I use Windows Server primarily as an Infra Server and Active Directory domain controller. It acts as a domain controller, chain email server, application server, and file server.

Windows Server offers good operational benefits. It is quite sustained, provides good support, and is quite reliable.

All features are required for managing my data center. The domain controller is for Active Directory, and if you need to include an email server, you can't ask about features individually since all features are necessary.

The price is very expensive. It would be excellent if Microsoft could reduce the price. Also, the support team is getting worse in terms of expertise. No cost-saving benefits have been observed.

I have been working with Windows Server for almost 20 years.

For stability, I rate Windows Server seven out of ten.

Scalability is rated eight out of ten.

The customer support team is not satisfactory. Their expertise has diminished. I rate them two out of ten.

Negative

The setup is easy. I would rate it a nine out of ten. Deployment takes about five minutes per server.

You need at least a team of two people for deployment to manage and support, especially when one person is unavailable.

There is no cost saving. I have not observed any cost-saving benefits.

The price of Windows Server is very expensive. On a scale of one to ten, with ten being the most expensive, I rate it ten out of ten.

It's better to have your own internal server capabilities. Do not rely on the support; you need your team to manage and support the server.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

Even though there were changes in my job role or company, I continued to use Windows Server.

In recent times, improvements are required since everything is going to be very granular. If you give access to a particular group or particular user in a particular product line and if you want someone to be a part of that group which has different rights from another team, like an SME, who has more rights compared to an ordinary person, and if a new person or novice person comes in, he will have lesser rights.

Nowadays, everybody wants a user-friendly dashboard and interface. People don't want to know about complex commands and want everything to be available in just a few clicks on the dashboard, where they can see the top trends, what commands are being used, how many logins, and other such related information. The integration process should be smooth if I have Microsoft Active Directory deployed on an on-premises model and I want to connect it to a Microsoft Active Directory on the cloud. Even if you are involved in complex things on the back end, from the front end, the tool should be made easier for users to understand so that they can identify the credentials or keys they use.

If you want to integrate or connect with multiple integration points or ecosystems, then such a process should be something that is easily doable for users. Whether the tool is connected to an API, on-premises model, or cloud, it should be made a process that is easy for users.

I have experience with Windows Server. I have used Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows NT.

When it comes to volume, the performance decreases. I have seen a lot of companies claim that their tools can support a certain amount of capacity, but when we, as users, come near the prescribed capacity limit and are unable to use the product, the company claims that the capacity limit details were given to them by their engineering team. I feel that the engineering team hardly tested the product at the required level to see if the product could support it when the actual production load came to the level they figured out earlier. If a particular product claims to be able to support 1,000 units or users, I see the performance decreasing after the tool is used by 800 or 900 users. If you go for a storage tool, the company claims that its product will support one petabyte, but when users actually have that much capacity, they realize that the product doesn't offer much support.

Around seven people in my company use the product.

My company uses the solution's technical support if we are not able to solve a problem related to the product.

Since migrating to the product from another solution, my company faces challenges in using complex security support when there is a high volume.

If an architecture is complex, the setup phase takes time. If you need to integrate multiple touchpoints, then the setup process takes time.

The deployment process can be done with the help of our company's in-house team.

Speaking about how the product enhances our company's data management capabilities, I would say that based on my long experience with the product, I feel that presently, the solution is totally different. Nowadays, users get Version 21H2 (OS build 22000)​​ Windows 11, which is totally different from its past offerings. Previously, Windows Server fell under a totally different domain or technology, but currently, it's a totally different tool.

I would say that I have stopped using the product at an individual level and have started working with the team in my company that takes care of its deployment and manages the virtual environments.

The tool has been beneficial for our company's IT infrastructure since I feel that Windows is preferred by many for the domain controller and for using SSO authentication along with Active Directory services. With SSO authentication and Active Directory services, users' contact domains and everything are available. It can help users benefit from the tool while sharing authentication, user access, rollback, and other areas.

In terms of security features, users need more in areas like authentication and location.

There is no multi-vendor support to help deal with the area of integration.

I rate the product a seven out of ten.

We use Windows Server for Active Directory (AD). We use the solution to manage user data and access through Active Directory. We use Windows Server to host and configure the mail servers.

Since Windows Server has a graphical user interface (GUI), it is easy to use and implement the services that we are using.

Compared to Linux, the solution is a bit difficult to deploy. The solution should have a faster deployment.

I have been using Windows Server for more than five to six years.

The solution has good stability.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

Around 50 employees are using the solution in our organization. The solution is used extensively in our organization, and we have plans to increase the usage.

The solution’s initial setup is straightforward.

The solution's installation process is a bit lengthy and hectic. It took more time than the Linux operating system used to take. Our in-house team follows the documentation part, and we do the deployment ourselves from scratch.

We use only the license versions of Windows Server.

We currently have our own data center where we host the services. Since we are a government-based R&D organization, we do not trust any cloud platform services like Azure, Google, and AWS.

We had to configure all the services and features that were available. We had to look for additional plugins that we could create and integrate for the security of our organization. I would recommend Windows Server for an organization dependent on the GUI part. Otherwise, I recommend using Linux servers.

The hardware requirement for Windows Server is very large compared to Linux. For that, we need to use or deploy the maximum hardware that is necessary.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We mainly worked with Windows Server 2003, 2008, 2012, and 2016 as they were the go-to operating systems for applications like Excel Server and various other software. We occasionally used Linux servers, especially for databases and specific applications, but most of our work was on Windows servers.

When we deploy this operating system, we're primarily focused on managing virtual environments. There are different parts like the directory, data storage, and CPU usage which are really useful. We also compare it to other parts like group policy, all of which are related to users. Currently, I find that users are very involved when it comes to these applications or servers on the two other links.

I believe that Windows Server can be somewhat vulnerable compared to other options, but its security can be improved. I also think that the setup process can be somewhat complex, depending on the applications involved.

Regarding the security features of Windows Server, while it offers some built-in security measures, it's not sufficient to solely rely on them. Additional external devices such as firewalls may be needed for comprehensive protection. Deploying antivirus and firewall software on the server is advisable, but having an external firewall adds an extra layer of security.

When migrating to Windows Server from previous versions or other platforms, noticeable improvements were observed, particularly in the utilization of graphical interfaces. Windows offers robust graphical guidance, especially compared to Linux or other systems like Acronis, making it easier to navigate and manage various functionalities.

I have used Windows Server for a couple of months.

I found it somewhat lacking in responsiveness at times.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I rate Windows Server around a 5 or 6.

When it comes to recommending Windows Server to others, it depends on the critical applications being used. If you're installing an Oracle database, for example, I wouldn't recommend Windows Server. In such cases, Linux or similar platforms might be more suitable. However, for tasks closely related to Windows environments, like utilizing Microsoft products extensively, Windows Server could be a faster and more compatible option, especially when it comes to firewall capabilities.

What I like about Windows Server is that it is an effective and useful solution for my needs.

Windows Server could improve its integration with cloud and hybrid environments to better adapt to modern computing needs.

I have been using Windows Server for over 20 years.

I would rate the stability of the solution as a six out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of Windows Server at five out of ten. It is okay for basic upgrades, but it lacks the flexibility needed for more advanced scaling, especially in cloud or hybrid environments. It is not quite ready for those kinds of setups yet.

I would rate technical support directly from Windows at around three out of ten—it is not the best. However, if you go through a partner who sells or supports Windows, the support could be around seven out of ten, because Windows relies on these partners for assistance.

Neutral

I would rate the easiness of the initial setup as a seven out of ten. Deployment took a few hours.

I would rate the costliness of Windows Server as an eight out of ten. It is quite expensive.

Overall, I would rate Windows Server as a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for all the applications and Active Directory. We use it for enterprise management. We have different departments.

The product is secure.

The product’s performance is good. We have a good infrastructure.

The stability could be improved.

I have been using the solution for eight to ten years. I am using the latest version.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

We have more than 5000 users. The usage keeps increasing in our organization.

Whenever we face any issue, we contact our Windows team, and they improve it. The technical support is fine.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment was done in-house. We have a big team to deploy and maintain the product, including project and system managers.

I will recommend the tool to others. Overall, I rate the solution a seven or eight out of ten.

My main advice is to understand the business first. Then, see if the solution will work on that platform. Also, check which applications it supports. If they're using data and Microsoft, in some cases, we use applications verified by Microsoft. You can be sure they're compatible with Windows and find support from both ends. So, understand the business in terms of its goals, turnaround time, risk factors, and skill requirements. Consider if they have enough skilled people to support it, both for daily use and when issues arise. You need to know these things before making a decision.

Not every time is Microsoft the right choice. Some systems or platforms they want to run may not be supported by Microsoft. So, it's crucial to understand the business requirements first; then you know which platform or solution works best for you.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven 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 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.