Windows Server Reviews

We use Windows for its Single-Instance Storage, SIS, capabilities. The solution has deduplication default features. In respect of Windows security, the solution offers a GUI, graphical user interface, that is very convenient for the user. Linux, for its part, does not offer a graphical user interface. 

The solution's licensing price is on the expensive side. This is an issue which Microsoft should address right away. 

I have much experience with Windows Server, having used it my entire career, in excess of 15 years. 

The solution is stable. 

We do not have plans to increase usage for at least the coming two years. 

We did not use a different solution for our desktop prior to Windows Server, although for our server we used Linux. 

The installation is not difficult. I found it to be very straightforward. 

It lasted 35 minutes.

The installation can be done on one's own. Only one person is needed for the deployment. However, as we have a large scale data center, we have a team, consisting of five members, who are responsible for maintaining the entire infrastructure. 

The price of the solution's license is expensive and this an issue which demands Window's immediate attention. 

Our licensing fee is perpetual. 

I rate Windows Server as a nine out of ten. 

Windows Server is very useful and easy to install.

It has been stable after 2002, so versions 2016 and 2019 are stable.

It is not fast and is very slow. Versions before 2002 are not stable.

It is not easy to use, and it could be cheaper as well.

Windows Server could use low resources and have automation abilities.

Automation and implementation could be changed to work better with other systems. It needs be easy to integrate with other cloud and open source systems. Generally, people want to use open source systems because Windows Servers don't integrate easily.

I have been using Windows Server since 2003.

It is stable, particularly after 2002.

If you use Microsoft application servers and if you use Microsoft products, you can generally get good technical support.

I used Linux operating systems.

It is easy to install and takes about half an hour.

I installed it myself.

Windows Systems use more resources than Linux systems and can be very costly. If you use a Linux system, two CPUs are enough, but if you use a Windows system, you need eight CPUs. You should use a minimum of eight CPUs, and CPU resources are very expensive.

We have enterprise agreements regarding licensing.

I would rate Windows Server at seven on a scale from one to ten.

We primarily use the solution for many purposes, the Active Directory, SQL, web server, and many other features.

The solution is very scalable. 

The installation process is very straightforward. 

Technical support is good. 

The stability needs to be improved. I don't find it to be very stable. It's something they need to work on.

I've used the solution for many years at this point. it's been so long I've lost track of the exact amount of time, however, it's been a while. 

The solution isn't as stable as it could be.

The product scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem.

We have about 2,000 users on the solution at this time. I can't speak to if we have plans to increase usage or not.

I am satisfied with technical support so far. They've been helpful and responsive. 

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's straightforward and pretty easy to execute. 

The deployment is fast. It only takes us about 50 minutes to get everything up and running.

I handled the installation by myself. I did not need the assistance of an integrator or consultant. It's a pretty simple process. 

Right now, we are not on the latest version of the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. For the most part, we have been happy with its capabilities. 

I'd recommend the solution to other users and companies.

We are primarily using the solution for implementing some of our applications.

The applications that are running are very easy to handle. Most of the applications are on the Linux environment, as well.

The solution is very easy to use due to the fact that it has a broad base. It is very easy to use for the end-user. 

The installation is straightforward.

Technical support has been very good overall.

A lot of attacks are monitored however, there are a lot of things coming into it. This is why we need to provide more security with respect to the Linux platform. There's more security on Windows and not enough on Linux.

The licensing for the solution is expensive.

I've used the solution for a very long time. I can't recall the exact number of years, however. I just know it's been a long while. I've definitely used it over the last 12 months.

We have around ten technicians and they are all using the product. However, the server itself is used across the organization.

We do plan to continue to use the server going forward. We have no plans to change just now.

Technical support is very helpful and supportive. They have been knowledgeable and responsive. We're satisfied with the level of support we get.

The initial setup is quite straightforward It's not too complex. It's easy to execute on both Windows and Linux.

The deployment was pretty quick and only took about one and a half hours.

We handled the implementation ourselves. 

You do have to pay for licenses to use the solution. It's quite expensive in general. However, that's just for Windows. Linux is not supported right now.

We are using the latest version of the solution. I'm not sure what the version number is.

We have it deployed both on-cloud and on-premises.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use this solution to install and use applications on it.

This solution is very user friendly, easy to use for any system administrator, simple to deploy applications, has a wide range of applications available, great UI, and takes less technical skills to operate than some other competitors. Additionally, the active directory has great functionality, if we want to integrate any assets, then we can easily do it.

When it comes to the performance of this solution others are slightly better such as Linux. This solution promotes its services only, in some of the integrations, it does not support external ones. 

I have been using the solution for the last three years.

The solution is stable and the updates are done automatically. I have not had any major critical issue, but if there was, there is a big online community we can find a solution that is great. Otherwise, it is supported by Windows diagnostic within the software.

We have approximately 45 users using the solution in my company.

The support for Microsoft is very good.

We use Windows Server and Linux, they have different strengths and weaknesses in use cases. Linux feels a little lighter than this solution.

The installation is straightforward, there is not any difficulty and took approximately 35 minutes.

We did the implementation ourselves and a single person can do the deployment.

There is a license for this solution and the price could be cheaper.

We are going to continue to use the solution and I recommend it to others.

I rate Windows Server a ten out of ten.

The most valuable feature is its stability. We have had no problems with Windows Server and we plan to continue using it in the future.

This product has very good features.

I would like to see better integration with other operating systems. For example, when I migrate from services from Linux or Unix to Windows Server, it's hard to do. I expect it to be easier.

We began using Windows Server between 10 and 12 years ago.

This is a scalable product. We have more than 150 people in 20 different groups who use it. In my personal group, we have four people.

We have not faced any problems that we couldn't solve, so we have not needed to contact technical support.

I have worked with other operating systems such as Linux and Unix, and I find that they are more complicated.

The initial setup is straightforward. It takes between two and four hours to deploy, depending on the type of service.

We installed it ourselves and we have an IT staff of about six people that use it regularly.

We have a corporate deal with Microsoft and pay licensing fees annually. It is an expensive product.

Overall, this is a good product that is easy to use, it has very good features, and I can recommend it.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

It's a platform, so it brings on a system for the servers themselves. I have multiple services running over Microsoft Servers, for example.SAP, Exchange . All of my services already running are running over this platform.

I also using it occasionally for application access.

The most valuable aspect of the solution is its operating system. It's just like Linux or UNIX. 

I'm using all the features within it and find them all quite helpful.

I love using it for the DHCP server, DNS services, and using a computer to map sites on our domain.

The security should be improved, specifically from port security & Allowed protocols,The improvement should retire all marked ports & protocols as a security breach to enhance platform risks & stability . 

Overall, from a security perspective, Microsoft needs to improve.

The Server platform GUI seems to take up a lot of resources unnecessarily.

I've been using the solution for twenty plus years for now.

While the solution hasn't always been stable, starting from the 2012 version, it's increasingly gotten more stable.

Since the 2012 version, we find it to be quite stable. The OS between the resources, between applicators, technical support, etc., is all very easy to handle. We don't have issues with it; it seems to be quite reliable.

The company here is using this solution. Sometimes it's for remote access, however, even if they don't use it for that, they already using is as it's implemented over the Windows Server.

I'm not sure if we'll be scaling any more as everyone is using it.

Registration is very easy, so we didn't need technical support for that aspect of the solution. However, it still requires continual study in order to use everything properly. In terms of speaking with someone directly, I don't have any information about that, and therefore can't comment on the quality of their service.

The initial implementation was not complex. I'd describe the setup as straightforward.

You have to sign off the approach of the planned service, make a timeline, and start to implement a POC. Once you're done with that, you can apply for it online. 

For Microsoft platforms, we have not needed any outside assistance. For the other services, like ERP,  we are already using consultants for implementation.

We're just a customers. We've been using multiple versions of the solution up to the 2016 version.

I would recommend the Microsoft platform and Windows Servers in particular. It's great for implementation into any environment and is easy to use. They have enhanced some security, however, there needs more done in that respect.

That said, from an efficiency, performance, business continuity, and integration standpoint, I'd highly recommend the Microsoft platform. While Linux has a better security layer, if that is your concern, be aware it will require investment in a lot of resources, training. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. To get higher marks, the solution really needs to do something about the GUI & its security, which currently consumes a lot of resources & allowing breaching. 

We use the product as an application and SQL server.

The platform’s most valuable features are performance and centralization of operating systems. We can use one standardized system to host all applications.

The product's pricing needs improvement. 

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

We have more than 100 Windows Server users in our organization. It is a scalable product.

We contact the technical support team for a few queries.

We used Linux before. In some cases, it works better than Windows in terms of administration tools, especially for small companies.

From a centralization standpoint, Windows Server is a good technology that allows IT staff to consolidate their expertise on a single product, avoiding the need to manage different sources for Linux and Windows.

Windows Server is highly priced. They offer bundled licenses to be purchased yearly. Also, we need to pay extra for support services while utilizing different sources such as Linux.

Windows Server’s integration with Active Directory enabled a single technology to manage multiple applications. Additionally, the feature for centralized management has proven beneficial in enhancing overall efficiency and meeting evolving requirements compared to Linux.

It is primarily suitable for enterprises as the cost would be a concern for smaller organizations. 

It is a user-friendly platform. I rate it a nine out of ten.