Windows Server Reviews

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. 

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. 

We primarily use the solution for the Arctic directory, SharePoint, or the Information System's company.

The operating system is the solution's most valuable aspect. Many people on the team are extremely familiar with it.

We haven't had any issues with the server whatsoever. It's been very reliable.

The patching could be better within the solution. There are many updates, however, if you compare it with other parts of Windows, the patching has a different management structure. 

The scalability could be improved a bit. 

I've worked with a company that has had the solution on and off over the course of maybe ten years or so. I've worked with them over the last two months.

The solution is quite stable. I consider it reliable. I don't have issues with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's been good overall.

We have at least 2000 uses on the solution currently in my organization. About 60 of those are software engineers and data scientists and other related positions.

I find the scalability to be pretty good. We don't have any issues in that sense. However, it could be a bit better.

We do plan to increase usage in the future.

Technical support is good however, you do need to sign a contract with premier support in order to get excellent service.

I don't deal with the pricing aspect of the solution and therefore can't really comment on how much it costs or if we are charged on a monthly or yearly basis.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with Microsoft.

We're using both the 2012 and 2016 versions of the solution right now.

Overall, I would rate the solution 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 primarily use the solution as a base layer for our software. Our developers decided they should create our products based on the Microsoft platform. We have to use the Windows Server as the applied model.

We have some solutions based on Linux, however, Microsoft Windows Server is the primary operating system.

The solution has improved our organization as we are able to sell our products with Microsoft. Without it, we can't make our business work. 

The solution is absolutely integral to our business processes. 

It's a widely used system.

The product is very stable.

The initial setup is quite straightforward. 

Technical support is very helpful.

I haven't had any experience with active data storage or high-level configuration. From my perspective, Windows Server can stay on this level without any development as it works for me how it is.

The price could be a little less. It's a bit expensive.

Maybe 10 or 15 years ago, there were some problems with stability, however, right now, we haven't needed to install any patches and we have not faced any problems. I'd describe it as quite stable at this point.

The solution is used widely across the company. However, I cannot speak to how many servers we have at this time. 

We do plan to increase usage as we continue to grow.

Microsoft technical support has been great. They are helpful and responsive. We are very happy with the level of support on offer. 

The initial setup is very straightforward and not overly difficult.

The pricing isn't the cheapest. For example, Linux would be a free option. People don't have to pay for it. With Microsoft, you need to pay to license it. 

We are a customer and end-user. We are also a Microsoft reseller. 

SQL Server 10 can't work without an operating system. It needs to be installed on the machine with an operating system, so it is dependent on it. A Windows Server needs to be installed as a first step before SQL will be installed.

We primarily use on-premies or private cloud deployment models.

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

I'd recommend the solution. It's a very good platform. 

Mostly we use the product for file sharing, and then for database applications. That's about it. We're not running cloud services and other things. 

We're required to support it, however, for the most part, it works well and is reliable. 

Technical support is helpful. There's a lot of documentation and helpful information online as well.

The initial setup is not overly difficult.

The security needs to be improved. That's its weakest area. It's my understanding that they cannot do anything about it at this stage. We have to wait when they are able to, more or less, integrate with Ubuntu, or with Canonical. Then, we will have a server that is quite stable in terms of security. Maybe in five years or six years, then you could see a Window Server which is going to be very impressive.

I've been using the solution likely for 20 years. It's been two decades. I've used it for a while at this point.

The solution is reliable and the performance is good.

We have lots of users, especially those running Oracle. We have close to about 200 users for Oracle that are connected to Windows Server.

We don't have any issues when it comes to Microsoft and technical support. Most of the time it is straightforward. Right now, you can go to the internet, and there are many people who post helpful information for Microsoft products. In the same way for a Linux operating system, we have a lot of users that are posting tutorials for you to be able to learn. It's not something which is very, very hard. It's quite easy already.

I also use Unbuntu and find them comparable. It's like to be able to integrate them together.

The initial installation is pretty straightforward. I wouldn't describe it as complex.

We have about 30 staff members that are able to handle deployment and maintenance.

Per installation, the deployment time, including the updates, is maybe about three or four hours.

We do have assistance when I'm using an HP serve. They have a way of making the installation much easier.

We do have to pay a licensing fee in order to use the servers.

We've got open licenses for the Windows Server OS, as well as the SQL Server database, and then we have to pay for the device CALs, client access license. 

In terms of versions, right now, we're hooked on OS. We have 2012, and I have 2016. I'm interested in 2019 as well.

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

I'd recommend the solution to others for business use cases. 

We upgraded to 2019 and use this as our operating system for our domain controller, for our file server, and for running our ERP. We're also run our ERP on  Microsoft Dynamics.

Windows Server is most commonly used and practiced. It is compatible with what we are running. You can run Dynamics on Linux or other operating systems, but our clients commonly use Windows Server, Microsoft products, and Office 365.

Often, we get updates that affect productivity. It's the way they do the updates.

After an update has been done, Microsoft notifies us that there is a problem.

It is not practical to have a test environment. There should be an easier process, as currently, it's a bit tedious. They should find a way of proving or revamping this procedure. It should be very fast.

When you are running Windows and Microsoft, you will see an error message regarding ransomware and suggest the security is up-to-date, but the update always affects the operating system. Most of the issues we have are when we apply security updates or critical updates, which will affect the operating system, the production environment, and your business.

It is recommended to have a test environment, run it on the test environment to make sure that it is working well then put it in the production environment. This is a tedious process. Most of the time, people just take a risk and just apply it without doing the test.

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

We are using Windows 2019, 2016, and 2012.

It's a stable solution.

Windows Server is scalable.

We are also using Exchange version 2016, and Windows 10.

With a proper deployment, Windows Server is good.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.