Windows Server Reviews

Windows Server excels as a Domain Controller with its comprehensive set of tools to manage users and computers. There isn't another software package out there that has the capabilities Windows Server does when it comes to Active Directory and Group Policy. In addition, Windows Server has a massive tool set, thus increasing both its functionality and flexibility.

Unfortunately, the flexibility and comprehensiveness of Windows Server causes it to be overly complicated to set up and manage, especially for a small organization. In addition, for things such as a file server, there are other options out there that are easier to use and more affordable - specifically in the NAS (network attached storage) space where both Synology and QNAP have very attractive options.

Perhaps the most frustrating aspects of Windows Server are the unnecessarily complicated and confusing licensing terms Microsoft has put forth. Sadly, this is not unusual when it comes to Microsoft, as the licensing even for their consumer-oriented products is burdensome.

Windows Server is well suited to support enterprise-grade systems and services. Its native services like Active Directory, DNS, DHCP, file, and print services are rock solid and support a host of features for availability and security. For other Microsoft services (Exchange, SharePoint, etc.), it is obviously the operating system of choice, but many enterprise-class software releases are built to run stable and effective in Windows Server.

Windows Server is suitable for companies just starting up as they help maintain ease of use and security for a small network of computers and allows for secure backups of systems. It does have a drawback when you need to upgrade, as the costs increase tenfold after you exceed the number of licenses for an SBS license.

Windows Server is suited for almost all scenarios. It can run almost any application, including some Linux-based applications either with official port or unofficial (not recommended). It is not the best solution if reliability of a Linux server is required. The added bloat of Windows "features" can cause issues in some environments, and maintenance can be a pain in some cases.

We are currently at the 10k+ users point. Windows Server has proven itself as the best way to manage all these users using the AD prompt, where we can link the user accounts with a lot of intern systems using the same user account. Furthermore, we are using Windows Server in our datacenters to store customer and user data, such as applications and general files.

In general, the server is a good choice. You have to be very careful with the security, the vulnerability. Always has to have a security endpoint.

The majority of our applications are Windows based and thus require a solid and stable Windows OS to run on. Microsoft has provided this with Windows Server. Things like our Antivirus, electronic fax, SQL databases, etc. all require Windows to run. On occasion we will need to deploy Linux based systems for specific applications but there are often provided by or configured by the software vendor.

Windows Server you manage an organization, Windows Server cannot be beaten because of how powerful domains and active directory are. It is highly appropriate for managing updates, file sharing, mapped network drives, and backups. Windows wouldn't be the best choice if you were trying to spin up a DNS server or DHCP server as a standalone role, however. Something more lightweight like CentOS/RHEL or Ubuntu Server would be more appropriate for situations like that - they are lighter, and licensing does not come into play when you need a singular service.

Windows Server is an excellent enterprise-level product. It is easy and cheap to maintain; MS licensing costs are relatively reasonable for the functionality you receive. It is stable and can run almost anything. The one thing I would not recommend Windows Server is for web hosting. IIS can be improved in more than one way; however, for basic, internal-only use, it is OK. Anything else runs well and is very stable.

You just can't go wrong with Microsoft Server in your infrastructure. Unless it is for a very specific purpose, Microsoft Server is a reliable, secure and trustworthy staple in every datacenter.

Small to Large businesses can use Windows Server. Windows Server does have pricing levels to accommodate small to large companies. The security and single point of login would be the greatest part of this if you use its Domain capabilities. So keeping track of your users and what they can access can make things easier for admins or none admins. It has many add-ons to support your networking needs, some free and some not, but for small businesses, there is a lot it can do without breaking the bank.

Windows Server is well suited for environments that want an easier to use and configure server OS, as compared to some others on the market, which involve more from a set-up standpoint, and also require more ongoing maintenance on the back-end. It is less appropriate for organizations that want more control over custom configuring and setup/use of their server OS. It is also less appropriate in environments that don't have a majority of Windows endpoints, in which case another server OS might be more beneficial.

It is well suited for medium to large business uses that require a robust SQL server environment. It is a harder sell on small businesses that are worried about there bottom line and cost of use.

Window Server is fairly well suited for pretty much any scenario where an on-premise server is warranted. It is fairly easy for most users to administer compared to other server platforms that require much more in-depth knowledge to maintain and reliance on an open community for some support instances.

It's useful in most environments where you want a central way to manage users and data. Not good for a small environment where they do not need to manage it centrally.

Windows server is suited for environments from small to large. It's an easy entrance point for many small businesses to start with. Many applications still require a Windows server to run the product.

It may not be as attractive to tech-centric businesses with employees well versed in Linux or Apple products. It may not be a good fit for cash-strapped businesses or start-ups.

Any environment that uses Microsoft software and hardware should run with a Windows Server infrastructure behind it. I've worked in organisations in the past that have used Windows PCs and no server behind them and it causes a huge number of problems in terms of time to manage the use of devices and causes problems with security over the network and access to shared data. Whilst things are migrating towards being completely cloud based, there is still a need, at the moment in my opinion, for a Windows Server infrastructure for both end-user experience and admin maintenance.

The need for Windows Servers is becoming less popular but depending on your application needs, Windows could be great! For a domain controller, it is great with active directories and group policy' as well as providing great tools to enhance its overall functionality.

It's really not necessary to recommend Windows Server to a colleague. Nearly all IT professionals have experience using Windows Server. It would be like asking a cow to recommend grass. It's just something that everyone uses and acknowledges that it is a requirement for being an IT professional. I would definitely discuss my positive and negative experiences, but recommending or not recommending this is not something that anyone, including me, would ever do.

Windows file server is well suited to hosting on-premise and Azure connected domains. No other platform, in my opinion, is suited to this. I also find Windows file server offering SMB file sharing Microsoft implement this better than any third party solution such as SAMBA. Windows File server still has a built-in S3 storage client or server implementation and hopefully, this is on the product roadmap soon.

Perfect for an environment of 10 or more people. It makes managing not only user accounts but PCs much easier. It also makes managing the network just as easy because you can go to one place in order to control everything.

Microsoft is well-suited for a small accounting office that has no mindset for growth.

Microsoft products do not belong in an organization that wants to grow or wants to keep its costs down.

In our case, if you needed a low-cost server that was already set up, this is a great solution for you. Such as, you can buy a low-end server via Dell or HP, and have it delivered with all the software and drivers already installed and tested. I know Linux is a good option for those who are more tech-savvy, but Windows does make it easy to buy it and be up and running quickly.

Windows Server is well suited to applications that effectively require it, there's no way around it. They're also suitable if you don't have Linux proficient admins.

I would argue that with the robustness of nginix running on Linux, if you are deploying a web application, there isn't a lot of reason to deploy it on Windows via IIS rather than Linux unless you have specific vendor support requirements being that nginix is understood to handle more concurrent connections.