Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

We use the solution as per Microsoft’s policy.

The reporting capabilities that help maintain compliance and security are good.

The solution must provide the issue description of the patches. We are not able to trace the issue resolution for the patches. The issues must be available in the patch portal. It will help us to be aware of the upcoming patches and the resolutions provided. We are not able to trace the problems we are facing on our platform. We need to know which patch or update will give us a solution for our issues. There should be more frequent updates.

I have been using the solution for around ten years.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. We have five users. The tool is not used extensively.

The setup is easy.

The product is not expensive.

The solution is built-in with Microsoft Windows Server. I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

The product helps us to fix the vulnerabilities in the system.

The product provides a valuable Single Sign-On (SSO) integration feature within our IES environment, particularly with the IT directory and server systems.

They could reduce the platform's prices. Additionally, they should enhance cloud security and make it more user-friendly.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for over ten years.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. However, sometimes it works slowly.

We have 50 Microsoft Windows Server Update Services users in our organization. We use it 24/7/. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support services are excellent.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It took us an hour to migrate the data from on-premises to the cloud. I rate the process a ten out of ten.

A team of three executives in our organization worked on SQL server migration and application hosting.

The product is expensive. 

I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a ten out of ten.

The solution is used for Microsoft updates and you can file the updates that you want to use.

Every time we need to install our security updates and critical updates, we use this software so that we don't load the bandwidth.

I like that I can filter for critical and security updates.

The dashboard is okay.

The initial setup is easy.

It is a scalable solution. 

I have found the product to be stable. 

Support is helpful.

The customization capabilities could be improved. 

The product must integrate with third-party applications. I'd like to use the product to verify third-party updates as well as Microsoft updates.

I've used the solution for about three years. 

My understanding is that it is a stable product. We didn't have any issues with it overall. I don't recall coming across bugs or glitches and I don't recall it crashing or freezing.

The solution scales very well. If a company wants to expand, it can do so.

About 100 people in our organization use the solution currently.

Technical support is very helpful and responsive. We have been satisfied with their help.

Positive

We have found the implementation to be pretty straightforward and simple. It is not a difficult or ultimately complex process. I'd rate the experience a three out of five in terms of ease of deployment. I can't remember exactly how long it took to deploy.

You only need about two to three people to handle deployment and maintenance. They handle planning and infrastructure.

I'm working in a personal service company, so I asked my team to handle the implementation process. It was done in-house.

I can't speak to how much the solution costs.

We're Microsoft partners.

I'm using the solution via a third-party application.

We are a professional service company. Our field is information technology. We use a third-party application to make updates.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

My primary use case for the product is to manage product updates for my Windows servers and client computers.

The central points of managing product updates have been the tool's most valuable features. 

The product needs to improve its user interface. 

I have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for 15 years. 

I would rate Windows Server Update Services' stability as nine out of ten.

The product scales by itself. I rate it a nine out of ten. My company has 100 users. 

The initial setup was medium in complexity.

I rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I use Update Services to ensure our server estate remains adequately patched.

The most valuable feature is Server Update's stability.

More integration with different platforms would be an improvement. In the next release, Microsoft should expand on automation.

I've been using this solution for more than ten years.

Server Update is stable.

This solution is scalable.

Microsoft's technical support is fine.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would recommend Server Update for anyone looking into it and rate it as eight out of ten.

My primary use case is general patch management, to make sure that when Microsoft releases patches, we test and deploy them within the timelines. The solution also ensures that we are compliant and protected against vulnerabilities.

The most valuable feature is the ability to check whether users working from home are on the domain or not, allowing us complete visibility of the endpoints that are connecting to our network.

One area for improvement is that WSUS does not give 100% accuracy, so you cannot be completely certain that all of your systems are fully patched. There are always 5-10% of your systems that have not been updated with the correct patches, which is an open gate for security threats. I also think that the product needs a better utility and report mechanism. In the next release, I would like to see better compatibility for non-Windows servers and tools.

I've been working with this solution for a year.

Functionality-wise, WSUS meets our requirements.

There are some issues with scalability in larger organizations, as WSUS may not cover 100% of their endpoints. 

Setup is very simple and straightforward.

Currently, I'm looking at other solutions because the enrolment we have is not boundary-defined, so we require a product with total remote infrastructure management, vulnerability assessment, and complete control of the system built in. For best results with WSUS, you need to keep close track of things with regular function checklists. I would rate this product as eight out of ten.

Our primary use for this solution is varied and broad. There is not a single solution that we use it for because it can take on different roles. It could be an exchange server, it could be the SQL server, it could be used for security and analytics, it could be used in cross-configuration, it could be used for domain name systems, it could be a file server — the potential of the solution leaves almost limitless possibilities. It truly has a million uses.

I don't really know what can be improved in the newest version of the product because they are about to release Windows Server 2019 and I am still working with version 2016, which is the previous versions of Windows Server. I'm not aware of the current improvements in the 2019 version first-hand so I don't know how to improve the newest release.

What I hope to see in the 2019 version of Windows Server is an improvement in how terminal services are implemented. This is one of the problems with the 2016 version. There are parts where functionality would be better if it wasn't based on PowerShell commands. I'm more of a GUI (graphic user interface) guy and I like the way a graphic interface can simplify using a product. I like to be able to see the GUI windows and graphic controls and I am less interested in using the command line because it is more complicated. There is no reason why the graphic interface is not better while also allowing access to the PowerShell.

One of the most interesting things that could be improved from the 2016 version would be having the ability to use SIC codes for call centers. They have some solutions for video chat and messenger, and other communications services. But when you need the work station's IP for the phone, you have to turn to the manufacturer for a solution. For example, with Panasonic, you end up purchasing the entire stack of server IPs to host the operation and operator. On-premises, it would have been nice if it was in Microsoft Server and not implemented through linked servers or messenger servers or other options. It would have been more convenient if it were just included.

One of the best things about this solution is the stability. The last time I turned off and re-started one of the servers was over eight months ago. That was eight months of uninterrupted, non-stop service. It's extremely stable.

I'm not much involved with scalability because I don't have reason to scale with our business model as it is at the moment. 

We implemented the solution on-premises, which means that I own the exchange. We did the installation and the server is sitting next to a door right near me.

It is not really a matter of evaluating other options because I have used this one for twenty years. Nothing is perfect but this product is good or I would not have stayed using it for so long. So I base my usage on being familiar with the solution. I might change when I find a solution that is somehow better or if this solution does not meet our needs.

When I see the other open-source solutions — such as Linux and other options like FreeDSB or Unix — almost every one of them has an alternative solution to Microsoft Windows Server. That becomes a big problem for products that are not open-source because people don't need to spend money to get a good working product. If it comes freely, there really is no good reason to pay. The development of products that are not open-source begins to suffer in the market because the profitability is limited.

So that's a problem. Sometimes the non-open source solution would be chosen because the selection of the right product is dependent on the need and capability and not the cost. In other situations, the cost is more important and the choice will be for users to go to the open-source solutions because they are free.

The point is that choosing Microsoft Windows Server over other options is not a black-and-white proposition. There is a big gray area depending on the need.

Because Microsoft Windows Server is not open-source that makes it have limited application. In rating the product, because of that, I would rate this as only a five out of ten. This is not so much because the product is bad, but because there are so many other solutions that are essentially free that many companies can take advantage of.

We have more than 200 users in our organization.

We get server updates from the internet and from the Bluetooth server. All of the clients are connected to it, and they're all updated from this exact server. It updates automatically.

We faced issues with updates with some clients, so we have downloaded a patch appliance in those instances.

I have used this solution for nine years.

We haven't had any issues with stability.

The scalability is okay.

Setup is complex. I would rate it as seven out of ten.

For the installation process, we had to install a service from Windows and load the drivers.

The amount of time it takes to deploy will depend on the operating system. It can take from 45 minutes to one hour.

We have the M&A ticketing system, which we use to get information about the clients and issues. It's not difficult to maintain the solution.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. I would recommend it.