Windows Server Reviews

We are using this solution for all of our on-premise application servers. The latest version is Windows Server 2019, but we are using Windows Server 2016. We haven't felt the need to upgrade it.

It is easy to use, and its performance is good. 

When it comes to virtualization, VMware is a bit more advanced in terms of security. Hyper-V does provide facilities, but it probably has to do a bit more work in terms of encryption. People will normally go for VMware because of the features that it has as a server, particularly the virtualization feature.

I have been using this solution since 2012.

It is stable.

It is scalable. In terms of its usage, the license that we currently have is good enough for us. We will increase its usage, but we don't need to purchase anything in the foreseeable future. We have enough. 

We are also doing a PoC for moving the server that we have at each location to the cloud. After that is done, we will look at the cost and think about migrating to the cloud.

Its initial setup is very straightforward. The duration depends on how big the installation is in terms of the database and the domain you want to use. It can vary from about an hour to a couple of hours with updates, etc. It could be anywhere from 60 minutes to 3 hours.

All of our people are adept at handling its installation.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

Speed and ease with integrating into Microsoft Azure AD environment, security, being able to log in the 'Hello' service.

In my small development environment, speed and security are important, we actually make use of the Microsoft's Edge browser -- which is getting better with each update. Simplified management of Windows 10 machines is also nice.

Intrusive 'You have updates' notification can be annoying -- as it blocks the middle of the screen, but this can be turned off.

When setting a new machine up, users should be given a bit more of information in regards to creating a Microsoft account vs a local account, as being unaware of this can cause a user some confusion down the track if they install an application that needs 'local' user credentials to function.

Since it was released.

No, Windows 10 has deployed onto legacy systems fine.

Very stable, Haven't had any issues with instability whatsoever.

Being a Desktop operating system, scalability is really a function of the resources of the desktop or VM it's running in.

I'm on a 16GB system with a 500GB SSD and I can run multiple VM's on VirtualBox, client sessions, multiple displays and so forth without any issues at all.

Very good, Microsoft makes it easy to get most things set up fairly easily.

Very high, I had the need to contact Microsoft customer support on a matter, and their engineer was able to remotely assume control of the screen (with my permission and after following instructions) and in a few minutes had resolved the problem.

Windows 7, which had become old, bloated with patches and security updates, and was generally just getting slow.

Very straightforward. So far, the installer has identified all of our hardware and everything is running.

In-house.

Difficult to calculate, improved efficiency, less time to get things done, less downtime...can't put an exact dollar amount on it, but our environment is more efficient with Windows 10 installed.

I can't see any reason why anyone would want to downgrade a new machine (if that's even possible now) to Windows 7...

We looked at Remaining on Windows 7, but decided we would make the move to Windows 10.

TEST your applications, especially legacy applications. Most things work just fine on Windows 10, but very old applications that may have just worked under windows 7 may encounter problems.

If that's the case and there's an application you absolutely must have, then consider setting up a dedicated VM with Windows 7 on it just for that application or look at replacing the ancient software.

We only had one old 90's era application that wouldn't run on Windows 10, so we just replaced it and dealt with the change.

The benefits of moving to Windows 10 far outweigh the costs of replacing some old applications (that are probably no longer supported and may have serious security issues).

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.

We are using Windows Server for running our applications. One of our use cases is in a financial institution.

Windows Server is user-friendly and it is simply to support.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately two years.

Windows Server has been stable in my usage.

The scalability of Windows Server is good.

We have approximately 3,000 users using the solution.

We have premium support with Microsoft, and it is good.

I have used Windows 10.

The installation is simple, and it takes approximately one hour.

We have a golden copy of Windows Server, and we only need to apply it to the systems. This does not take much time for us, approximately seven minutes and Windows Server will be ready. We do the maintenance, such as patching, antivirus, and all the security that we have been approved in the bank. However, it's virtual now. All our environment is virtual, we only need to apply the golden copy. 

Depending on the application or use case, we might use Windows 19, 16, or 12.

I can do the implementation of the solution.

We have 10 engineers and managers that support Windows Server.

We have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft and the price for the license is bundled together. The solution is expensive but for the bank that is using it, the price is fine. We pay for a license every three years.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use it for our servers. We have Windows 2012 and Windows 2016. We are not on the latest version, but we are almost there. 

It is pretty simple and flexible. It works with all kinds of software. That's why we are using it. We avoid using Linux and other platforms.

Its performance is also good.

It can have more integration with different platforms. Its installation could also be easier.

I have been using this solution for six years.

Currently, we have around 150 users. We don't have any plans to increase its usage.

I don't have experience with their technical support.

Its installation is of medium complexity. It can be tricky.

Normally, the installation takes half an hour to one hour. The updates take more time than the installation.

Normally, I do it myself. Only when I have issues, I use a consultant.

We have a technical team of two engineers for deployment and maintenance.

Its price is fine. Its licensing is on a yearly basis.

I would surely recommend this solution to others who want to start using it.

I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

We have many brands that we use here in our firm. As an example, we use Dell for our Laptops, we use Lenovo, we use IBM for our computers, Cisco for our switches, and Microsoft.

It's important to us that it is easy to use and has easy maintenance because we don't have specialists. It is necessary for us to have very simple maintenance procedures.

The initial setup could be simplified.

We have been using Windows Server for more than two years, maybe five or more.

It's a stable solution. We have not had any issues with stability.

We have 200 users in our organization who are using Windows Server.

We have plans to keep using this solution.

We have not contacted technical support. 

I only use the support online.

We use Windows Server, and Windows 10 for our laptops and PCs.

The initial setup depends on the preparation of the units.

If it is prepared by a specialist then the installation is easy.

We have to make sure that it has been configured properly.

We have a team of 20 for the deployment and maintenance of this solution.

It is important to have the cheapest price for all of the material and licenses.

We have so many customers with Windows Servers that we are obliged to use the same technical path.

We don't have any significant issues with Windows. I would rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.

Managing active directories and middle directories, including users and accounts, is of utmost importance for organizations. 

This entails implementing protective measures, enabling conditional access, and ensuring data security, among other essential aspects.

The most valuable features of this solution are its performance, security, and that it is easy to use.

There is room for improvement in terms of pricing.

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years.

I would rate the stability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We have plans to increase our usage in the future.

I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

We have experienced a positive return on investment (ROI).

The cost is relatively high.

I would rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use Windows Server mainly for deploying high-end applications and databases.

The most valuable features are the ease of access and maintaining the solution.

The security could improve. If you are comparing the Linux operating systems and Windows Server, Windows Server is still way behind in terms of security. Microsoft can enhance security instead of having customers rely on third-party security tools.

I have been using Windows Server for approximately 10 years.

Windows Server is stable.

The solution is scalable and flexible to expend.

We have approximately 25 users using this solution in my organization.

The technical support and local support from Microsoft are good and there is a large online community that can support us. If we ever have any problems or bugs with the solution we can reach out to those supports to help us. However, we have not encountered any issues at this time.

If it is a basic installation then it is pretty straightforward. However, if you need to do a lot of configurations you will need some technical knowledge.

We can do the implementation ourselves, but mostly we distribute the task to consultants because they know the timeliness and the amount of work that needs to be done.

We have our IT support team of administrators and technicians that needs to manage the resources and in some cases do patch management and maintenance. For server maintenance, we need an expert that understands how to scale up or scale down the server.

There is a one-time purchase for the license of Windows Server.

Technically we only have two options to choose from for a solution to our use case. One is red Hat Linux and the other is Windows Server. Some of the applications that the team needs to develop only work on Windows Server. Based on the use case and the ease of access we went for Windows Server.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.