Windows Server

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.

Suited for people extremely versed in Server. [In my experience,] not suited for anyone that isn't already versed in Server.

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 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.

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.

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.

Best suited as a domain controller, file server, SQL server, VPN server and DNS server. You would be better off allowing your router to control DHCP processes. And direct access to printers via IP address is better than having the server be used as a printer server. Having the router work as a DHCP server will also keep the server out of the loop when it comes to direct access to the internet.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An excellent on-premise solution for small to medium-sized business networks. Perhaps less suited as an on-premise solution for extremely large organizations.

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.

Windows Server is perfect for any organization that wants to control what users do on their network. Even if your company only has 10 employees I would still recommend configuring a Windows server instance, the benefits are huge and worth it. Securing HR documents, preventing users from installing bloatware on their machines, sharing documents between users and of course, securing your network. I can't think of any reason not to install it apart from the high cost.

Windows server is well suited for organizations with over 20 employees. A lot of solutions in the cloud are now competing with the local File Server model that Windows server addresses. If you have less than 20 employees it may not justify the cost of licensing/server hardware and time to maintain windows server to justify the benefits. The Microsoft Licensing model is very confusing and can be costly. If you are a non profit Microsoft has generous price cuts through tech soup. Because windows server is a traditional software model you will need to maintain it and upgrade it after the product is replaced with the next version. If you have over 20 employees and want the fastest possible access to files than Windows server is probably well suited. Many on site software solutions also require running on Windows server as well.

Windows Server is well suited for organizations of different sizes. We utilize Windows Server from a small two person office up to 50 users in a large office setting. I would not recommend using Windows Server in a single user office setting unless the application is server specific for it to work correctly.

Windows is suited for just about any general purpose scenario such as file shares, printing, LDAP, DHCP/DNS, general purpose app servers and such. But when it comes to running specialized applications like Cisco Unified Communications Manager, these tend to run much better in a Linux environment than on Windows and they are also more stable on Linux. When Cisco CUCM used to run on Windows, the updates alone caused many headaches. With Linux, you don't do any regular updates; you just install a patch if you have an issue or upgrade to the next version. Storage appliances also run much better on customized versions of Linux or Unix than they do on Windows.

Windows Server works well for most scenarios as it scales so well - from a standalone server in a small business to a hybrid model backed by Azure Directory Services to large businesses with an established Microsoft platform of dozens or hundreds of servers. My experience of Windows server is in medium businesses of around 300-500 staff with several dozen instances.

Windows Server is logical and easy to manage. Server Manager Dashboard allows you to have an fast overview of what is installed and an easy way to install more roles. It also gives you a fast way to see if there are any issues.