalated anything as our installation is very simple.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It is basically like any other Windows operating system. It's fairly straightforward.

The implementation only takes about 30 minutes. 

We have a team of three in the IT department that can handle deployment and maintenance. 

We did not need any integrator or consultant. it's very easy for a company to handle by itself. 

The pricing could be more competitive.

We only pay a one-time fee and do not have to continuously pay monthly or yearly.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are still using 2012, and we're planning to upgrade to 2019.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations. 

The solution is mainly used if you have a lot of solutions that integrate with Microsoft products. The usage varies. It depends on what you want to do with it. If you want to use it for integrating for web services or integrating for OS with some of your net applications, or your C-Sharp type of environments, then Windows is your go-to.

The product is very good for those that are integrating a lot of Microsoft products. It's great at integrating them.

The initial setup is pretty easy. The deployment is very fast.

The solution needs to be more stable and secure. Linux servers are much better in terms of stability and security and are better at thwarting any form of cyber attack. You stand a better chance if you're on a Linux box if you get hit. Not that they don't get attacked. However, Windows is a high-maintenance operating system. You have to keep it up to date almost all the time, and you also need to have a lab to test your updates as some of the updates could actually break the environment. There is a fine line between keeping it updated and breaking it.

I've been using the solution for what feels like forever. It's easily been seven or eight years.

The stability needs to be improved. You really need to have some sort of sandbox in order to test the updates. While it needs to be kept updated, you also run the risk of breaking your environment. It's a tricky balance. 

There are not so many users on the solution. Users are only using the applications, not so much the servers themselves, however, I would say, from our systems, we've got about five people that have to look after these servers.

The initial setup process has improved over the years. Now it's actually better than it was. I would say that at this point it's straightforward. Within 10 or 15 minutes, you can build a single Windows Server and put it on production.

You can likely handle the implementation yourself. It's easy. I did it myself. I didn't need the assistance of any outside integrator or consultant. 

You do need to pay for a license. It's reasonably priced. Of course, if you are strapped for cash, you can set up a Linux type of server basically for free. It depends on what you need.

I am aware of Linux servers. You can set up an Unbuntu server for free if you want. With Microsoft, you do have to pay. I also find Linux to be more secure. You are less likely to suffer attacks.

We use various versions of the product. Right now, for example, it's a mix between the 2015 and 2019 versions.

Users need to be aware that they need to manage the solution properly. It could be pretty unsafe if you don't manage it properly.

I wouldn't outright recommend the solution per se. It depends on what you want to achieve or if you have the knowledge of what you want to do. I would only recommend it if you have to integrate it with other Microsoft products. There are other server platform products that are much more secure and better than Windows. That said, if you are integrating into a Microsoft environment, yes, Windows is your best option.

In general, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's great for Microsoft-heavy environments, however, it could be more secure.