Windows Server Reviews

This solution can be used for a lot of things, such as email, file servers, authentication, network access protocol, DNS, active directory, and accessing the main controllers.

The main features are ease of use and simple administration. 

 I have been using this solution for a couple of years.

I have found the stability to be good but it could improve.

The solution is scalable and we plan to increase usage.

I have used Linux Red Hat previously.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately 10 minutes.

I have done the implementation myself but sometimes I require assistance because some environments have a lot of servers. The more servers you have the more administrators you will need for the maintenance.

There is a license required and it is on an annual basis.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a seven out of ten.

I primarily use it for my day-to-day business tasks. 

As an end-user, the experience of the solution is that it's very reliable. It just works. As long as it doesn't affect my daily operation and we can work safely and securely with each other, that's all I care about.

The solution has a sufficient amount of stability and performance that meets my needs. 

I can work securely and all the files are easily accessible.

The initial setup is very simple and straightforward. 

The scalability potential is quite good. 

The cost to use the solution is quite high.

Our main problem is the Citrix environment we're still in. However, we're migrating from that to the Windows 10 environment, so Citrix will be out within two or three years. Therefore,  performance is not really an issue - on the operating system at least. 

I've used the solution for more than three years at this point, It's been a while now. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. I've found it to be reliable. It doesn't give me trouble. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale if you need it to.

We have about 70,000 users on this product currently.

I don't have any experience with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We did not previously use a different solution. It's always been Windows, although we may at some point have also used Unbuntu Linux.

The initial implementation is easy. It's not overly complex or difficult. It's just pushed with the build we have and that way it doesn't affect the end-user. It's just ready to go. We find that the installation is simple and efficient.

While we have a technical team of about 5,000 or 6,000 users, I'm not sure how many were involved in the initial deployment. 

The initial setup was handled internally. They did it themselves. There's sufficient knowledge of the Windows Server products to do it in-house. We have a rather large IT department. It's over 5,000 people.

The pricing is quite high on Microsoft products. It would be ideal if they were made to be more affordable. 

With the magnitude of our organization, every three years, a proper review of the contracts would be handled.

Although it's my understanding that we have some special deal with Microsoft, I cannot speak to the exact cost or the licensing agreement that was reached. 

We are customers and end-users of the product.

In general, if you're asking me if I'm happy with Windows Server, yes, I am.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at an eight. I'm satisfied with its overall capabilities. 

I would recommend the solution to other users and organizations. 

Windows Server can be used for various mission-critical applications, such as SAP, web servers, SQL databases, and hosting. Various security applications, for example, Symantec or McAfee, all need Windows Servers as the back end to operate. Additionally, this solution can be used to build up a Failover Cluster.

If everything is configured correctly this solution provides high performance. Building a Failover Cluster is comparatively much easier in Windows Server than any of the Linux-based solutions.

They should release a command-line version of the solution.

I have been using the solution for approximately 15 years.

Windows Server is stable. However, there is some maintenance required for smooth operations.

The solution can easily scale.

The installation is straightforward and takes approximately one hour.

If the server environment is large I would advise using an integrator. We have a team that does the maintenance of the solution which is important because it is used for mission-critical applications.

The solution could improve by changing the licensing model. In Windows Server 2008 they provided two versions, one regular and the other was free with no graphics. In Windows 2012 they stopped providing the free version. They should go back to the previous model and let customers have the choice whether they want to opt for a free version or have the Microsoft supported version or the OEM version.

If you choose Windows Server on-premises, you will receive a perpetual license and there is also a subscription license option. For the cloud version, there are several options available, such as a monthly subscription.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.

We use a variety of applications that are hosted on our Windows Server.

This product works well for the applications that we have hosted on it.

Stability-wise, there is room for improvement.

We have been working with Windows Server since it was first released.

This is a scalable product. We have thousands of users.

I have not been in contact with technical support.

We have an in-house team responsible for deployment and maintenance.

This is a product I can recommend and as far as I know, we plan to continue using Windows Server in the future.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product to manage databases for various projects.

The product offers in-house servers. It helps us update them and check any technical issues easily.

The product's user interface upgrades and firewall services need improvement.

We have been using Windows Server for seven to eight years.

The platform provides ease of access to databases in terms of migration.

It is a scalable product. We have more than 200 Windows Server users in our organization. We might increase usage in some of our departments, like support administration, in case the business expands.

We have an in-house technical support team.

The initial setup is easy if you have a basic knowledge of the process. We can deploy it on-premise or on the cloud, depending on the project requirements.

There could be a one-time cost for Windows Server and not every month. It is a huge amount for the companies to pay yearly.

I recommend Windows Server to users working on multiple projects and have an in-house team with enough resources. I rate it a seven out of ten.

We're using Windows Server for its basic function. We use it to run applications, but there's a team who manages that, and they are certified. I'm not the one managing. I'm just a user.

The Windows Server interface is okay, though it would still depend on the usage perfective. The interface is what I like about this solution.

What I'd like to see in the next release of Windows Server is for it to have faster updates.

I've been dealing with Windows Server for five years now.

Windows Server is stable. I've had no issues or problems with it.

I've evaluated Linux.

I'm using both Windows and Linux operating systems.

We have a team who does the installation of Windows Server, so I'm unable to give information on whether it's easy or complicated to install. For deployment and maintenance, we have five to eight people in charge.

We have 30 to 50 end users of Windows Server within our company, and currently we don't have plans of increasing usage.

Whether the technical support for Windows Server is fast or is knowledgeable, it would depend. It's a case to case basis, but I'm not the one who's creating the tickets, so whenever we have any issues, we send it to our team who's in charge of creating the tickets for the Windows support team.

Windows Server is a solution I can recommend to others, if we're basing my recommendation on my satisfaction with it.

I'm rating Windows Server a five out of ten.

I use the solution solely for official purposes. 

I like that the solution is reliable.

Perhaps the scalability could be better. 

I have been using Windows Server for around ten years. 

I have no issues with the stability. I feel the solution to be reliable. 

For my purposes, I don't see any need to scale the solution, although this can possibly be improved. 

I do not have experience with tech support. 

I do not possess information about the technical team required for deployment and maintenance. 

I did not evaluate other operating systems for business before going with Windows Server.

I have no issues with the security features. I consider everything about the solution to be fine. 

There are more than 10,000 people using the solution in my organization.

I rate Windows Server as a nine out of ten. 

We are using Windows Server to run applications.

The solution could improve by being more secure.

I have been using Windows Server for a couple of years.

We have been using this solution for a long time and it has been stable.

The solution is scalable.

We are using virtualization servers, and on average we have installed approximately 200 servers.

We have not needed to contact the support.

The installation is straightforward.

We have two managers doing the maintenance of the solution and a team of five that handles the operations.

There is an annual license required for this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Windows Server an eight out of ten.