Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

PowerShell is a valuable feature.

The product must improve its support.

I have been using the solution for a few years.

The solution is pretty stable. I rate the stability an eight and a half out of ten. Sometimes, we have minor issues.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I opened a ticket with support two weeks ago. There have been only two email conversations between me and the team regarding the ticket. There have been no other responses. The support team is normally good.

Neutral

It is very easy to deploy the product.

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

In terms of use cases, our clients use this Windows update service to deploy patches and service packs across all their servers and computers.

Once we configure it and it keeps updating the patches, all I need to do is filter out which patches are required or not. First, we test all the patches in a test environment, and if it's successful, we approve it for deployment. That's what I do. It fulfills all the requirements.

It would be good if it could deploy third-party patches or applications.

I have been using this solution for ten years. We are using version 3.0 of the software update service.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

Scalability is pretty high, so I would rate it a ten out of ten. In our organization, we have three source services and two servers. As for the number of users, it is around the globe, actually. There are more than two thousand users.

The customer service and support team is good. I hardly approached Microsoft for the solution.

Positive

The setup is very easy. One benefit is that it downloads from the internet, and we can select which patches to deploy onto the client computers. The client computers don't need to download it again. 

The initial setup was the easiest thing I've seen with Microsoft. I would rate the setup a ten out of ten. 

Generally, we should do the deployment during the late night hours, and it takes around two to three hours max to deploy it for our set of seven computers.

It is not really expensive. I would rate it one out of ten,  where one is for low pricing and ten is for high pricing. 

It's robust and stable. It provides options to figure out which patches to deploy, when, and how to deploy them silently, depending on the customer or user preferences. These are the best facilities I see in this service.

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

It is being used both in my company as well as in my client's companies. We work on the basis of customer demand and whether they go for Windows or Linux. 60% of users use Microsoft since it's user-friendly and if they want the capability of maintaining the servers over the CLI then they tend to prefer Windows.

The centralized management and merging capabilities are useful. Windows users can switch from open access to data from the Linux servers. 

The various security updates are good for the users as well as the organizations it helps keep the solution safe.

The performance has been okay.

Technical support is responsive.

It can scale. 

A few bugs need to be figured out for the security side. A few of the bugs are not even fixed completely on a full scale, and sometimes that will be tough. If a client is not maintaining proper network security, their data will be breached. The security updates need to be released regularly from Microsoft so that there won't be any loopholes in the OS.

The initial setup may be a bit difficult for beginners. 

The solution is costly.

When we shift onto the graphical user interface, there'll be a bit of a lack of processing speed as there are a number of graphics included in the OS when we shift to the GUI. We'd like CLI and GUI to be equally responsive. Many users prefer the GUI, yet then they suffer from less performance due to the graphics.

The performance is okay. I would rate it seven out of ten in terms of stability. There sometimes are bugs in the product.

The solution can scale. 

We have medium-sized to enterprise-level organizations. We also use the solution for smaller organizations that would like the cloud to save costs on IT infrastructure. 

We work with 250 or more companies that use this solution.

Technical support responds spontaneously if you raise any tickets or queries regarding to the products. I raise a fewer number of queries to technical support since we are the engineers. We tend to go to the client and fix issues. In the case of major issues, we'd reach out to technical support, and they respond spontaneously within 24 hours.

Positive

We previously used Linux servers. We switched based on client requirements as they wanted a user-friendly service even with engineers assisting them.

For beginners, it might be a bit complex to set up the solution. However, with well-experienced guides like engineers, it would be easy for them to fix the infrastructure and deploy these Windows servers.

It is a bit expensive. 

The cost would be taken care of by my accounts team, so I'm not that involved in licensing. That said, to my knowledge, it's a bit expensive. If any clients want to implement their infrastructure to be run on Microsoft, then they need to purchase every license for each service. If the client wants to go for a Windows server, they need a license for the client machines and a license if they want to operate a Mail Exchange server. If all this could become bundled into one thing where small-scale industries and medium-scale industries can buy it as one item, that would be ideal. 

I'm a consultant as well as a Microsoft-certified system engineer. We are Microsoft partners.

Most likely, all my clients would prefer an on-premises deployment. They want the data to be secure as they likely have confidential data regarding their users, as well as the company's data, would be on their servers. 

That said, a few clients would prefer cloud services like AWS. It totally depends upon the clients and what they would like to go for and whether they be like to invest on the on-premises or if they would like to go for a cloud to cut costs.

Most people are moving onto the Linux side, where they feel more secure, however, compared with the admin agents who are not well-versed at the CLI level, many prefer the Windows server, which is the alternative. People should remember that though there is a graphical user interface for Windows Server, they can still operate in CLI mode, which would be very fast, and very similar to a Linux OS.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use the solution to update servers and clients.

The solution performs well.

We have some problems when we update the servers.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

The tool is very stable.

The tool is scalable. We have approximately 1000 users in our organization. We have about 20 people in our technical team.

We contact support if we face any errors. We get support from the integrators.

Positive

The initial setup was complex. Sometimes, if there is an error, it takes a very long time to correct it.

The deployment can be done in-house.

We can use ManageEngine instead of Microsoft. I recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

The solution gives authentic updates. 

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services must include functions for providing updates about inventory. 

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My company has 23-25 users. 

The tools deployment is straightforward. 

The solution is expensive, and the licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

I often use Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for updates and loyalty patch management.

I like that we could evaluate every client and compare some weaknesses and vulnerability exploits in Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. This is a useful way to test applications against an attacker attempting to exploit the operating system.

In the next release, I would like them to provide better connectivity. They must improve the connectivity between the WSS with Microsoft or the client.

I have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for a couple of years.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is a stable solution. However, there have been some problems with the Microsoft update. We had to do some maintenance before restarting the WSS service or checking the connection between the OS and Microsoft accounts.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is very scalable. It could be deployed on the network with even 1,000 clients. At present, we have about 10,000 users. 

The initial setup wasn't complex. It's easy. I think that it could be run in one day. It needs weekly or sometimes daily maintenance to check and update the signature or to check and get the update via Microsoft.

We implemented this solution.

It doesn't need a license. It's offered for free with Microsoft.

I would recommend this solution to potential users as it's a vital service in every network.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a seven. 

The solution is used for patching updates.

The product is quite stable. I like the stability. It makes updates easy. It enables users to track updates.

The security could be improved.

I have been using the solution for the last five years.

I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is very scalable. We have ten users.

We get premium support from Microsoft. It's very easy for us to get the support if we need it.

The initial setup is straightforward. We need two engineers for the deployment and maintenance of the tool.

We have an enterprise agreement.

I would recommend the solution to others. It is a good product. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

My primary use case of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is to enforce patching for applications. I act as the client, not the server admin. If, let's say, my laptop has not restarted frequently, this solution will force me to take a couple of minutes to restart. This solution is deployed on cloud, so I'm always using the latest version. 

A valuable feature about this solution is that it enforces an updating and patching process for my applications. 

This solution's deployment could be improved. When I was the admin, there were some problems when deploying to clients. Sometimes the policy is not effective. I guess, more on the reliability side, more reliable means working more often with the clients. It could be easier to deploy. 

I have been using this solution for the duration of time I've been in my company. 

This solution is stable. 

This product is scalable. In my organization, there are about 600,000 people using Microsoft Windows Server. 

I have never contacted Microsoft support. 

I didn't use another patch management solution before Microsoft Windows Server. 

We had a lot of issues during deployment. I remember when we first deployed this solution, it didn't work, so we had to retry, we had to troubleshoot, and then after we finally got it, we could only partially use it. It would be great if the process were more simple so that we could deploy it on the first try to hundreds and thousands of clients. I don't remember the time duration of the installation or how big our deployment team was. 

We implemented through an in-house team. 

For licensing, I think it's on a framework contract. I'd guess my CIO would know, but I didn't buy my license—it's by default on my PC. 

I evaluated BigFix as part of my research, but I haven't used it. 

As an end user, I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. I've had no issues so far. 

I'm not sure if I can recommend this solution because I don't know what the alternatives are, so I have no experience in an alternative solution. It could be the case that BigFix is better.