Windows Server

There are other options out there that can provide many of the same functionalities of Window Server. Specifically, Synology NAS servers, in conjunction with Synology's excellent DSM (DiskStation Manager) software include a number of features that Windows Server includes, but in an easier to set up and less complicated manner. Specifically, DSM includes its bread and butter file server capabilities, a powerful DHCP Server, DNS Server, web server functionality using Apache, LDAP directory service (similar to Active Directory, but not as powerful), and even additional functionality not found in Windows Server such as powerful VPN server that can provide PPTP, L2TP, or even OpenVPN services.

However, there isn't a single piece of software or hardware that provides the same level of functionality as Windows Server's Active Directory and Group Policy management tools.

Windows Server is the most Enterprise/Business server around, easy to deploy and configure and to co-exist with other servers. Most if not every other server technology is usually very good for a very specific purpose but fail in the coexistence and integration when compared with Windows Server.

We use both Windows and Ubuntu, or other flavors of Linux servers, in our environment. Windows is much easier to work with for less experienced admins, since it is GUI based and very closely mimics Windows end-user systems like Windows 7 or Windows 10. Since we are primarily a Microsoft shop, running Windows Servers is basically mandatory.

A lot more industry-standard application support. Ease of use. Security patched happen more often.

The only alternative system I have ever used to Windows Server is just having standalone end points running Microsoft Windows Desktop systems. This causes all sorts of issues with regards to network security, user and device management and access to shared resources such as files and printers on the network. In the Microsoft "Workgroup" environment (IE, with an AD Domain) the end-user experience is not good and the management of such systems is complex and time consuming!

None

Windows Server has much broader support for the majority of business applications available today. Linux only has very specific application support. Windows Server is also much easier to get support for as it is not an open-source server platform and the developer provides commercial support. I also think that there is a much lower learning curve on figuring out how to configure and administer Windows Server compared to other platforms. We primarily chose Windows Server for the business application support as it supports the applications that we need to run to conduct day-to-day business.

We've not ever used en masse or had the time/skillset to use other operating systems. Everyone has been using Windows server for most of their working adult life and should be familiar with its pros and cons, by now. I do believe every Windows server version is getting better, more stable, and more performant.

Windows has functions that are available to it that Linux does not as there are a lot more applications available that run on the Windows platform. Windows is widely used and is familiar to admins that don't have the experience needed for Linux. It is still a staple in anything having to do with hosting.

Windows Server offers more stability when using solutions that require domain services. It also offers more stability than third-party solutions for file services using SMB. I find third-party alternatives on Linux feature rich, however, very lacking in stability and usually buggy. Windows Server is mature in both areas.

We looked at using a Linux type of server remotely, such as from Liquid Web or Rackspace as a dedicated server. Though the setup would be even easier, the long term costs did not add up. Again, for our smaller needs, a low-end Windows Server got us running and paid for itself in several months time.

Microsoft has gone from its pinnacle at Windows Microsoft has gone from its pinnacle at windows NT. Microsoft is now the second string junior varsity league company that is struggling to catch up . The server crashes it hangs it can’t handle large amounts of data it’s massively oversold and expensively useless for modern applications

The clear advantage is that Windows Server is less intimidating to the uninitiated novice being that it has a GUI, well-documented process that you can see and follow rather than just executing commands in a terminal. At the same time, the growth and scope of Powershell allow you to do virtually anything from a terminal if you desire to do so.

Additionally, you have a company with a good track record and clear goals steering the direction and support of the OS, versus a community-driven open source OS. I'm not saying that is necessarily an advantage, but the stability of Microsoft is quite nice.

Windows Server has no competition, yes there are multiple instances of Linux (centos, ubuntu) that offer a lot of features that windows server has at no cost, but none of them shine like Windows, especially when it comes to user management. Another reason why Windows is worth the money: It's very user-friendly, where Linux servers are not. Windows server also has multiple tutorials and documentation online, Linux has very few.

Easy to use server operating system as compared to other operating systems (OS) which might require you to do a configuration via a terminal. Installation and managing of server - client applications are easy to use. Less load on server depending on the number of users accessing it. Ability to use the hyperV functionality well. Also active directory functions are suitable as this allows the IT support team to manage users' accounts.

Windows Server allows much more control and flexibility than online file storage solutions. Windows is also much faster than cloud file storage and does not require the Internet. Greater flexibility and control means more time managing user that includes upgrading servers and managing, purchasing, renewing licenses server and server licenses. I would choose windows server for greater control and faster performance. The online cloud file services offer more convenience in terms of backups and upgrades that come with the services by default.

We have utilized Windows Server for over a decade and have not had a reason to look at any other server environment. Our vendors also specify that their applications will run best on a Windows Server environment and they have not been wrong with the ease of use it provides. We have been researching Cloud Servers but have concerns about security and Internet connectivity.

In the Open Source market the alternative to use Microsoft Windows server is to use a distro or flavor of Linux. Free does not necessarily mean cheap. There is a considerable learning curve to both technicians and users that use a Linux Distro. One of the problems with Linux is its many flavors is that things change rapidly and dramatically. I have had an Own Cloud install on RedHat and within three months the install process has changed. However Microsoft Server has the same sort of draw backs. As an example Exchange Server 2016 using and install process on Server 2012 with Power Shell showed to have consider difficulty. When you are running a paragraph long script in Power Shell things don't happen in order and the install process fails or the product doesn't work.

HP-UX is a great product, but it has a much higher learning curve than Windows server. Even if you're familiar with Linux/Unix, HP-UX will still be very challenging if you've never used it before. HP-UX commands can be different than even other Linux/Unix commands. Whereas everyone has used Windows in their life, making Windows server intuitive and easy to learn.

Both would have worked ok for most small businesses but finding someone to tech and maintain these servers after install can be a task. Often they are expensive and you never know who or what you are buying due to lack of good certification standards for the other products.

Windows vs. OS X. Windows scales so much better here. OS X in a server role is ok for one or two servers but does not have the enterprise feature set or associated complementary software products that Microsoft Windows has.

Windows vs. Linux. Both have their advantages. These days I find well configured Microsoft Windows servers can operate as reliably as Linux servers. Linux is certainly more resource efficient and in the past has had a much smaller resource footprint. Microsoft is addressing these concerns through the GUI less 'Core' installation option and the newly released 'nano' installation options.

Windows Server is easy to use and manage.

The only other server level OS I've ever used was OS/2, and there's really no point in trying to compare against it anymore.