Windows Server Reviews

We are using Windows Server for our business applications, ERP and everything else.

Windows Server is running well, the performance is good, there are no issues and it is stable.

Because we are using it a very long time and all our applications need Windows OS to run, so by default, we are using Windows OS.

I have been using Windows Server for more than 20 years.

In terms of the versions we are using, it is mixed - we are using 2016 and 2019. A few of our servers are still using the 2012, also.

In terms of scalability, in one server we need to install only one OS. So if you want to install more OS's in more servers, then we can install it.

The quality of support depends upon the Microsoft products. Sometimes they will provide quick support, sometimes it takes time, so I cannot comment exactly on their support.

Sometimes we are getting very quick support, sometimes it takes time.

We are using Windows Server as well as a few open tool Linux.

Windows Server typically takes around 30 minutes to install.

We need very few people for deploying the Windows Server.

Without a license we cannot use Windows Server. The price depends on the people and their budget. We have our enterprise EA agreement with Microsoft and based on that we are doing the licenses.

Everyone knows how the graphic user interface looks with Microsoft Windows Server.

In terms of whether I would recommend Microsoft Windows Server, it depends on their use case. If their application is running only in Windows Server, they should use the server.

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

We primarily use the solution for hosting applications. We have six applications, which are VMs.

The stability and performance are great. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. 

The solution can scale. 

Technical support is great.

We've had a few minor compatibility issues.

We have been using Windows Server for 20 to 25 years at this point. It's likely been over two decades. We've used it for quite a while. 

The solution is extremely stable and the performance has been great. The product doesn't crash or freeze. We don't experience bugs or glitches. It's a reliable system.

The scalability is good. We moved from the 2012 version to the 2019 version and found that the scalability has improved. 

We have about 10,000 users on the solution currently. 

Technical support has been fine. We are satisfied with the level of support we get.

We previously used the 2012 version and have since moved to the 2019 version of Windows Server. 

The initial setup was very straightforward for us. We didn't run into any issues and didn't find any complexities or difficulties. We upgraded from the 2012 to the 2019 version and that took us about one day. It was pretty fast.

We have a team of about 15 technicians that can handle deployment and maintenance.

We did not use a consultant or integrator when we did the implementation. We handled it ourselves, in-house. We were quite capable of handling the process internally.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. 

We are using the 2019 version of the solution, which is the latest.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations and companies. 

We primarily use the solution for the domain controller.

The product has helped our company as it offers us a domain controller and the use of the domain service.

The solution is very easy to configure.

The solution has a lot of features.

The pricing is good. They offer special pricing to educational institutions that is less than what a typical organization might pay.

The solution is not easy to use.

The solution could be more stable. It's an aspect they could improve on in future versions.

The solution could be more scalable and flexible.

The solution needs to offer better documentation and more training to its users. This would help customers better understand how to use the product effectively.

I've been using the solution since 2015. It's been just over five years now. It's been a while.

The solution does not offer very good stability. It's something they need to improve upon.

The solution is moderately flexible. I'd rate it at a 3 out of five. It could be better.

We have 100 users on the solution currently. We do have plans to increase the number of users to 200 in the future.

Technical support could be a bit better. they do have a lot of features and sometimes we need assistance with everything.

I have some experience with Linux, however, I find it a bit more difficult to implement.

The solution is not too difficult or complex to set up. It's easier to implement than other servers. For example, Linux is much more difficult.

The pricing, for us, is reasonable. We are an educational institution and therefore we get special rates. Therefore, our pricing isn't too bad. However, an enterprise version of the solution is quite expensive.

We are just a customer and an end-user of the solution. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We are currently using the 2016 version and have plans to upgrade to the 2019 version.

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's an okay product, however, there are many areas that could be improved.

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.

We use the solution for deployments, troubleshooting, Active Directory policies, and Windows patching.

We use Active Directory and IIS to host different kinds of web apps. We have also used the FTP feature for our FTP server.

FTP functionality does not require additional payment because Windows Server already includes the feature, reducing the costs of these tools. Windows Server also includes IIS, a web server hosting applications. This allows us to build and test applications directly on the server from scratch.

Active Directory should have groups and policies. It could probably provide a better overview of how Active Directory is built.

I have been using Windows Server as a consultant for ten years. We are using the 2022 version of the solution, as well as the 2008, 2016, and 2018 versions.

We have various security measures, such as antivirus software and firewalls. Additionally, on the network side, we utilize different types of firewalls to manage and enhance the security of the infrastructure itself.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

Currently, we are trying to use the solution as the host for a specific system. Another use case is as NFS files sharing space.

The solution is deployed on-premise.

From the very beginning, I have been using a Windows-based OS so for me, it's very easy because it's GUI compared to command line or something Linux-based. I prefer GUI, so Windows is very good for me.

The only thing that could be improved is the price.

I just installed the evaluation because I got the license product key, so I need to activate it. But to my surprise, I cannot activate the evaluation version so I need to recreate the VMs using the ISO that Microsoft gives to me.

I have been using this solution for around two years.

We haven't had any issues with stability. We have about eight people using the solution.

I haven't had any issues with the scalability because I'm using virtualization.

When I wanted to activate the Windows Server using the product key that I have just purchased, I used Microsoft support in Malaysia. They wanted me to forward the problem to the Microsoft support machine. It's very fast and they will respond even at night.

I haven't used any other solutions because my IT career began with using Windows.

The solution was easy to install. It didn't take longer than 10 minutes. We have two engineers for maintenance.

The license is a one-time purchase. The cost could be less expensive. We have education pricing, so it's okay now because we pay less than other agencies.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10. I recommend this solution.

Our primary use case of Windows Server is application support. We have applications such as SAP-based or web-based solutions that we use through Citrix-based solutions. We deploy it on Azure. 

A valuable feature of Windows Server has been the performance. We have done all the redundancy and fault tolerance things to protect our servers and, so far, so good.

As for additional features, we are very interested in the new feature released by Windows: Azure Virtual Desktop. We are currently exploring it so that instead of people depending on their own desktop, we could work on Azure Virtual Desktop. Integration with Azure Virtual Desktop would be cool. 

We recently began using Windows Server. 

This solution is stable and we're satisfied with the performance. 

We enabled scalability, but haven't scaled it much. We have a limited set of users, so the scalability feature is not really in use. 

There are many end users, but there are less than 10 people managing this solution. We don't currently have plans to increase our usage because we are happy with the current capacity. We may decide to increase our usage later, but it depends on the solution and new requirements. 

We have contacted Microsoft's technical support. We used to have weekly and monthly meetings with them, so we got up-to-date directly from Microsoft support, which were were happy with. 

We didn't use a different solution previously. We went directly for Microsoft because the solution is only supported by Microsoft, so we've never tried any other operating system. 

The installation was easy. We didn't do it directly because we have an Infrastructure as Code setup, with Terraform, so we were able to do it very easily. As for the time frame, if you go for a manual process, it will take five or ten minutes, but using code, you can deploy the solutions in less than a minute. We managed it ourselves, without any support. 

We implemented this solution through an in-house team. 

I'm not involved much in the payment part, but I believe that we pay a yearly subscription for licensing. 

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten. I would recommend it to others who are considering implementation. 

We use Windows Server for process control in process control systems. Right now, the operations team is the only one using the solution. They conduct day collection for our process control system.

Windows Server provides a robust operating system that keeps our processes running 24 hours a day without any downtime.

The most valuable feature of Windows Server is its scalability and robustness. 

Windows could add more tools to monitor the health of the server.

I've been using Windows Server for 15 years. 

Windows Server is highly robust. We only have to do maintenance on the system once yearly.

Windows Server is very scalable, but we don't have any plans to increase our usage in the near term.

So far, we've only had good experiences with Windows support.

We were previously running Unix, but the manufacturer of our control system forced us to switch to Windows Server. We didn't have a choice.

We set up the servers ourselves. The time needed to deploy varies from server to server.

Windows could always lower the cost.

I rate Windows Server about a nine out of 10. It's very robust, but there is always room for improvement in monitoring and other features.