Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

Microsoft Configuration Manager gives different tools in one solution. 

The tool's deployment is complex and depends on the architecture you want to implement. 

The solution is stable.

The tool is scalable. 

I rate Microsoft Configuration Manager a ten out of ten. 

SCCM is used in the insurance and public administration sector. We have various sized customers using it.

We are using the solutions for PC application inventories, patch management for new PC installation, PC reinstallation, and zero-day patching. We're using it to its full capabilities. It's a complete solution in the Microsoft environment.

SCCM has made it easy for our organization to personalize all the distribution schedules and how we want to distribute. It is very easy to manage, and there is a lot of option.

The most valuable feature of SCCM is the application distribution.

SCCM can improve on third-party application support.

The next features are coming through their newer solution Microsoft Intune or Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (MECM).

I have been using Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) for approximately 15 years. 

SCCM is stable.

The scalability of SCCM is good, it can scale a lot. You can manage a very small environment and go up to a couple hundred thousand PCs.

The support we have received from Microsoft was excellent.

I did not use another similar solution to SCCM.

The SCCM deployment difficulty level and time frame are dependent on how large the deployment is. If it is a large company then it can be complex. It can range in time from a couple of hours to a couple of days to a couple of weeks.

SCCM is an old on-premise solution. We're moving through to MECM and that is a cloud-based solution to do similar functionality, such as Intune. SCCM is used at its most. We will not increase the use of SCCM.

We are consultants and we do all of the implementations of SCCM for our customers.

The number of staff we need for maintaining the solution depends don't the size of the company, but usually, we have two to three people.

The ROI has been very good from SCCM.

The price of SCCM depends on the size of the organization. The price is competitive.

I rate the price of SCCM a three out of five.

We did not choose SCCM. It's a solution that evolved, and at one point it changed its name.

My advice to others is to plan ahead and make sure to take into account everything that the solution can do because if you do not understand what the product can do, you will probably buy a lot of software to do what the solution is already doing. Understand all the features and how you will be able to use them.

The next features are coming through Microsoft Intune.

I rate Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager nine out of ten.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is used for ingenuity and automation.

The configuration of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager could be improved, it is a bit complicated.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for a few years.

The stability is very good.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is very scalable.

The support from Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is good, they are friendly.

The initial setup of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is straightforward. The time it takes for the process depends on the environment, typically it can take one day.

There is not a license needed to use the solution. 

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

We are using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager in our organization for patch deployment. Additionally, we deploy and manage Microsoft antivirus solutions to most of the desktops and the servers which we have.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately 

The solution is stable.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is scalable.

I have used this solution in a couple of banks I have worked in.

The technical support is good.

The installation was not too difficult.

We use consultants to do the implementation and they were trained by Microsoft.

For enterprises, there is an annual license required to use this solution. The price of the solution could be cheaper. However, this is mostly because of the exchange rate from the dollar to the Nigerian currency.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager a nine out of ten.

SCCM is used to manage both users, and your devices. It's an administration tool used for endpoint protection.

I would like to see more automation.

I have been using SCCM for three years.

We are using the 2019 version.

SCCM is a stable solution.

I have not scaled with this solution. I use it for a specific reason.

I have never contacted Microsoft technical support. I use our internal support.

I was not involved in the installation of this solution.

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

I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for image and software deployment.

It wasn't very user-friendly.

The reporting is not very good.

It was hard to effectively manage with one person.

I have been using SCCM for ten years.

We have version 2012.

It's a stable product. In terms of our experience with any bugs, glitches, or crashes there were not more than what is normal for Microsoft.

SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it.

We have six people in our organization who are using it.

I have not had any contact with technical support.

Previously, I did not use another solution. SCCM was the only one that we used while I was there.

The initial setup is complex.

You need more than one person to manage the environment.

We are currently evaluating some EDR alternatives.

I would not recommend using this solution. I didn't really like anything about it. In general, I am not a fan of Microsoft.

I would rate SCCM a four out of ten.

The product is quite good. We are happy with the collaboration of SCCM with Patch My PC, which allows us to do patchwork.

While the solution is quite good, it can be difficult to understand the logic of this product when it comes to software inventory.

Upon examination of the on-premise and Azure environments, I feel that SCCM could be more flexible.

While the issue of documentation is not exclusive to SCCM, it can be improved. When it comes to Microsoft Office suite, it is not always clear to where the articles have been moved and the use of a built-in searching giant to find their whereabouts is not always a possibility. When the article is moved to a new location, it can make it challenging to find what I deem to be useful or interesting. 

I believe we started using SCCM in 2003.

Microsoft technical support used to be better. In spite of us being a premier customer, we find the support unsatisfactory. The qualifications are not at issue, but the excessive time it takes for them to react, investigate and provide us with answers is.

When it comes to technical support, it is a crapshoot. I know how Microsoft works from the inside, as we used to work for the company. There are times when we will speak with a person who is really qualified and interested in helping and the case can be closed in the course of a single remote session or call.

At other times the ticket is apparently not rotated to the right person. In such cases, we will encounter someone who is merely being polite, towards the end of keeping the customer engaged but without the ability to help. 

Pricing is not in my work description and is left up to management and my colleagues. 

Since I cannot think of anything in need of improvement concerning SCCM, I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

We use SCCM to access user data.

Basically, my requirement was to get the data from wherever it was available within the organization. SCCM helped identify how many computers we had, what software was loaded on it, what different types of data were available, and so on. It helped us a lot when it came to extracting the data.

It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me.

I think SCCM can improve whatever details they shared with the integration partner. There was a lot of junk software and data. There should be flexibility to allow us to extract the data we require. In other words, the flexibility of accepting the specific data that we are looking for.

I want the system to provide some dependency relations. For example, you have a laptop, and you start working on it. If I can be informed that you're using the laptop at work, other machines that are dependent on this laptop will be able to provide that dependency relationship. I would like to see the relationship between different machines.

For a small-scale industry, the storage capacity is good. However, the performance and storage capacity could be better.

I have been using SCCM for a while as part of an integration project.

We are running almost 5,000 machines, and it was working fine from a performance perspective. 

Technical support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward and took us about a week to deploy this solution. The strategy was simple. We just had to do it in the same plugin, and we actually did learn on the job each day.

We used an integrator, and we still use them regularly or even daily. We might use them for other integrations as well.

I would tell potential users that SCCM is a good solution if their focus is on the number of computers and laptops they have in the company.

I used it for the first time, and it was good. But users should know what kind of databases they are using and if the integration has sufficient rights to access that data.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SCCM a seven.