Microsoft Virtual Server Reviews

Our use cases are normal. It's a virtual machine. We have virtual machines for our application servers, for many application servers. So we use it just to reduce the cost of having new physical machines. That is the main benefit of virtualization in a GUI.

The most valuable feature is the stability of the solution. 

I would like to see an updated version of Microsoft Virtual Server that supports Linux.

We recently updated their special machines to the Linux version of Cybervisor, and we are also using VMware and Dell DXL. These platforms are more efficient than Microsoft Virtual Server, and we no longer carry on with Microsoft.

In the future release, I would like to see more automation. Moreover, improvements related to recovery could be beneficial.

I have used Microsoft Virtual Hyper-V for about six or seven years right now. 

The solution is very stable. We haven't had any critical issues. I don't think I have faced anything critical yet.

It is a scalable solution. There are about 200 end users using this solution. 

The customer service and support are very fast and efficient. 

The initial setup is very easy. It took around three to four hours to deploy the solution. 

We have one manager and two admins for the maintenance of the solution.

We just purchased our licenses from Microsoft, and it hasn't been an issue.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten. It is a good product. It's very effective. Between Microsoft and VMware, Microsoft is cheaper than VMware. It doesn't have the same performance issue, but it will be enough for any small business.

I use the tool to reset servers. 

The most valuable feature is the tool's cheap cost. 

Microsoft Virtual Server should improve its network performance. 

I have been using the product for more than ten years. 

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable. 

We did the deployment in-house. 

I rate Microsoft Virtual Server a seven out of ten. 

It is a good solution. If a company must have 100 physical servers, it can virtualize all those servers using Virtual Server. From a hundred physical servers, they can come to four physical servers. We can reduce the consumption.

The product helps with server management. It adds value to the business. It improves security and server management and reduces the cost of handling data filters. We can also add space for doing other things. The dashboard is valuable to us. It provides flexibility in the management of multiple servers. The tool provides flexibility in the configuration of different servers.

The solution must improve its pricing.

I have been using the solution for years.

The tool is very stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

The tool is very, very scalable. I rate the scalability a nine out of ten. Our clients are small, medium, and large enterprises. The solution fits any requirement.

The technical support is good.

Neutral

The initial setup is very easy and straightforward. The deployment takes four hours.

The product must reduce the cost by 40%.

Microsoft is better than Linux.

People who want to use the product need to make a good assessment of their needs, build the right licensing program, and hire a great team to implement and support the solution. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We use Microsoft Virtual Server to centralize and access all Active Directory and file servers. Additionally, we regulate the computers within the domain and manage user access to the systems.

Microsoft Virtual Server can be deployed on-premises, in the cloud, or in a hybrid environment, depending on the specific business requirements of each organization.

The most valuable feature is the ability to share folders and run Active Directory.

Server security can always be improved.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for five years.

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable.

I give the scalability of Microsoft Virtual Server a ten out of ten.

Technical support is available anywhere in the world, but we haven't needed to contact them because our Microsoft Virtual Servers are functioning as expected.

The initial setup is straightforward. Anyone who has experience with Microsoft servers can set up their environment including the shared folders quickly.

For the deployment, we must first understand the organization's requirements and determine whether there will be external users accessing the system or if it will be limited to internal use only. We need to define the goals and then consider all the necessary components to facilitate the process. It is crucial to establish a centralized location, and depending on the complexity of the network topology, we can determine how it can serve external users effectively. Finally, we can begin testing the security measures and take note of the advantages and disadvantages that arise.

I give Microsoft Virtual Server a ten out of ten.

The number of people required for deployment and maintenance depends on the size of the organization. A small company can manage with one person, but I have also seen large organizations that required fifteen people.

Microsoft Virtual Servers can offer a secure, reliable, and scalable network environment, catering to the specific roles of servers for organizations of any size. I highly recommend utilizing Microsoft Virtual Servers.

Microsoft Virtual Server is user-friendly.

The platform’s dashboard features could be better.

I rate Microsoft Virtual Server’s stability a seven or eight out of ten. Sometimes, we have to restart it while updating firmware every six months.

The platform has good scalability. We have more than 40 servers and 975 clients using it. 

We can refer to many YouTube tutorials for the platform’s setup procedures. It helps our executives from the IT department. It takes ten minutes to complete and requires a team of five executives for the configuration.

It is an expensive product.

I rate Microsoft Virtual Server an eight out of ten. It is suitable for small and medium-sized businesses, as per my experience.

We use this product for virtualizing all of our environment.

We have between 80 and 85 apps that run our core services. We are an insurance company and we have a lot of internal apps.

This solution helps us because our data center is in another part of the country, and we do not have to travel to work on it. I can do things remotely from my desk.

The most valuable features are monitoring, and the self-service that they have for a customized environment. 

The administration is very good.

The response time from technical support could be faster.

The price of this product could be better.

Our offices began using Microsoft Virtual Server about five years ago.

This is a stable product and we use it on a daily basis. For the most part, it works very quickly.

For our environment, the level of scalability is fine. We have approximately 50 users.

I would rate technical support a nine out of ten. If the response time were quicker then it might be perfect.

The initial setup was really easy.

We hired an integrator to assist us with the implementation and deployment.

It is a one-time cost and there are no licensing fees. 

My advice for anybody who is implementing this solution is to hire external, trained professionals with the correct skills for these specific products.

In summary, this is a good product and although it has issues, they are minimal. From my perspective, I think that everything is going well.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

We are a data centre and hosting provider. We provide our clients with a dedicated server and VM. My client uses Microsoft Virtual Server to deploy website applications. 

The tool is productive and performs well. The server speed is also fast. 

We've faced challenges with migrating virtual machines from one host to another. Also, managing Microsoft updates has been a struggle. We have to update the host node every month when new updates are released, and our virtual machines go down every time there's an update. This causes downtime repeatedly and irritates our clients. It should also be lightweight. 

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable. 

My company has more than 1000 customers. 

We do not take direct support from Microsoft. We have experts in-house. 

We deploy the tool manually. The deployment process involves meeting the client's requirements. We install the necessary memory and configure the system to meet these specifications. My company has more than 100 resources to manage Microsoft Virtual Server. 

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. The tool's compatibility with other operating systems is fine. We enjoy better manageability because we handle everything in-house, leveraging our expertise in Microsoft. 

We are embarking on a virtual environment for our disaster recovery before embarking on our production. We tested several virtual servers. When they are successful during the DR environment, we plan for our production environment with a very small-scale noncritical production environment.

When everything stabilizes after a few months, we return to the production environment for critical systems. We migrate from the physical to the virtual. It takes about one and a half years to do that with help from our local vendor.

The solution provides easy monitoring and easy troubleshooting.

The solution’s pricing could be improved. When embarking on a virtual environment, the sizing is not done properly. Capacity planning should be comprehensively done before embarking on any virtualized environment.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for 11 years.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten for stability.

Around ten users use the solution in our organization.

Microsoft Virtual Server is a scalable solution.

A feasibility study needs to be done properly for the solution's deployment.

Microsoft Virtual Server’s licensing is expensive.

Users must read everything about their virtual environment before they go for any enhancement on the solution.

Overall, I rate the solution ten out of ten.

The tool's most valuable feature is its workload. Its integration with Microsoft products is good. 

Microsoft Virtual Server needs to improve its patching. It should offer us a review before updates. The solution should also improve its pricing. 

Microsoft Virtual Server is stable. 

The product is scalable. 

The tool's support is prompt. 

Microsoft Virtual Server's deployment is not so complex.

I rate the overall product a nine out of ten. 

In our operations, Microsoft Virtual Server is crucial for managing virtual machines in testing and development. We utilize cloud databases in the Amazon Partner Network for efficient data handling, integrating web servers, and web services. Third-party Internet services and the APN connector system enhance our connectivity, providing a robust network infrastructure.

Microsoft Virtual Server's standout features are its seamless network integration, robust data restoration capabilities, and versatile computing functions. These qualities are invaluable for cloud computing and networking, enhancing the overall flexibility and scalability of our operations.

While I am generally satisfied with the solution, it could slightly improve its stability.

I have been using Microsoft Virtual Server for two years.

I would rate the stability as a seven out of ten. It could improve by adapting to new features and changes occurring every three months.

I would rate the scalability at a seven out of ten. We have over 100 users of the solution.

I would rate the technical support as a seven out of ten.

Neutral

Setting up and deploying can be a bit complex, and the time it takes depends on different factors. We have various environments, like development and production. If everything goes smoothly, it is quick, but if there are issues, it takes time to fix them. The deployment process involves moving through different stages, checking for problems like missing incidents or security issues.

Overall, I would rate Microsoft Virtual Server as an eight out of ten.