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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.