Windows Server

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.

In my opinion, Windows Server is the easiest server platform to use for things like print servers, file servers and web servers. It is also well suited to act as a platform for a variety of third party platforms. I would not use some of its more specific networking functions like routing or VPN as there are fair more efficient dedicated solutions for these uses.

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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

The domain model is the key to using Windows Server. In the past with Windows Server NT organizations were exploded with multiple domains up into the hundreds at some cases. Now server technologies and replication has brought the domain model down to one in most organizations.

Windows server is a simplest server to install for internal LAN operations. It becomes way too difficult when applied in a WAN environment. Most clients rely on sophisticated firewall appliances or third party vendors to manage proxy or NAT for the WAN. Not many put a windows server directly in the wild.