Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

We use WSUS on a host in our main data center so that all the Windows and the endpoint updates are downloaded to a central location before being distributed to the endpoints through our local network. The aim is to avoid the endpoint downloading the update directly from the internet and killing the office bandwidth.

This product provides the option to create multiple downstream servers. If the infrastructure is distributed to different sites or different countries, you can create a structure where the upstream server downloads all the updates using the specific internal connection, and then distributes those updates to the downstream servers at a scheduled time when the workload is minimal. 

The interface is not user-friendly. It looks like Windows 98 and it needs a different format, maybe something web-based, or perhaps it's time to rebuild from scratch. It needs to be something that provides clear options and should include an FAQ section to help provide some answers without having to search Google or contact technical support. 

I've been using this solution for about three years. 

This solution delivers updates to the endpoint. We worry about server stability but not the endpoints. If there are any issues we can manage without it functioning at peak level.

The solution is very scalable. You can add servers as needed and add batches of endpoints to it. 

The initial setup is difficult. It's easier if you don't need downstream servers but if you want to do it properly and securely and have the packages distributed without any interference, it's a little bit complex. To configure it from scratch for 1,000 endpoints, can take up to three days.

When purchasing the operating system, WSUS is included in the price of the product.

It's important to monitor bandwidth usage and traffic that might be blocked on the firewalls.

This is a good product and it does its job but it's quite complex to configure, implement, and maintain, and the interface is terrible, so I rate it eight out of 10.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is the fact that we can deploy patches from Microsoft security patches and deploy software.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve by being less cumbersome to use. It's somewhat difficult to use, but we manage to get through it.

I have used Microsoft Windows Server Update Services within the last 12 months.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is highly stable. It is one of the most stable solutions from Microsoft.

The support was great from Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. When we were implementing it or upgrading it to the version we have now, the representative was able to do a Teams meeting with us and help configure it and create deployment shares. They helped us with everything.

The initial setup of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is complex.

There is not a lot of maintenance required for the solution. The only thing we do is apply patches and approve patches to deploy. It's fairly easy, we do have a whole team that takes care of it, but the majority is hands-off.

My advice to others is if you are thinking about implementing the solution, I will highly suggest they use the support from Microsoft for the implementation. It requires SQL and needs to run SQL local to the server.

I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services an eight out of ten.

The primary use case is to update the server and Windows desktop.

The deployment model we are using is on-premises, mainly.

WSUS doesn't have many features, so it's very difficult to answer this question.

This solution is easy to use.

Tagging in the server is complicated, and it's not easy to understand how to put it into a specific category. This solution is difficult for some people to understand.

The package validation process should be improved.

In the next release, I would like to see additional tools added to fix the engine issues on the client's side.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable. 

We were able to deploy in multi-levels, now we have two levels.

I did not have to contact the technical support because this solution is easy to use.

We did not use any solution previously.

The initial setup and activation are straightforward, and the configuration tends to be quick with the validation of the package.

The deployment of this solution only took one day. It was quick.

I did not implement this solution through a vendor. I did it myself.

The WSUS cost is included in Microsoft Windows, and there are no licensing fees.

If you have many operating systems you would have to add more storage.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

I would suggest sharing packages between clients.

I am not using this solution extensively now because I am on the architect's side.

I am working as a freelancer and I use this solution with most of my clients.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use of this solution is installing Windows updates.

The most valuable feature is its ability to identify which updates are needed on a particular machine.

When updates are displayed they are in one big list on the screen, and the naming convention isn't such that it groups them by the operating system. This makes it difficult because there are updates for Windows 7, Windows 10, and so forth, and I have to scroll through and select out the ones that are relevant to the operating system. Having the ability to group updates by the operating systems would be very helpful.

We have been using the Windows Server Update Services for a few months.

I use it on a daily basis and I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. While I haven't experienced any issues, I assume that they are there and I just haven't encountered them yet. At this point, we do not have any plans to increase usage.

The scalability seems to be appropriate. We don't have a big environment, although if we did, the sorting of the updates may be a bigger problem.

There are two of us in the company, myself and the system administrator, who are using this service.

I have not been in contact with Microsoft support, as there seems to be a lot of information about it available on the internet. This product is an industry-standard, and any product in this category is easy to find information on.

The initial setup was straightforward. I just downloaded a Udemy video series about how to install it. I followed those exact steps, it was accurate, and it was simple.

If you already have the server running then it requires adding the WSUS role. It will take between one and four hours to deploy.

I deployed this solution and am also doing the maintenance.

At this point, it accomplishes everything that I need to do.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

I like the solution. When we do patching, the tool gives us error messages. We have around 1,000 production servers. It is tough to push Microsoft patches to 1,000 servers. When the servers fail, we troubleshoot to understand why they were not patched.

IIS is the web server for Windows Server. There are some bugs in IIS. It must be improved.

I have been using the solution for three years.

I rate the tool’s stability a seven or eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. We are a printing and packaging company. We have more than 4,000 customers globally. We maintain all our customers’ data in our data center.

Whenever we face issues, we raise them to Microsoft and resolve the issues.

Positive

Compared to Linux, Windows Server’s setup is easier.

We are planning to move to AWS. Our organization has given the employees the credentials to learn AWS. We also have Linux servers. We are not using all the services from Microsoft. We use what our organization needs. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I am using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for patch management.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is the efficiency once configured.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve the ease of use.

I have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for approximately 12 years.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is stable.

The support could improve because we needed to do a lot of research to use the Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and hardware. It was a time-consuming process.

The setup and configuration of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services are difficult. It could be made easier.

I used two people for the implementation and maintenance of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services.

I would advise others that this is a good solution but it takes some time to configure. It is important to do it right.

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

WSUS is used differently depending on the client and their requirements. For some clients, I only use this solution for security patches and updates. In some cases, I use Windows Updates and Windows Upgrades.

I have more than 4,000 clients and it is important to me to make sure that the upgrade process does not affect my third-party software. This means that for most of them, I stopped the upgrades and only use the WSUS security patch tool to keep up with the latest protection available for my environment.

It is a principle that you have to keep your environment updated because cyber attacks are changing on a daily basis and you have to protect your network. Without this tool, I would not be able to update my entire network manually.

The most valuable feature is the decreased level of internet usage by my network. When there is a new patch available, I can just connect my WSUS server to Microsoft, download the upgrades, and then use the internal traffic to upgrade all of the network clients.

WSUS allows me to choose what kinds of upgrades or updates that I need for my network. For example, I can download specific security patches for Windows Server or different versions of Windows.

There are some incompatibilities or conflicts between WSUS and IIS because sometimes when running WSUS, I have to stop my IIS and restart it in order to connect. I have searched Google on the issue and I have found that it is a common problem. This is something that Microsoft should solve in the next release.

I would like to see support for other operating systems such as Linux. If you install WSUS and there are other operating systems on the network like Linux Red Hat, Ubuntu, or Debian, then it should be able to update them. It would be amazing.

I have been using WSUS for more than two years.

Scalability is a good feature of the WSUS server.

I have not needed to contact the Microsoft helpdesk concerning WSUS.

The initial setup is very easy. It is a Windows Server feature and can be set up with a few clicks and a few simple settings.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for internal updates. What happened is that one of our equipment items had a problem with a new Windows update and so we have to uninstall this update. We were looking for ways to do it centrally. There were some Lenovo boxes that were restarting automatically and we had to take out these updates.

The most important aspect is that we can centrally deploy the updates that are necessary for the organization. It's important. The solution is great for internal updates.

The solution has very good patches. They recently released one for Chrome, which was quite helpful.

We've found the stability to be pretty good.

It's not always easy to set up.

Their Local Group Policy works well for the Microsoft environment, however, we need it or other software as well. We've realized that we have to pay. We have to buy extra items in order to access this catalog of different updates.

The reporting is not as practical as I would like it to be. It's something that I would like them to improve in future releases.

It would be nice if there were more alerts to let us know what is missing. It would be nice if there was an integration with the main server and with the active directory so that I can receive the necessary alerts. It would be good to know which equipment is connected to the directory and which are behind schedule with updates. 

I just started using the solution this year, and therefore I've only used it for the last couple of months. However, in this office, they have been using it thing for a couple of years, at least. 

The solution is quite stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. As long as it can help us manage the data, it's good. 

I cannot speak to the scalability. I have never tried to scale the solution.

I've never been in touch with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

The initial setup isn't easy to set up. However, it's not necessarily always hard, either. It has a moderate amount of difficulty.

In our case, we had remote offices to set up in different cities. We have not yet implemented interconnection between these offices. Each office has its own server, its own Windows environment. We have this implemented in our central office, and I would like it across all of our remote offices as well. I'm not sure how long that will take. I'm just beginning to dive into that.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

I'm not sure of which version of the solution we're using.

I'd advise new potential users to implement the product and to regularly check on it. We have some equipment that is not being updated. That's on us. It's necessary, however, to implement constant evaluations for which equipment is actually connected to the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall. We're mostly quite happy with the product.