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.

I use Microsoft System Center to manage our Windows Server.

My organization benefits from the use of the product since it is a tool that offers security while being user-friendly and easy to manage.

The most valuable feature of the solution is its performance. My company currently uses Microsoft SCOM to monitor the performance of Windows Server. My company wishes to have some applications on QRadar or log management tools like ELK.

The product has certain shortcomings related to security capability in the area of incident response, making it the tool's component where improvements are required. My company uses QRadar to resolve our server-related issues quickly.

I have been using Windows Server for twenty years.

It is a stable solution. More than 15,000 people in my company use the solution.

My company has no plans to increase the use of the solution.

It is a scalable solution.

The product is deployed on the cloud model.

To start the deployment process in our company, we first need to make a request to the IT team. After that, the IT team looks at the requirements and deploys the server. In our company, we have a system to follow the deployment process.

The solution can be deployed in a couple of minutes since our company already has some idea and image about Windows Server. My team deploys the product in a couple of minutes every time there is a requirement in a department that is associated with our company.

Around three people in my company are required to take care of the product's deployment and maintenance processes.

My company has an enterprise agreement with Microsoft. I feel that the price of the product is okay.

Windows Server helps our company to install a virtual environment.

Speaking about the beneficial features of Windows Server for our company's IT infrastructure, I would say that my company uses Microsoft Active Directory, along with some other services like Office 365 and the cloud services offered by Microsoft.

There are product security updates, which serve as a security feature for our company.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it, but they need to use it based on their requirements.

My company did not face any problems while using the integration capabilities of the product with the existing systems in our environment.

The only problem with Windows Server stems from the area revolving around the software lifecycle since our company has to apply the latest version to our current system every couple of years.

I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I use the solution to manage file servers. 

The tool is easy to access and manage. You don't have to take any backups. 

Windows Server needs to improve its speed and stability. 

I have been working with the product for 20 years. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

Windows Server is scalable, and my company has 2000 users. It is used extensively. 

I haven't contacted Microsoft support. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward and takes six months to complete. The product is overseen by a technical team of ten resources. 

Our consulting company helped with the deployment. 

The tool's licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate the overall product an eight 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.

We use Windows Servers to manage user logins through Active Directory and facilitate VPN connections, supporting our researchers who are architecturally building on DSP DNS for enhanced security and access control.

I find Windows Server valuable for its flexibility and user-friendly interface.

In terms of improvement, performance could be enhanced.

I have been using Windows Server for 13 years.

Windows Server is very stable.

We have not had any issues with the scalability of Windows Server.

In large-scale environments with numerous simultaneous logins, Windows Server may not match the performance power of Linux. Linux tends to excel in handling extensive user loads, while Windows Server remains user-friendly for various tasks.

The initial setup is quite straightforward and the deployment only takes about 30 minutes.

We handled the deployment in-house without the need for a consultant or integrator. We manage it ourselves, and our subscription with Microsoft includes support, so whenever we have questions or issues, we contact Microsoft, and they assist us.

I would recommend Windows Server to others but the choice depends on the specific technology and applications you plan to use. It is essential to consider compatibility and performance factors, as some applications may work better or be recommended for installation on Linux. Overall, I would rate Windows Server as an eight out of ten.

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 Windows Server for network management. 

The product is reliable. It is powerful and we can make a lot of tools to work with it. 

Windows Server needs to improve stability and pricing. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

The product is stable. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

Windows Server is scalable. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

The technical team is knowledgeable and responsive. 

Windows Server is easy to deploy. You only need to install the application. The deployment steps typically involve working with virtual environments. We use templates to set up the machines, specifying the number of interfaces, IP addresses, and routing information. After that, we shift to the system, and the process of putting on the applications is relatively fast. You need around 30 technical resources to handle maintenance and deployment. 

Windows Server is worth its money. 

I rate the product a nine out of ten. We use Windows Server and Red Hat Linux, depending on the application. If the application is designed for Windows, we opt for Windows Server as it is easier to install and deploy.

We use Windows Server as a mandatory tool to host applications, specifically for robotics process automation (RPA). It provides an efficient output and allows multiple users to access the same machine simultaneously.

The product helps us manage user credentials and daily passwords for various applications.

We encounter issues related to the product's UI when multiple users access the same machine. Additionally, sometimes it doesn't work while upgrading patches from Microsoft. This particular area needs improvement.

We have been using Windows Server for five years.

It is a stable platform. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

It is a scalable platform. We have around 1000 Windows Server machines in our organization.

We communicated with the technical support services for problems related to corrupted computing resources. 

The initial setup is easy. I refer to the documentation available on the internet to understand the implementation. It takes 20 minutes to complete the process.

Windows Server has medium pricing.

I recommend Windows Server to others and rate it an eight out of ten. I advise using Windows Server or Linux, depending on the specific needs and compatibility of the applications.

The platform's user interface needs improvement. Additionally, its price could be better.

We have been using Windows Server for 15 years.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten.

We have 15 Windows Server users in our organization.

We receive the technical support services from a local vendor.

The platform generates a return on investment in terms of stability.

Windows Server is expensive. We purchase its yearly license.

I rate Windows Server a nine out of ten.