We are using Windows Server to connect our client software. We use it to access client systems and work on SQL databases.

Rather than purchasing and setting up infrastructure, we are using Windows Server, which obviously saves some costs.

Windows Server is fulfilling our daily work-life purposes. We use it to connect to client systems and are happy with the performance and its features. 

Also, it has a user-friendly interface. Rather than purchasing and setting up infrastructure, we are using Windows Server, which obviously saves some costs.

Sometimes the performance goes down, which might be due to the stability zone or network issues. It can also depend on our network.

I have been working with Windows Server for more than eight years.

Sometimes the performance goes down, so it may be due to the stability zone or network issues. It can also depend on our network.

I had the opportunity to connect with Microsoft support. They resolved our problems within the defined SLA. I would rate my experience nine out of ten.

Positive

I haven't done any initial setup on it. Whatever we are getting from our vendor, I'm using the same application. We don't have access to install and setup.

I am not an expert in Windows Server, however, am aware of using it alongside Azure virtual machines.

I would rate Windows Server nine out of ten. It has a good user interface and is user-friendly. I would definitely recommend it.

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.

Windows Server has been idle for a while, but it is quite stable for running your application, specifically web-based applications, databases, or any front-end applications. And it's in the industry you are used to, along with Flex. Newer and enhanced versions are being introduced because Windows has recently started to design as per the cloud environment so that it can integrate well with Azure Cloud. If you are running the Windows Server and SQL on Azure, you will get the benefits of saving costs and licenses. Also, it can be tightly integrated with cloud services so that it can manage the patching, backup, and everything end to end if you talk about the life cycle of an operating system.

If Windows could make the OS part lighter, especially starting and restarting the Windows Server, which needs to be quick, then it would be great since this is an area where the tool lacks a bit. The tool should also offer more security.

I have experience with Windows Server for more than ten years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Windows has had a long journey since it started off in 1998 and now it has been almost 22 years. From the last decade, the tool has improved a lot, and offers good stability. There are no errors, and problems coming up in the tool like how it used to come up in the initial days.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The product's initial setup phase is pretty straightforward and simple without any challenges.

For the on-prem version, you need to go for a perpetual license. An organization can buy licenses in a bundle. If I am planning to run ten operating systems, I will buy a pack of ten licenses, which will be cost-effective for me. If one goes bad, I can get another one by just putting it to use the same license, meaning I can reuse the license if something goes bad on any of the PCs. When it goes to the cloud, I can purchase the monthly licenses from Windows.

In terms of the product's abilities associated with virtualization, I would say that it is actually the biggest leap in technologies when, earlier, whatever applications you needed to run, you had to spin up a physical server. When the virtualization started happening, you could run multiple servers on one physical server. Multiple VMs can have different applications and tiers. Virtualization is the best thing that happened, and a lot of people and organizations use it.

The best part of the security feature in the tool is the firewall because it is the first line of defense for the operating system since you can lock down your OS to a certain level and only allow one or two ports for whatever communication you want, and the rest can all be blocked for safety purposes. You keep getting security updates every month or every second Tuesday so that you can keep your environment up to date and safe from outside malicious activities. Microsoft is always on top of security updates, and the tool is very careful to keep the environment safe.

Speaking about the benefits of AD in Windows Server, I would say that AD is actually the backbone of any organization. AD was, in fact, my first love. When I started working with technologies, I was baffled to see how strong and amazing the technology AD had, how it would let me spin up users, groups, and objects, and how you manage those objects because those are very important areas. In any organization, the most important thing is the security of your identity. For any user who is trying to access any of the computers in the organization, it is very important for the company to authenticate and authorize the user to ensure the identity of the person. He or she has to move with the proper way of writing a username and the right password. There are a lot of security features in the tool. If a person is trying to enter a system with some fake passwords, then there are lockouts. After three incorrect passwords, the account gets logged out, and in such a manner, you can secure that entity.

The tool's integration feature with the existing IT ecosystem has been easy. The integrations are absolutely fine because Windows is designed to allow for easy integrations, even though Linux is also getting integrated easily these days. Mostly, Windows carries a GUI. For users, it is easier to maintain Windows Server than some other tools.

I would just suggest others always try to use the latest OS or operating system for servers and laptops because the latest servers come with new features and security enhancements, which can keep one's environment safe. If one weak PC or one weak OS is there in your environment and if it is outdated and not getting security updates, then it can be hacked, or there could be some virus that can try to harm your network and infect other operating systems. It is very important that each and every operating system is up to date.

I rate the overall tool a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for deployments, troubleshooting, Active Directory policies, and Windows patching.

We use Active Directory and IIS to host different kinds of web apps. We have also used the FTP feature for our FTP server.

FTP functionality does not require additional payment because Windows Server already includes the feature, reducing the costs of these tools. Windows Server also includes IIS, a web server hosting applications. This allows us to build and test applications directly on the server from scratch.

Active Directory should have groups and policies. It could probably provide a better overview of how Active Directory is built.

I have been using Windows Server as a consultant for ten years. We are using the 2022 version of the solution, as well as the 2008, 2016, and 2018 versions.

We have various security measures, such as antivirus software and firewalls. Additionally, on the network side, we utilize different types of firewalls to manage and enhance the security of the infrastructure itself.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

I used the solution for my file server, music server, and document management system.

The solution is quite stable. It's very common, so finding applications and support is easy. The security is fine. The single sign-on makes it easy for the users, and the ability to automatically deploy software to everybody is good.

The administration interface should be more user-friendly. Some parts of the administration interface have been upgraded, while others are old-fashioned. The vendor must update everything with the same user interface and make it more modern.

I have been using the solution for 25 years.

I rate the tool’s stability a 10 out of 10.

The tool’s scalability is fine.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. Due to the Windows updates, it always takes me two days to install Windows Server.

I can do the deployment myself. I just had one server.

It's easy to get support. It's well known, so we can find answers anywhere. The tool supports many applications. It’s simple. It’s not cheap, but it works. The ROI is pretty good.

We had an annual license. The product was quite expensive.

I have also used Linux servers. Windows has better application compatibility, availability, and ease of use.

I have never used Microsoft's virtualization features. Windows is one of the most common operating systems. Many applications are available for it, so it's hard to go wrong if we have the money to pay for it. Overall, I rate the product a 9 out of 10.

Windows Server serves as the foundation of our infrastructure, handling user authentication, security, and file sharing. It also supports other essential tools like SQL for database management, SharePoint for collaboration, and interfaces with communication servers for seamless integration with our landlines.

The most valuable features of Windows Server for us are scalability, hardware compatibility, and support for various hardware interfaces like communication boards. Additionally, its seamless integration with Windows mobile devices proved highly beneficial for our operations.

One area for improvement in Windows Server is the basic administration tools and scripts, which have become less reliable and functional over time. Restoring the simplicity and effectiveness of these tools would greatly enhance the user experience and efficiency of server management.

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

Windows Server has been extremely stable for us. We have experienced no blue screens or crashes and often achieved an uptime of 2,000 to 3,000 days without any issues whatsoever.

Around 5,000 users work with Windows Server in our organization.

Microsoft's technical support for Windows Server has been lacking, with rare responses even with premium support. As a result, administrators often rely on each other for assistance, sharing knowledge and troubleshooting together. I would rate the support as a one out of ten.

Negative

Setting up Windows Server is straightforward, usually taking around half an hour with just one person. No extra resources are needed for deployment.

Windows Server offers excellent value for money, particularly when compared to alternatives. Despite price increases, it remains a cost-effective choice.

The pricing for Windows Server has increased over the years and is now tied to Azure pricing. Previously, a Windows Server with two processors cost around two 154 euros annually, but now it is estimated to be around 3,000 to 4,000 euros for the same configuration.

Windows Server was crucial for our business as it offered scalability, allowing us to seamlessly upgrade servers as our company expanded rapidly. It served as the backbone for all our tools and applications, providing a unified platform for our operations.

Windows Server's security features have significantly improved our IT security posture. While occasional vulnerabilities arose, Microsoft promptly addressed them, providing clear instructions on mitigation. Consequently, we have had no security incidents in over 20 years, thanks to proactive measures and effective security management.

Managing Windows Server in a multi-server environment used to be relatively easy, but in recent years, it has become increasingly challenging due to the removal of useful tools and Microsoft's focus on cloud services. 

Integrating Windows Server with Azure was initially challenging due to limited documentation and some synchronization issues, but it became smoother over time with the help of user experiences and shared knowledge. Integration with AWS for specific tasks was less problematic.

I would recommend Windows Server to others. Overall, I would rate it as a nine 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.

It is used for day to day purposes. 

The simplicity of the solution is the most valuable aspect. 

They could make it more company-specific to some of the tools that we use.

I have experience using Windows Server. 

The stability is very high. 

Close to a thousand users are using the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It is an expensive solution. 

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I use the solution in my company for our applications and security.

Windows Server is similar to any other typical server, considering that there are multiple servers available in the market. The ease of administration that the product provides is one of the reasons why my company uses it.

The product's price is an area of concern where improvements are required, considering that there has been an increase in the tool's licensing costs, especially the ones required for virtualization.

The scalability of the product needs to be improved, considering that organizations may have an increase in resource requirements.

I have been using Windows Server for a few years. I use the versions that were released in 2016 and 2018.

It is a stable solution. Compared to the stability offered by the product in the previous year, I feel that there have been improvements in the current year.

I have experience with the solution's technical support. My company is able to find solutions to our ratios with the help of the product's technical team. The product's technical team is neither good nor bad, meaning the support team offers normal support services.

My company uses IBM Power AIX and SUSE Linux Enterprise servers. My company has also tested some of the Linux servers' versions.

With the help of SentinelOne, Windows Server was installed and used for the management of the virtual environment. My company also uses a PAM solution along with a security-oriented product.

The product's installation phase is easy.

In my company, we know the product's deployment process. Due to the aforementioned reason, it doesn't take my company much time to deploy the product.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises and cloud model.

It is an expensive product. My company makes payments towards the licensing costs attached to the product.

My company uses Windows Server, considering the knowledge that my organization possesses about the product and the information concerning the integration capabilities the tool offers.

The security features offered by the product to protect our enterprise's resources are good. Though there is a scope for improvement in the product's security features, it is one of the most used solutions in the world when compared to the other tools in the market.

It is one of the cleaner systems available in the market that can be tailored to fit into your environment. Most people have experience using Windows Server in their environment. Windows Server is the easiest option my company chooses, considering the amount of experience we have with it in our environment.

I don't think that I have any special comments on how the product has improved our company's system performance area.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

We use it for infrastructure. 

The capabilities and beta securities are important features. The IP directory is the most valuable feature. 

The user interface needs improvement. 

I have been using Windows Server for 20 years. 

The stability of the solution is improving. I rate the stability a 9 out of 10. 

Three thousand users are using the solution at present. 

The setup installation takes time and the first time to create the image. It might take you a day or so. But once you have the image, hard end, it's easy to deploy because now it's built to own. 

I rate the overall product a 9 out of 10.