Windows Server Reviews

We typically use the solution for hosting applications, which is more related to Visual Studio and other similar items.

The solution's usability is very good. It's very user friendly.

We've found the solution to be very flexible.

It's very useful for domain authentication and other tasks. 

It's great for hosting all kinds of applications.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution could have better security features.

The pricing is a bit high. Linux has better pricing. They should try to make their product more competitively priced.

We've been using this solution for about a decade. It's been ten years, so it has been a while.

The solution is very stable and reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. The performance is good.

The solution can scale well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. There wouldn't be anything stopping them.

We have 20 or so people on the servers right now.

We do plan to continue using the product.

I've found the technical support from Microsoft to be quite good. We've been satisfied with the level of service provided to us so far. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten overall.

We found the initial setup to be pretty straightforward and simple. It's not complex. A company shouldn't have any issues with the process.

The deployment is very quick and takes about five minutes in total.

In terms of the size of the team you need, it depends on the application. The bare-bones operating system only two to five minutes, or maybe two to 10 minutes. The deployment, with respect to software and other things, such as security checks, et cetera, it can take a while to get everything on there. It can take up to four hours.

We handle the implementation ourselves. We didn't need an implementor or a consultant to help us. It was all handled in-house.

We pay the license on a yearly basis.

It's a bit expensive if you were to compare it to Linux. 

We're not currently evaluating other options at this time.

We are not using the latest version of the solution. We're using N-1, one solution behind the most recent release.

We use multiple deployment models - both on-premises and cloud.

I'd rate the product eight out of ten at this point. Overall, we've been pretty happy with it.

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.

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 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.