Windows Server Reviews

We use it to implement and configure Active Directory environments for organizations. Projects can be related to running WS systems as well as implementing and performing System Center Configuration Manager, assisting the OM, Operation Manager, and monitoring.

The biggest and the most important services used in most of the organizations in the world is the Active Directory. The policy management feature is a great option for managing different policies in the domain environment. 

Also, integration with other Microsoft solutions like Exchange and System Center Configuration Manager has the great ability to manage all of the different features on system support, like upgrading, securing, and troubleshooting different Windows systems for clients.

I think integration with Linux operating systems would be a great idea, as well as focusing on the simplicity of running containers in the Linux environments. I think this would be a requirement for the next generation of applications running in .NET and Microsoft programming languages.

Microsoft should expand to integrate the Windows Server with Azure and Linux distribution to provide a simple container environment for running dockerized applications.

I've been using it for around 10 years.

It is scalable. We currently have around 30 engineers using the Windows Server, but we hope to increase this number.

The initial setup is very simple.

I implemented it myself.

One of the problems with Microsoft is the price of licensing, and volume licensing for educational systems is a great option to bequeath licensing for small businesses.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at nine.

For authentication and identity management, without a doubt, I would suggest using the Active Directory with Microsoft Windows Servers.

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.

We are using Windows Server 2016 for our organization's backend applications which reside in a data center. HP provides us with our Windows platforms, and we also have Unix platforms from them as well.

We have been using Windows environments since I joined my organization, which is close to 20 years now. Currently, we're doing what you can call a hosted private cloud with colocation and we are running some huge workloads using Windows Server in this cloud.

From our side, the organization's 2800 end users are mostly running Windows 10 in a highly virtualized environment. So whenever we need more resources, it takes just a couple of minutes to get it up and running.

Overall, Windows Server 2016 provides a stable environment for some of the very large workloads that it is subjected to in our organization, and it is very easy to use.

There are lots of improvements that can be brought by Microsoft, although for us Windows Server works mostly as expected. For how we're using Windows Server, security is a top priority, so when talking security, it can always be improved upon, no matter what.

Then there's the performance side, which is not bad, but we are currently looking to increase capacity and we have found that we need to enhance the hardware to get the performance we are looking for. Because of this, we are going to be refreshing the hardware and moving to new infrastructure in the next few weeks.

I have been using Windows Server for many years now.

It is very stable. 

We have enterprise support with them which I cannot personally comment on.

We are running a form of Windows Servers, from our side, which are highly virtualized. So from where we're sitting, to provision Windows Server takes just a couple of clicks and it is up and running.

For the backend systems where we implement Windows Server at the data center, the entire IT team is around 120 people. Then, from a user perspective, much of it is self-service, meaning users can request to provision as needed from the pool of virtualized resources.

Our current license is an enterprise license agreement which gives you a whole lot of possibility, especially when you go through an R&D process. For example, you can provision everything, spread the service use over six months, and then wrap it up. It gives you a lot of flexibility.

Windows Server is a stable product and there's no way we will change it for something else.

I would rate Windows Server an eight 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.

Window Server is for the front-end applications. It is on the client-facing side.

The biggest advantage of Windows Server is the services. It offers the ability to configure services, so your application can run on a Windows Server. 

We've been using Windows Server for a couple of years. Since the company was founded, we've been using Windows Server and Linux. We're still using Red Hat. When I joined the company, I migrated all the databases over to Linux. Everything on the application side is on Windows Server.

Windows Server is stable as far as I know. 

I can't really say that it's scalable. At the application level, we only have about 20 users.

I'm not the one in charge of the platform. The person in charge takes care of things when there is a critical error and there are new updates or patches from the Microsoft site. They're the one who contacts the technical support team if needed.

Installing Windows Server is straightforward. We have a technical team to manage the solution, but I can handle the deployment by itself. 

I think it's a yearly license.

I rate Windows Server six out of 10. I would recommend Windows Server if you are working with .NET applications. But one issue I have with Windows Server is the limit on the number of concurrent sessions. You cannot have more than three simultaneous users unless you activate a license. You have to install it so that more people can access the applications simultaneously.

Windows Server is user-friendly.

The Active Directory and the applications where the server is installed are the most valuable features.

The main features that should be improved are the security and it should have better performance.

We have been using Windows Server for nine years.

Windows Server is a stable solution.

This solution is scalable.

Every month technical support has a deployment every month making it very easy.

The setup was very easy.

There are software costs that are dependent on the CAL requirements. 

I would rate Windows Server a 9 out of 10. It is better than Ubuntu Linux.

We are using this solution for some database applications.

The solution is mostly stable. 

The scalability is okay. We just need to get the correct edition of the Server.

The initial setup is easy and the deployment is fast.

There are some limitations around scalability.

The solution should be less expensive. Linux options are far less costly.

I've been using the solution for five years, at least, in this company.

The product, for the most part, is stable. I would say the hardware will cause some issues before the operating system.

In terms of hardware, it is scalable, if we can increase the hardware resources. We are not using the data center version of the OS. We're just using the standard version.

We have around 30 people using the solution.

I haven't dealt with technical support. So far we haven't escalated anything as our installation is very simple.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It is basically like any other Windows operating system. It's fairly straightforward.

The implementation only takes about 30 minutes. 

We have a team of three in the IT department that can handle deployment and maintenance. 

We did not need any integrator or consultant. it's very easy for a company to handle by itself. 

The pricing could be more competitive.

We only pay a one-time fee and do not have to continuously pay monthly or yearly.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are still using 2012, and we're planning to upgrade to 2019.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations. 

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.