Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

My primary use case is for the product is mainly for helping with competitive analysis. It is not my main solution but it is one of the components.  

The most valuable part of the solution in my case is patch management.  

I would like to see Microsoft extend the coverage of the product to integrate better with other platforms beyond Windows.  

I have been using SCCM (System Center Configuration Manager) for about eight years now.  

The stability of the product is good.  

We do not have any issues with scalability.  

I have not had the need to contact technical support for any reason so I have no real experience with them.  

I also use BigFix by HCL Technologies (Hindustan Computers Limited). I use these products to check between SCCM and BigFix to see if they agree.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate System Center as an eight-out-of-ten.  

We primarily use the solution for client and server deployments, and software deployments, as well as software metering.

The entire solution, from end to end is excellent. It's doing essential work for us at our company.

The initial setup is straightforward and not too complicated.

I can't think of any features that are lacking in the solution. It's quite complete, and a rather standard setup.

If you want the best support, you need to pay for it. Otherwise, you may get less technical help.

We've been using the solution since its inception. It's been maybe ten years or more at this point.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable. You don't have to work about bugs or glitches. There aren't any crashes. It doesn't freeze.

The solution is very scalable. If an organization needs to scale up, the can do so easily using this product.

Right now, we have about 4,000 users on the solution.

We have Microsoft Premier Support.

With Microsoft Premier Support, you get what you pay for. There's Third Tier Support that you pay for. If you pay for that, you get excellent support, and if you don't pay for that, then you get the less experienced staff. There are products where we do have Third Tier Support, and there are products that are not so mission-critical, where we don't pay that much.

At Microsoft, if we wanted to, we can get the level of that kind of super support, super fast. It's not that they leave a void open that we would like more. If we want more, faster, we can pay for it.

If the company did use a different solution, that would have been about 15 years ago and before my time. I couldn't say what it might have been. Right now we're System Center 2012, before that it was 2007. Then before that was 2003, and then 2004. Before, the product was called SMS, so it's been around for a while. The previous product might have been a solution called Altaris. Again, that's about at least 15 years ago.

The initial setup, for the most part, is not complex. It depends on the company's individual setup, however, it's quite straightforward if you know what you are doing.

Deployment typically takes about three months.

You only need about four staff members for deployment and maintenance. They are all systems specialists and engineers.

We used to use sellers or consultants. However, we are moving away from that and attempting to implement the solution ourselves internally. We want to have the knowledge completely in-house.

We have a basic enterprise agreement with Microsoft which isn't cheap, per se.

I can't get into the exact cost structure.

The question of pricing is a bit relative. The enterprise-level that we use is always a negotiation. I don't want to use the word monopoly, however, there's no alternative enterprise vendor that covers all bases, from server storage and backup and everything else in between. Pricing is just a matter of negotiation every time the contract renewal period comes up.

Right now we are starting a POC for Azure and Office 365. The idea is that it depends on the government and if data privacy and compliance rules allow any change. If we can use Azure's public cloud, and Office 365, then the usage utility of the on-prem requirements would go down. 

Microsoft Cloud has integration with Intune, which is the cloud version of SCCM in the center. As far as I can see, there is good integration.

We're a Microsoft customer.

It's a very good product. The basic question is the size of the company itself that may want to implement the solution. the point is if you're big enough to afford an enterprise agreement, with Microsoft, then I would highly recommend it. It's a suite of products. If you're a small to medium business, which does not have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, I would recommend that you look around for third party products. Simply from a cost perspective, you might be better off, but if you have the money and the size and the revenue, then definitely, Microsoft is the way to go, because it includes everything.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The primary uses are PC imaging, application deployment and updates, Windows patching, and baselining.

Using SCCM has sped up PC deployment, made it much more consistent through automation, and provided a self-service application portal that users can go to and install software themselves without admin rights.

The most valuable features are application deployment and task-sequenced imaging.

The operations could be faster and you need some patience with this tool. I  wish that sending media to remote distribution points was faster.

I have been using SCCM for 15 years.

We have an environment of eight thousand machines and eleven thousand users.

This solution helps to ease the day-to-day system operations and standardization of the organization.

The most valuable features are Remote Connect, SUP, Cloud functionality, Report, Query, and third-party patching.

The cost of the product can be improved.

I have been using this solution for two years.

Our primary uses for this solution are packaging, imaging, and patching.

This solution has made life easy with respect to patching, compliance, and OSD.

With SCCM 2012 and SCCM 2016, it allowed users to install non-licensed products when required.

The most valuable features of this solution are Package deployment, Software Center, OSD Creation with Task sequence, and Patching.

This solution needs to be supported on all Operating systems.

We use this solution for implementing System CenterConfigMgr in our organization, and for standardization.

This has made the management of our environment easier.

The most valuable features of this solution are the OSD and application deployments, and it also automates updates.

Not everything is readily available, and there are a lot of commands that are only executable via PowerShell. In this regard, the user interface could be improved.

This is linked to how Microsoft designs the products: They release a product and a visual interface, but also provide PowerShell commandlets. This usually is in ratio of 30/70 (UI / PowerShell actions).

We use this solution because we need to manage patching and system provisioning.

This solution helps us by automating the patching of our system. We are able to standardize our Windows configuration, and models are supported through imaging.

The most valuable features of this solution are:

• Imaging - standardized Windows builds
• Software deployment - deploying updates and automating the installation of software
• Patch deployment - increased security
• Reporting - better view of our environment for decision making

This solution should be simpler, and more consistent across modules/sections.

Reporting and collection queries should be made easier to do.

This solution is used for vulnerability management. Our primary use case is for software updates, including ad-hoc and monthly updates, as well as security patches.

The whole purpose of vulnerability management is to help with mitigating any security threats that could be within the network. So this solution has helped because it is very valuable to have an overview of which devices and networks are not up to date, or have failed to update with a specific software update deployment.

A specific example is related to malware by the name of Coinminer. It is used by intruders to remotely mine cryptocurrency, using your computer resources. It consumes your computer's CPU and memory. By putting this solution in place and ensuring that the latest security patches are installed, you are no longer vulnerable to this virus. Your computer operates at an optimal speed.

In summary, you maintain security and the best performance of your systems.

The most valuable feature is the graphical-based status reports of software updates; showing successful and failed deployments. This gives you a quick overview of vulnerable computers that expose your network to risks of a security breach.

I would like to see an agentless version of the solution. An agent-based system is one where every computer on the network has to have a client installed in order to be able to report on it or deploy to it. In the case of this solution, you need to have the SCCM agent installed on every computer. To me, that is a weakness because if you don't have the agents installed in some computers, then you cannot reach them for the deployment of software updates.

An agentless system means that you don't need to have an agent installed on computers. You would simply sweep the network, see all live computers and deploy the updates be able to deploy updates. It is worth noting is that the installed agents open and run on specific ports in the computer. These may be used as launch pads for attacks; making your network more vulnerable to security breaches.

This is a stable solution. They release regular updates and upgrades, and they keep enhancing the features. I have not had any bugs that I would say were a challenge.

This solution is very scalable. As your network becomes bigger, you're able to accommodate more computers in terms of deploying the updates that you need to.

Microsoft technical support is fairly good, and I would rate them eight out of ten. They try to act promptly, but there are two issues that cause delays. The first is related to the difference in time zones, and the second comes about from the different levels of support licensing.

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup for this solution is straightforward. It is a Microsoft-based product, and they usually have startup wizards. It is graphical, and the process of installation is self-explanatory. It is easy, even for a new user.

The initial setup, depending on whether it is a server and what tests have to be done, might take about two hours.

Once running, the time required for the deployment of updates varies depending on how many computers you are deploying to. If you have, say two thousand computers, then it will take approximately a week for all of them to be fully updated. This also depends on how regularly the computers are online. In cases where systems are frequently offline, it will take even longer. Once they come online, they get the deployment and update.

The first priority after installing the software is to gather all of the end-user devices. Make sure that they are all covered and up to date all of the time.

One IT administrator is enough to deploy and maintain this solution.

We handled the implementation and deployment ourselves.

The licensing is good because they have various options, depending on what you are looking for. There are one-year up-to three-year license contracts.

We did not evaluate options other than this one, from Microsoft. It is our company policy to run on Microsoft SCCM.

Since this solution is agent-based, computers without the agent cannot be reached on the network. In addition, non-Microsoft products are not supported. So if you have a mix of platforms like Linux and Mac OS, you'd be better off looking for an agentless solution and not SCCM.

Security is one of the big problems with Microsoft products, but usability is equally good. 

I would rate this product a seven out of ten.