Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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.

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. 

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. 

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.

I use Microsoft Windows Server Update Services to facilitate updates.

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

 Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is stable.

The scalability of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is good.

I am the only one that uses its solution in my company.

The support from Microsoft should be faster.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is a simple implementation.

I did the implementation of the solution myself.

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