Windows Server Vs. FOSS
Updated April 29, 2020

Windows Server Vs. FOSS

Anonymous | TrustRadius Reviewer
Score 8 out of 10
Vetted Review
Verified User

Overall Satisfaction with Windows Server

Windows Server is implemented throughout our organization, as well as numerous clients that I do consulting work for. It is used for a variety of different tasks from Active Directory Domain Services/DNS/DHCP, Terminal Services, Backup Servers, to File Servers. It allows our clients to have one operating system that they are familiar with an almost catch-all for services that support day to day operations.

Pros

  • Permissions Management within Active Directory - It can be complicated, but it is as granular as you could ever want.
  • Management of the Server can be done with a GUI or CLI - this lowers the barrier of entry for learning the environment.
  • Roles and Features are installed within a wizard - this is safer than adding or changing repositories.

Cons

  • Windows Server normally could benefit from trimming. There are non-essential services that are enabled by default, and sometimes when they do not auto-start, it will trigger an alarm, which is false. Nobody wants to see anything but green across the board!
  • Windows Server's power comes from Active Directory - so if you want a server that is not tied to your domain, you will probably be crippling yourself if you choose windows outside of a few select use cases.
  • I would like to see a licensing shift from per core back to per socket. This makes HA environments tricky to license.
  • It has a positive business impact by allowing us to audit permissions access to confidential client data.
  • It has a positive ROI by allowing us to host our own backup server compared to numerous other 3rd parties.
  • It has a negative ROI when used for a standalone feature; Windows shines from the do-all nature the server allows you to accomplish.
Windows Server is the only one that has an upfront cost for licensing before hardware is considered. Windows Server is generally better suited for multi-faceted approaches; however, for just backups, TrueNAS and Synology are cheaper and just as good. For standalone services such as DNS/DHCP/NTP, CentOS is our preferred operating system. For permissions management, auditing, file services, DNS, DHCP, and webservers Windows Server shines. The only caveat to this is most of your eggs are in one "basket" - even though you should always have redundant and co-located domain controllers.
Whenever I need support for Windows Server - I always find the answer within their documentation or a forum post. I have never had TAC from Microsoft.

Do you think Windows Server delivers good value for the price?

Yes

Are you happy with Windows Server's feature set?

Yes

Did Windows Server live up to sales and marketing promises?

Yes

Did implementation of Windows Server go as expected?

No

Would you buy Windows Server again?

Yes

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.

Comments

More Reviews of Windows Server

  1. Home
  2. Operating Systems
  3. Windows Server Reviews
  4. User Review of Windows Server