Windows Server

In most cases you don't have a choice, many commercial applications are built on the Windows server base. However the domains and active directory are good when you have large numbers of servers to manage en-masse.

Environments with lots of users can heavily benefit from Active Directory and Group Policy. Even smaller organizations can benefit from those, but the licensing costs may be prohibitive for smaller environments. Being able to have simple failover between two or more Windows Servers for things like AD authentication and DHCP is also very convenient.

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.

You really don't have much of a choice when it comes to enterprise class operating systems, particularly in the public sector. Fortunately, Windows Server gets the job done and it get it done well. Running it as the core of your environment or even for hosting a small application is always feasible, especially if you opt for datacenter licensing.

If you run a Windows or mixed environment and want to share resources, Windows Server is the way to do it. It can do quite a bit, but because of that, it is a very complex set of tools, so be prepared to invest a lot in getting it set up and maintaining things.

It can be basically deployed in any environment from the smallest branch or home office to running your mission-critical applications in large data centers. Its basic features are very easy to deploy and manage by even a junior engineer who understands Microsoft Operating Systems. The advanced features can be easily learned as there are many training options and support forums to assist.

I feel that Windows Server is the best server OS to run a small to medium business on. Yes, there are other cheaper options out there, but they require much more in depth knowledge and offer limited support. Ease of use plus customization and comfort will always make Windows Server OS my first choice.

Overall experience was good bundle of managing features that could make monitoring a lot easier whole in one package to support and integrate with other applications of Microsoft i.e. Software Center, Active Directory, SQL Server, IIS and many more. UI can be made much simpler and with upcoming advancement in threats there is always a space for enhancement.

Windows server is well suited in:

• Large scale organizations where the number of users is high and management of policies must be required to handle users.
• Critical data environment.
• Minimum downtime areas with low cost with smooth services.

Windows server is less appropriate in:

• Small offices.
• No need for domain work, it can be managed in workgroups.
• No need to deploy policies on users.

Windows Server has a lot of features built-in and it has been getting new features and feature updates with every new release. it can be used as [a] domain controller, NTP server, web server, radius server, NAC server, etc. it also supports virtualization and has its own hypervisor, therefore a full blown virtual infrastructure can be made on Windows Server.

Once you have four or more computers it is appropriate to move the maintenance to a central location rather [than] looking after each computer separately. Especially if you have several branches at different physical locations it makes sense to not only access everything from one location but also easily connect between them and allow [users] to work at either branch.

If they are looking for a product that will be easy for them to configure and use then I don't really believe there is a better option available. If this was an app that they are looking to configure once then never touch it again I could see possibly pushing them toward a Linux solution but unlikely.

Windows Server is best for medium to large businesses where security is a top concern. Having the ability to use group policy for security, mapped drives, printers and automation is key. It is also easy to manage users using active directory. Exchange integration with Azure is also great.

Anyone working in IT will typically have to deal with Windows Server at some point in their career. I have found that it typically works well for any role you put it into. There are typically smaller niche products that sometimes do a better job at a specific task that Windows Server does. But I find using these products can at times get confusing and be very time consuming. Getting a standard education in Windows Server really does let you be a jack of most all trades

If you're a Windows shop, or heavily use O365 and Office, Windows Server fits in nicely with its ability to manage Windows clients using Active Directory. Likewise, Active Directory and Exchange integrate well with O365. If you are primarily a Mac client enterprise, Windows Server is less appropriate. Using Windows Server as a hypervisor, regardless of workstation OS, is also a great use case.

If you want a reliable system with a Windows interface, then Windows Server is your best choice. If you want a server system that can run on very minimal hardware, then Linux would be the better choice. However, Windows Server is far superior to Linux in the vast amount of software that can be installed and ran as well as is supported natively.

Window Server is well suited for internal infrastructure functions like authentication, DHCP, DNS and file and print services via Active Directory. Highly recommend for application server roles as well, web server via IIS assuming the correct security is put in place or for internal use, Database via SQL Server or 1,000's of third party applications. We tend to avoid placing Windows servers directly on the internet but assuming you have the correct security place in it's a great platform.

Windows Server is the best base to do most forms of infrastructure building on. It is stable, well-designed, and allows flexibility without requiring tremendous commitment for specific configurations. You can select to access it via the GUI, or via command-line/Powershell, enabling you to reduce the footprint based on how you want to interact with it.

Windows Server is great for environments where sometimes more capable end users have to do some tasks in the system. Because it is built to look like and work like a regular windows workstation, it isn't that difficult to train end users to do some day to day tasks in it, like checking backups or adding new users.

Once you get into powershell scripting, things can get complicated though, and there is lots to learn about scripting commands and capabilities and even syntax, but luckily there are lots of resources available online to help out.

Windows Server is well suited for hosting resource-intensive applications that need to be accessed by multiple users across many cities (e.g., Microsofts Exchange System, which is also well suited for hosting third-party applications, business intelligence, and analytics application). The graphical version of Windows Server; however, may not be suited for some applications and this can be corrected by using the Core version.

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 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 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.