Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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.

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.

The use case for this solution is to update machines with controlled versions to prevent crashes on applications.

The product reduced the number of crashes on our applications that were not able to use the latest versions of Windows updates. This allowed me to control it and reduce the time restoring machines or installing applications.

We need control over the versions of Windows to test them before using them on our network.

I don't have any notes on improvements.

I've used the solution for some time.

I can control everything in the same place, and it's nice.

I used support for Office in the past and it has been good.

Positive

I've just used this solution.

At first, it was hard to set up. However, after some time, we learned how to deploy without problems.

I used to do the setup by myself without anyone helping.

We reduced the number of crashes on our applications that were not able to use the latest versions of Windows updates. It reduced the time of restoring machines or installing applications.

Microsoft is expensive, at least in my country. However, it's offering good value for money. It's not a crazy price.

I would recommend WSUS for update management. I's rate the solution ten out of ten.

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 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 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.

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.

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.