Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

We use this solution to deploy all of the packages to the workstations.

The scalability to deploy the package.

The App to upgrades to the server needs to be improved.

We have used SCCM for a couple of years.

We are using the latest version.

It's a stable solution.

It's a scalable product. We have 1,000 users in our organization.

We have plans to continue using this solution.

Technical support is fine. We have no issues with support.

The initial setup is straightforward. It's easy for us.

We have a team of four to deploy and maintain this solution.

We completed the installation ourselves.

It took one week to deploy and customize it.

We have to pay for a license.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using this solution.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

This solution helps to manage different areas. For example, asset inventory and software inventory. You are able to patch products, do software deployment, and software packaging. 

I have found some valuable features to be the built-in reporting tool, the ability to get visibility on your organization, compliance reports, software remitting for all your products in your organization, and the management of all machines in your environment including a new domain and workgroups.

I currently need to increase my compliance level in the patching processes which this solution could improve on. For this purpose, I am looking for another solution to perform more efficiently and to work faster to cover this part specifically.

There should be more visibility to integrate more products other than Microsoft products. For example, Adobe and Google Chrome. You need to do a lot of manual intervention to cover all non-Microsoft products for patching at the moment. There are third parties working on these gaps in this solution. 

I have been using the solution for 12 years.

The solution is stable most of the time.

I have found the solution to be scalable. We have around 50,000 users using the solution.

We were satisfied with the support sometimes. There were occasions when we have had an engineer that was not experienced in the particular problem we encountered to be able to help efficiently. This could be improved by having better-trained engineers.

The specifications for the SCCM and the organizational capacity can make the installation complex otherwise it can be easy.

The deployment took a long time. We required a team system engineer from Microsoft to be allocated with my team to complete any configuration.

We are currently looking for another solution to work in parallel to cover some of the gaps in functionality.

I rate SCCM an eight out of ten.

We use this solution to test out VMs.

The ability to make collections and deploy to them has been great.

The ability to integrate MDM would be great.

We just set up our lab, so we've only been using this solution for three months.

So far, we've had no issues with bugs or glitches. 

SCCM is highly scalable.

I have not had to contact technical support.

As someone who is quite familiar with IT, the initial setup was quite straightforward. It would definitely be complicated if you're not familiar with IT.

Presently, I am using a free trial version. 

I really like SCCM. I am constantly learning new things all the time. So far, it seems pretty straightforward.

It's a good product designed for medium to large-sized environments that need to automate their deployments and set them in an organized manner.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.

We are using SCCM to manage the virtual machine configuration. We had around 100 or 200 virtual machines and wireless, and we need to configure different settings on all of the virtual machines. We need to handle patching, updating, and installing security updates. We prefer to use System Center instead of other solutions like GFI LanGuard that are already installed in other environments.

Previous to SCCM, the entire process was completely manual.

The solution is very flexible and very handy. It has helped us move past the process of manually updating.

It's helped us solve problems surrounding patching, installing, and reporting different patches, etc., on the virtual machines.

Based on my experience with SCCM 2016, the main, big issue is not having a good user-friendly environment. It needs much better GUI. 

We had some problems configuring Linux virtual machines. We needed to install agents. Microsoft should pay more attention to these Linux virtual machines in order to make implementation with them easier.

I've been working in the System Center on two projects for around two years. 

The solution is extremely stable. We've only really had to restart the solution twice in the first year. It's very reliable.

In terms of scalability, at that time I didn't need to scale the development. However, in the near future, it is possible. I don't have any idea of the timeline for our scaling the solution as I focus on VMware technology at this time.

Our company has around 60 users. However, we offer this solution to one of the enterprise customers that use it for bank data centers. They have around 3000 staff.

We are using the System Center to manage around 2000 virtual machines.

In my country, due to sanctions, we cannot use direct support. We just use third-party partners in different countries. Generally, we support the System Center and all their products directly and don't need outside support.

If a company migrates to a cloud environment, I prefer to use another solution. For example, in the Azure environment, I definitely use Intune instead of System Center. In other products, I use Jamf, which is a good product that is comparable with System Center in the cloud environment. 

In terms of the current initial setup, the new version is a little bit more complex as you need to design a great architecture for the enterprise environment when we use a lot of virtual machines. For example, when you have more than 1,000 virtual machines, there needs to be a high level of consideration for the design of different components of the System Center.

In terms of deployment, if you have a good design, the process may take about a week. You need, I would guess, one week for installing and preparing the environment. However, you need to relay different instructions in order to install it. In total, the process would take around one, or, at a maximum, two weeks.

Our team consists of five members; one senior and four support engineers. Their job is to configure and maintain the active directory environment and the SCCM platform.

I implemented the solution myself. I took a month to study the solution, and, after that, I was able to handle the process personally. I took only two days in terms of how long it took me to install it.

The solution is pretty expensive. A company really needs to consider their environment.

We're just a customer. In the past, we used System Center version 2012, and after one year we upgraded to System Center 2016.

Out of all the products in the market, the best solution is System Center, especially for Microsoft virtual machines and all services that are related to Microsoft Technologies.

If you are evolving in the Microsoft environment, I prefer to use the System Center due to the fact that it includes different solutions like System Center Configuration Manager, System Center Operation Manager, System Center Virtual Backup. It's a full solution and provides different services. It has great integration with other Microsoft products. 

I would recommend the solution to an engineer or administrator. And first, a new user will have to study different best practices and have a good overview of the architect of System Center and the functionality of the different components. After that, they would have to go in through the details about the Linux machines. The biggest problems we had at the time of implementation was related to Linux virtual machines, not Microsoft virtual machines. With the licensing and the price, it's a tricky point that the engineers should consider when they need to set up a license

Overall, I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

The primary use case for SCCM is for managing workstations.

All of the software that runs on our workstations is packaged and distributed and managed. Along with that, some of our security software is managed a little bit differently, but is accounted for in that way.

We also use it for keeping track of our patches.

We're a Microsoft-centric organization, so we are happy with the integration between products.

The interface, customization, and security are all pretty good.

There is no asset management package included. You have to buy that separately so we need  to use another system to manage that. This is one of the biggest things that makes SCCM not as competitive as some other systems. If they had this functionality then their help desk software would be much better and much more useful.

It is a little bit fat on the client-side, in terms of the stuff it leaves in place after the management is complete. It would be nice if they could pay attention to that, although we have a separate way of dealing with it.

I have been involved with using SCCM in four or five different places for a total of close to 15 years.

SCCM has no issue with stability.

This is a scalable product. The biggest group that I have been involved with was maybe 15,000 people. Typically, the sizes are in the 1,000-person area and it's not the type of product that you put together and configure for an office.

Their SCCM support is slightly better than their general support. Their general support, Microsoft is tiered so you have to fight your way through the tiers to get to the real people. There's no way around that, but that's just the way they are. I understand that because they're such a big company

I have not done the initial setup alone, and I wouldn't recommend doing it for anybody who didn't know what they were doing, or that hadn't done it before, because you have to go through a certain learning process.

I have seen that a base installation complete can be done in three days, and I have also seen an environment with 1,000 workstations deployed in two weeks.

I have always worked with somebody who is well-versed in the solution to assist with deployment. I rely on a Microsoft MVP-level person to get the install done properly for me.

One person is enough for maintenance.

Pricing is negotiable with Microsoft, depending upon which of their packages you choose. They're changing their packages, and I don't know how they're changing them yet. It's been a few years since I have worked in that capacity.

We continually look at and evaluate everything.

Microsoft has Intune, as well. However, Intune is a choice if you're in a smaller-scale situation. Typically, I don't get called into things unless it is large, where I interact with clients on technical computing and solving network problems that are related to workstation issues. For these types of larger things, SCCM is a logical choice.

I haven't been in a Unix environment beyond having to do database-engine-related work.

My advice for anybody looking into implementing SCCM is that it has to be on a larger scale, and you have to be committed to Microsoft.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this product is for infrastructure, capturing all the configuration items within our infrastructure. I'm the configuration manager and we are customers of SCCM. 

I like that this solution captures all the devices in our infrastructure, quickly identifying those items based upon everything we've identified within the SCCM, as far as the proper nomenclature goes. Other things along those lines like serial numbers, and the location of things, it's all good stuff. The solution does exactly what it needs to do and in terms of being on the ITSM side of the house it just feeds into it. 

I'd like to see some cosmetic improvements on the user interface. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

This solution definitely does what it's supposed to do. 

Microsoft does a good job as far as putting information out there for anyone to train themselves, especially if it's within their Microsoft Virtual Academy. I don't deal with the administrative side of the house, but we have Microsoft system engineers we can contact if we need. The support is sufficient, very responsive and easy to work with.

The initial setup was straightforward and took around five hours. It was carried out by the two administrators in the company. We also have people on the team who are familiar with SCCM.

I don't know much about the licensing structure but I believe everything is probably included within the package.

It's important to be aware of the capabilities of the software and all that it says it's designed to do, and to make sure that you educate yourself on the use of the software. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for client management, especially for day-to-day operational activities, like access management or software deployment.

The main key feature that we find the most valuable is the patching. The remote desktop is a very useful feature as well. The software deployment aspect is helpful too. These are the three core features from which we see the customers really benefit if they have a System Center Config Manager. This is especially true for enterprise organizations here.

Microsoft is being very competitive right now, and they are really investing in a lot of new features to be more competitive in the marketplace. 

We are okay with all the available features.

In the future, we're looking for tighter integration with cloud solutions like Windows Intune. It is already there, however, it's still in need of some improvements. It's not straightforward in terms of the administration on offer. 

We'd like the solution to make it easier to manage remote users.

It offers a very difficult cloud gateway when it comes to cloud management.

The solution does need a lot of configuration and fine-tuning, so a company will need a dedicated person who's knowledgeable in the product to manage it.

A few people complained that SCCM is very complex without CPS, depending on the SQL database, and when using SQL as a backend service. Sometimes updating the dashboard and getting the reports, can be slow. They're not getting an instant update on the database. That is where most of the customers tend to complain. 

I've been using the solution since version 2.0 or something close to that. It may be at least 15 years.

We don't have very many issues in SCCM. It's not a plug and play software, however. From time to time it does require fine-tuning. You need the right management and administrative people in place to manage the product. This is essential in order to keep it running correctly.  

We have clients in both the private and public sectors. 

The solution requires fine-tuning and configuration tweaks. In order to scale it, you will need a knowledgeable person to manage the process.

Technical support from Microsoft has been good. We've been satisfied with their level of service.

We don't find the initial setup to be complex. We've done many implementations a this point, and we find it to be straightforward. Our team is very much experts at this point. They know all the processes and they go through everything step by step. 

In terms of how long it takes to deploy the solution, this question is very tricky. It's all dependant on the customers, and their environment as well as the customer's readiness to proceed. If it's a POC, where I don't have any dependencies on the customer side, that everything will be within the private network, isolated environment, I can handle a deployment within two days. We can install, configure, and make everything ready in that short amount of time simply because we don't have customer dependencies.

You do need to have the correct people in place to manage it once it's up and running. They need to be experienced and dedicated to the product.

We're an integrator and service provider here in Bahrain, so we have done more than a couple of installations, so where our team is very confident in our ability to implement the solution on behalf of our clients.

We're actually looking at ServiceNow as a potential product to use in the future.

We are a Microsoft gold partner.

We're noticing many users in our country moving away from Microsoft and towards AWS.

We tend to use the latest solution, or something close to that. We always are trying to keep it up to date in all the customer database and systems. Whenever there is the latest update available, we update everything immediately for our customers. The latest version may be 19.06.

While all the customers we have are currently on-prem, we are looking for cloud-based solutions going forward, due to the fact that our customers tend to gravitate towards the cloud. They are like looking for something they can easily manage. That's all clients, irrespective of whether they are in the office or are our mobile users. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I really like the product, however, there's always room for improvement.

Our primary use case for this product is for patching and sending back packages to the client.

SCCM helps to file the claims from servers.

Patching is the main feature because SCCM is made to control the entire environment without manually interpreting. So it is good to use for patching.

The main room for improvement is the on-screen display. I think it would be good if some improvements were made.

Overall, as of now, it's sufficient for us. I don't have any scope of what new features would be needed for our company. I'm not sure if we require anything more. We are good with this product. If our companies move to the cloud or something, maybe we'll need additional features.

I have been using SCCM for 10 years.

The stability is also quite good.

The scalability is quite good.

We don't have a separate team using it. It's an operations team, where everyone works in every technology.

There are about 5 - 10 people using it - Windows server persons, applications teams, and other teams.

We very rarely have contact with the technical service. I think about once a year. That's it. We don't require it because most of the time we fix any issues ourselves.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was quick and it took a day. We didn't have any issues.

My advice for this product is that it's a team tool that can be helpful. At the same time, it can be harmful if you are not using it properly - it can ruin your company. That's because if someone messes up, they can send a package to one client instead of sending it to another. Once you start the initial installation, it is difficult to stop it. So you should be careful.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SCCM an eight.