The main use cases for Windows Server involve file sharing, such as file server and network shares. We are not a big organization using Windows Server. We are in the transportation industry, and we have a data center. We have approximately 15 servers and 50 machines, some of them are virtual.

The Active Directory integration helps my organization manage permissions and maintain security policies effectively. The security groups are perfect for what I need. I can give groups of users access to specific subfolders easily through the AD security group instead of adding users individually. You simply add them to a security group and the rest of it follows. This is a good mechanism.

It definitely saves my team a lot of time. It's hard to say exactly how much time it saves, but imagine you need to add five new users to a share. Instead of going in, logging in, and finding the user, I just add the members to the group. Click okay, apply, and they have access to the network shares. I don't even need to access the server directly, which is a nice part of it.

The best features of Windows Server are that it works and gives us everything we need to share files and set security permissions. It is done effectively in terms of the NTFS permissions. I can base them on AD security groups.

I have utilized the Active Directory integration in Windows Server for identity management, and they are on a domain.

We haven't utilized Windows containers and Kubernetes for deploying any applications. I'm trying to learn it and have started to watch YouTube content for my understanding.

I cannot tell if the security enhancements such as Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection have contributed to protecting sensitive data.

We have not implemented the failover clustering feature in Windows Server.

I have experience with Windows Server for approximately four to five years.

In terms of stability, I would say it's good. Looking at Windows Server 2025, there are still bugs to fix, but 2019 has been there for years and is pretty stable. It's doing a very good job.

I think Windows Server does a very good job with scalability. From what I've read, it can scale out easily.

I have not dealt with Microsoft customer service or technical support directly. My colleague worked with them, and they were available and helped fix the issue. It worked.

I assess the impact of Hyper-V technology on our resource utilization and hardware costs as very attractive after Broadcom killed VMware for small companies. That's why I'm looking at other technologies and what people say about them.

The initial setup of Windows Server is straightforward in my opinion. It comes with lots of features or things by default. It's already set up with a certain level of security and other things that require hardening based on our company policies, but it's straightforward. It's doing its job and comes ready to continue the setup.

I do not have experience with Azure products or Citrix. I'm getting to know what other people are saying about the product.

I do not deal with any other types of products such as Cisco, Fortinet, Palo Alto, or testing tools. I just work with Windows Server.

I do not deal with other products such as Windows Server AppFabric or WSUS, Windows Server Update Services. It's an old-style pure server, on-premises, physical.

I use patch management, such as the update services. We do have it, but it's not me who's taking care of it.

I see lots of new features that Microsoft brings into Windows Server 2025. I understand it's not ready for a general release yet. It's definitely very interesting with the new features and focused a lot on the cloud part of it, so it's something to explore.

I can't say which specific feature I'm most looking forward to seeing since I don't deal with cloud. I don't have it in my environment, but I'm trying to learn it. I'm keeping up with my reading about it, so once I have a better understanding, maybe we can try something.

I am still a system administrator with TFI International.

On a scale of 1-10, I rate Windows Server a 9.

My purpose for using Windows Server is mostly for Microsoft workloads, which includes ERP, NAV, NAVISION, and for 365 Dynamics, as we have recently migrated to 365 Dynamics from an on-prem Microsoft Dynamics solution. We utilize Active Directory, Windows Server for MS SQL Server, and SharePoint, and we are already a customer for Azure cloud as well.

From my personal perspective, the most beneficial functions and features of Windows Server are predominantly its services for Active Directory, as well as its support for SQL Server and any .NET or ASP.NET applications that we have hosted using the IIS server.

Windows Server helps with our data protection strategies through Microsoft security services. On top of Microsoft Server, we have to use certain third-party applications; while Microsoft server services provide good host-level security, external application level security often requires additional third-party solutions.

Regarding drawbacks of Windows Server, the solution can definitely be improved, as it is quite vulnerable since Windows is widely adopted in the industry, making it an easier target. We need to ensure that we have antivirus running; while Windows Defender antivirus has improved, it still lacks in areas such as behavioral analysis, and AI-based attacks are not very efficiently detected.

We use third-party applications for app controls and manage Privileged Access Management with third-party integration, even if we use the AD topology. We also rely on third-party solutions for multi-factor authentication.

I have been working with Windows Server for quite a long time. My experience spans more than 35 years, and in this organization, I have been here for almost around 14 to 15 years.

The installation of Windows Server is quite easy, but Windows Server tends to be a little resource-hungry, and customization from a server standpoint is limited, which is my perspective.

Regarding stability, the experience can depend on housekeeping practices. If maintenance is regular, I don't encounter many day-to-day challenges. However, if maintenance is neglected for an extended period, performance issues and contention may arise, but overall, it remains pretty controllable.

In terms of scalability, Windows Server does have certain challenges; many tools are proprietary to Windows Server. For instance, it doesn't have a default load balancer, and although licensing models differ when using cluster service, scalability is not fundamentally a challenge. The cost of the operating system version can impose different challenges, though.

The technical support from Microsoft is one of the best, though there can be challenges when it comes to priority zero or critical issues, where the queue can be longer.

If I were to rate Microsoft support from one to ten, I would rate it around eight to eight plus.

Positive

Working with Windows Server does save me time and money. The return on investment is evident as having efficient resources to manage our infrastructure means we are less dependent on costly external support from Microsoft. An in-house team can manage things quite efficiently without needing additional assistance.

In terms of ROI, it saves us roughly 10 to 20% in terms of time and resources.

The cost associated with Windows Server—considering pricing, licensing, and setup—is expensive, no doubt.

Maintenance of Windows Server varies by organization, but for us, it's not very difficult as we have in-house resources managing these tasks. However, it can become a bit tricky when we want to see a collated view of our security posture.

Regarding AI integrations with Windows Server, Copilot adoption is progressing, though I have only experienced it on endpoints and not on the server side. We operate significant workloads on AI, but we consume those primarily on Linux rather than Windows Server.

I don't have much experience regarding integration capabilities in Windows Server for AI workloads, so I may not be the right person to provide insights on that.

Overall, I am quite happy with my experience using Windows Server. I don't have many constraints or concerns, so I would rate it eight out of ten.

Positive

Positive

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.

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 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.