Quest KACE Systems Management Appliance (SMA) Reviews

We use K1000 as multiple ticket queues, as well as 1 queue setup as a KanBan project management type of setup.

We also have a custom queue (we're still setting it up) for our new hire/employee change/employee exit process (with over 50 custom ticket rules).

We use K1000 for our patch management of over 2000 workstations.

We also use K1000 for all (or most) software deployment and for purchase order tracking and some asset controls

It is definitely an all in one platform.

Patching is more accurate. The ticket system workflow is good.

It is nice to be able to see right on the home page how the patching went from the night before.

The software installs are better now that there is only one place to get the install from. This helps to maintain consistency of the software that is installed on our workstations.

The tracking down of assets that have gone offline has been nice with the ability to configure and set up custom weekly reports for devices that have not been seen in X days etc.

The patching and scripting are great. Both have helped to streamline and improve the workflow and the integrity of our workstations.

When vulnerabilities are exploited so much, it is nice to be able to quickly detect or deploy what is needed within our off-work hours or during work hours without a reboot.

Being able to create a custom install for a new piece of software and/or set them up as a managed install is nice to ensure that systems have the software that is needed for the user and their job duties.

The fact that there is so much that can be customized with K1000 is great, however, some lack real-world higher-level customization without having to get other(s) (professional services) involved (and the extra costs in general) would be ideal.

Paying for the product should come with full and extended training anytime it is needed.

I am not sure if our organization is just ahead of the pack on what we demand and or how we want to utilize the K1000, however, even if it takes a little bit of time, so far, we have always been able to figure out what we need and make it happen with the K1000.

I've used the solution for over four years.

Knock on wood, we have not had any major issues. The backups are easy to restore if there is an issue (just make sure they are set up and you keep them off-site).

No one wants or ever expects any of their servers to get corrupt, but it CAN happen..

If and when there are any issues.. ALWAYS make sure your backups are running as well as being stored off site.

We had to rebuild our k1000 VM 1 time and luckily we had a "good" backup that we were able to restore...

Other than needing to update our VM resources, it seems to scale very well.

Chat support is awesome, and if needed to elevate to full support, they usually get with you quickly. Although it seems we (my company) always discover strange issues with K1000, they are always there to help

Positive

For patching we used WSUS and we always had issues with the patches not being applied and or reboots happening - causing end users to lose data. etc.

The setup process was not good with the Dell people. We had horrible training and the setup was not right on a bunch of stuff. It took almost a year before the patching was working 100% due to the original setup not done correctly.

We originally purchased through a vendor (from what I can remember) and it was installed via a Dell trainer/remote software etc. 

I'm not sure about my ROI (my boss might know), however, I am sure it has paid for itself by now.

I would advise others to ensure you get the initial training when it is set up (we bought into KACE when Dell owned them). We did not get trained very well at all.

Make sure to know what all of you want, and ask questions.

We looked into a few other products. I do not remember which ones now.

K1000 just works - plain and simple.

We use KACE internally in our company to deliver and manage services for our customers. We access it every day. We are on the support page every day. KACE is open in my browser all the time.

We provide our own KACE services to customers. We are managing more than 85,000 machines by using KACE. In terms of the setup, sometimes, there is a shared environment, and sometimes, there is a dedicated environment. 

Our customers are in retail, power, healthcare, and education. We have more than 20 customers with recurring contracts, and we have had many customers for one-time projects. 

Our customers use KACE for inventory and software delivery and distribution. They use it to apply policies and generate reports. We have some customers who use it for Service Desk. We have done some customizations on Service Desk for ITSM in terms of assets and CMDB to maintain all information related to IT assets.

It provides IT asset management, compliance, software asset management, mobile device management, and patch management. We don't use mobile device management and patch management internally, but we do provide it to our customers. We have some customers who use MDM and patch management. Having all these in one solution is very important for us because Unirede provides monitoring to customers. By using the KACE solution, we are able to provide endpoint management for our customers. This is a gap that KACE filled for us. It is very important for us. We get more than 30% of the revenue through endpoint management for our customers.

It saves time, which is its most important benefit. When you automate tasks, there is a lot of time-saving. Based on the feedback from our customers, it has saved more than 50% time.

It provides what we need for updating and configuring everything the way we need it to be in our environment. For me, it is very easy. It is not a big deal to update when necessary. 

We use Systems Deployment Appliance (SDA) for Windows and Linux devices in our environment. We have used SDA for internal use, for training, and for our customers. We have a few customers who have SDA in place on-premise. We sometimes also use the product to migrate the environment. For example, we use it for migrating from Windows 7 to Windows 10. At the beginning of the pandemic, some of the customers bought a lot of notebooks to make their employees work from home, and we provided migration services to them. By using SDA, we are able to do implementation in a short period, such as one, two, or three months. It is very good for automating the deployments, but, of course, it can be improved. Improvements are always welcomed.

It has increased IT productivity. With SDA, we can reduce a lot of time to provide a new installation. From hours, it gets reduced to minutes. Some customers have told us that their technicians used to spend the whole shift deploying one machine, whereas, with SDA, they could do it in less than one hour for one machine. They were also able to provide a new installation in 30 minutes.

We use machine profiles. We have profiles for the HR department, technicians, etc. We create smart labels related to this information, and we associate the tasks for software, scripts, installation, updates, etc. When the computer is turned on and has the agents installed on it, we detect the profile, and we install and run everything in a few minutes. This is another way to reduce the effort to keep our environment up to date and do automatic installations.

Asset management is most valuable. It is essential for all customers. The other features are also useful, but asset management is most important.

Everything is easy to use. KACE was created to be easy. It is very easy as compared to other solutions such as System Center, but it is important to have knowledge of some of the important concepts. For example, the knowledge of smart labels is critical. If you don't have knowledge of smart labels, you won't get its 100% benefit.

We use the Cloud MDM functionality. Its Windows and Mac enrollment capabilities for allowing IT admins to bypass manual device setup are fine. We provide management as a service to some customers, and they have Windows, Linux, and Mac. We also use it for our internal use in the company.

Its dashboard needs improvement. Currently, there is no way to modify the dashboard. There should be more flexibility so that we can create views according to our use case.

They can add some tips in the UI to help with the configuration. It will make the interface more user-friendly.

Its reporting also needs to be improved. Its reports are just textual, but we need a graphical report. We should be able to create dashboard views by using different types of graphics, such as pivot graphics. This functionality is currently missing.

We use the Cloud MDM functionality. Its interface is a little bit different from the SDA interface and the SMA interface. The concept related to the labels is also a little bit different. The SDA interface could be changed a little bit to have the same functionality as MDM. It is easier to create smart labels in MDM than in SDA. 

It can also be improved in terms of the consumption of resources or the size of the virtual machine. Currently, we are using a lot of memory and CPU power, and these can be reduced, but it is not a big deal.

I have been using KACE for more than 10 years. I have so far handled 600 implementations of K1000 and K2000 in Brazil and Latin America. I have delivered training for more than 5,000 hours.

In 2010 or 2011, I was trained at KACE headquarters in the USA, and after that, I was in charge of supporting customers in Brazil. I helped them with project implementations, training, and quick starts. In 2016, I joined Dell, and I was in charge of all services related to KACE in Brazil and Latin America. In our company, we started using KACE four years ago.

It is very stable, but your infrastructure should meet the requirements for stability. To have stability, you need to meet all the requirements. You need static file systems. If you are using dynamic file systems on the Hyper-V or VM, you might have some issues with stability. You also need to take care of certain things related to the network.

If you have met all requirements and you have 100% compatibility as per the compatibility matrix, it is very stable. If you miss something, you can get into trouble. 

We have their Premier Support because it is very important to have very fast support. I would rate them a nine out of 10. Sometimes, when you have a new hire or a new technician, they don't understand everything before denying some requests. They need to be more flexible.

It is not complex. It is easy, but you need to have knowledge of various concepts, such as smart labels. It is important. Otherwise, it won't be so easy. To make it easier and more user-friendly, they can provide some tips in the UI during the configuration.

Its ease of use has helped in getting an ROI in a very short time. We sell KACE as a service, and we got our ROI within three months.   

I would rate it a nine out of 10. It could be improved a little bit more. 

We use Quest KACE Systems Management for everything. It does everything from soup to nuts. It does inventory control, and not just of computers that check; we also do inventory of other hard IT assets, like big-screen monitors, printers, laptops, et cetera.

We also use it for software inventory, license inventory, and for server management. We use it for end-user workstation patching, for Windows and Dell EMC patches, as well as other critical software updates, such as Adobe Acrobat. 

In addition, we use it for ticket queues and ticket management. We've got queues for multiple departments on this machine, including our people services queue, facilities, IT, and web development queues. It's our ticket system. 

We also push out software and software updates with it all the time. 

Up until about a month ago, it was on-prem, but we just migrated up to Azure in the cloud.

The ease of use has definitely affected the time-to value of the solution for us. We're not having to put up deployment servers or patch-management servers. My staff is not having to run from machine to machine to do software installations. That can be automated this way. We also don't have to have a separate ticket queue system. We're saving money left and right by all of these features being well implemented and integrated into this one solution.

The single pane of glass has everything you need for endpoint management of all devices. You have your main pane and you have tabs on the left. If you say, "I want to do software distribution," you click on that tab and you do your work. If you want to do inventory, you click on that tab and you do your stuff there. Not having to jump from screen to screen makes things a bit faster, a bit more efficient, and it saves a bit of time. I don't have to change screens to find multiple bits of information. It has a well-designed web app as well. If I need to, I can have multiple tabs open for viewing different panes. If I need to compare two machines, I can just open two tabs and compare them.

Looking back, it has saved me, personally, a good 10 hours per week, out of 40. That's significant. As far as my team is concerned, with four people working a total of 160 hours per week, KACE has saved them close to a third of that time by not having to jump from system to system to get the information they need.

It has also definitely increased IT productivity. We can take on more tickets and we can take on more problems from other people. We can work towards higher-end solutions and not worry about tripping over the system that does the implementations.

All of the use cases I mentioned are among its most valuable features. It's central to our IT management and our IT systems. Without this solution, we would be dead in the water. The most critical are the ticket queues, because so many departments rely on them, and patch management/software distribution.

It's also extremely easy to use. The documentation could be perhaps a little bit smoother in places. It can be a little choppy. But as far as being able to go into the machine and work with it goes, once you get the hang of it, it's simple. It is a very simple interface. That said, I've been using it since 1990-something, so I'm really used to it.

The updating and configuring to get things the way you need them in your environment are not as convenient as in some solutions. For example, Microsoft Windows has group policies, which are fine if all your machines are on the same network all the time. But in these wonderful days of COVID, where everybody's working remotely, nobody is in the office all the time. And certainly, the entire office is not on-site anymore with all computers on-site. That means that group policies fall apart. The KACE solution has had to step in and fill that niche for us.

The problem is that it's harder to directly emulate a lot of the stuff that the group policies do, using the KACE solution. With regular group policies, you just specify the various settings you want to change on the workstations, and then you specify the workstations and—while it's kind of an ugly mess—it does it. Whereas on KACE, you really have to know what you're doing with scripting to effectively script those exact same changes.

I would also like to see more convenient settings for Windows and, possibly, Mac systems, more in line with Windows Group Policies. I'd like that kind of granularity with that kind of ease of access and ease of control. Group policies are out the window now with everybody working remotely. I don't personally want to spend the time or effort investing in Microsoft Intune, when the KACE solution is perfectly capable of doing all of those things.

I've been using the KACE SMA, which was previously called the KBOX 1000, since the 1990s; pretty much since version 1 came out.

It's rock-solid. I've never had a stability problem with KACE.

I've never really had to scale it. It does have scalability built-in and I could have multiple repositories across the nation connected to this one machine if I wanted to. But I haven't had to because that use case doesn't make sense for us.

But we're always looking to utilize it more. We first look to KACE when evaluating any solution that might require third-party involvement. We ask ourselves if KACE can do it.

We use their regular tech support and that tech support is beyond savvy. Their tech support is stellar. They're instantly responsive and they know their stuff. They know exactly what they're doing, and I've thrown some weird questions at them, at some really weird times of day. The person I get on the other end has always said, "Yeah. No problem. Hang on a sec. Here's your answer."

I don't have to explain something three times to 18 different people. I really just explain it once, usually over a chat session. They'll tell me, "Oh, well look at this, and look at this, and try those out. If those don't work, try this." It's great. I wish I had that kind of tech support with other vendors.

Positive

The move to Azure has been as smooth as silk. It's been great. Once we figured it out, it only took about an hour to an hour and a half. But there were some steps along the way that weren't terribly clear, meaning it ended up taking about five or six hours.

The things that made it complicated were the types of things that you can't really correct while you're in the middle of doing a migration. The machine's IP address was hard-coded into the configuration. That may be great, but you can't unset that when you're in the middle of the migration. We had already started to migrate the data over and then realized, "Oh, once it comes up, it's going to have a fixed IP address on a completely different subnet. It's not going to know where it is or how to get to it, and we're not going to be able to get to it. So we had to back out the entire thing and start over again with an unspecified IP. There were similar technical glitches, little things like that. If we had thought about them a little bit beforehand, or if there were documentation saying, "Hey, you might want to de-provision the IP address before you do this," we would have been in better shape.

I tend to do most of the maintenance on it. A colleague/subordinate of mine does it sometimes as well. Maintenance consists of making sure the backup files get put somewhere that is reliably safe, and applying patches when it needs them. But the patches are infrequent, and Quest is addressing automated backups in the next release. So soon, that won't even be an issue.

Return on investment will probably take a good year or two, simply because there's a lot of ramp-up. While you can get the system up and running in a day, you're not going to have enough useful data and you will not have had time to fully ramp up all of the features of the machine within that day.

For example, if you do a lot of patch management, you have to have your complete inventory of machines in there to see what patches are necessary and to tell the system, "I want everybody to be running these patches, not those patches." So there is a lot of stuff that you need to get in there, and that takes time and experience.

Licensing is very straightforward. They don't overcomplicate it. This is not a Cisco product where you have to have 30 different licenses just to open the box. It's pretty much set-and-forget. You pay an annual license. Licensing is based, in part, on number of seats, but they're very flexible and they're willing to work with you. 

The cost is in the mid to upper range, but the ROI exceeds the outside cost, especially once you've had the system for a while. And that's all the more true since they now offer it as a cloud-based solution. You can either buy their cloud-based solution or you can host it on your own cloud solution, which is what we've chosen to do because we already own the license for it.

If you already own the license for it, it doesn't matter if you're using their old hardware or if you want to migrate your stuff up to the cloud—you own the license. If you want to migrate up to the cloud, they say, "Yeah, no problem. Here's a preconfigured image with all the software installed on it already. All you have to do is create the environment for it in Azure, move this in there and then move your backups, your data, from your old system to this one." Provided you don't mess yourself up like we did a few times, it just flows right in.

In my last company, I was the one who purchased KACE. I was the one who reviewed it, vetted it, and brought it in to replace something like six or seven different technologies that were all fighting with each other.

Back in the 1990s, I was reviewing other products, to get away from these technologies I was fighting with. This solution popped up that does soup to nuts. It does everything. I thought, "Okay, that makes me nervous. Jack of all trades, master of none." But I got a review unit in and it actually did what I wanted it to do, and it didn't mess with me. It didn't fight me every step of the way.

I've had to use competitive solutions for other vendors. I used ServiceNow for a long time, which is a solution I detest. It has a nonsensical, overcomplicated interface, it's difficult to use, difficult to manage, and doesn't do half the stuff that I want it to do. It doesn't integrate or scale well. ServiceNow is a disaster, as far as I'm concerned.

I've used Jira, which is so-so. I'm not a big fan of Jira, but I think pretty much everybody has a love-hate relationship with it. I do still use that with one of our vendors.

The big pros of Quest KACE Systems Management are its simple interface, and simple, direct management. It's very easy to maintain and manage the device, and it's easy to get it up and running. You can have it up and running in an hour, and have it really up and running in a day, easily. The other solutions are so complex, overcomplicated, and overwrought that it takes forever.

Training users on how to use KACE is really simple. "See the big button that says 'File a Ticket'? That's the one you click." And they get that. The other systems are not necessarily that straightforward. KACE is also eminently configurable. If I don't like the terminology on a certain screen for a particular department, I can change it. I can make the people services queue look distinctly different from the IT queue, and have it behave differently. There is so much that this solution does that I just absolutely adore.

With KACE's inventory management, I can tell whose machines are getting patched regularly and whose machines are not getting patched regularly, and I can actually remedy that. I can tell who is running older versions of software and I can remedy that quickly, as well. I can push out new versions of antiviral software, security software, or web browsers. I can push out pretty much any piece of software I choose, without a lot of hassle. It's actually very straightforward, provided that the software conforms to industry norms for software distribution, with standard MSIs and standard DMGs.

Compliance is not really a big deal for us. We're not beholden to audits and the like. But if we were, KACE would certainly help. In my last company, I was beholden to audits, and I used the reporting and compliance management frequently. All the other features I mentioned are important for compliance, because you can't do compliance management without them. You can't hold yourself liable for software licensing if you don't have the software licensing built into the system and no way to reconcile it. The same is true for hardware and hardware licensing, as well as patch management. It's all tied together.

On a scale of one to 10, KACE goes up to 11.

Our main purpose is to image the computers we have on campus, using the Systems Deployment Appliance. After we get that set up, our second purpose is to use the Systems Management Appliance to keep an inventory of, and send scripts to, all the computers that we have on campus.

KACE has definitely significantly affected the time it takes to solve problems. In the past, we were spending way too much time solving minor issues, whereas with KACE we can do it on the fly. I'm solving problems quickly, in as little as 15 minutes, and then we're able to push out the resolution across campus. In the past, even if we had figured out something that quickly, it would still have taken us weeks at a time to push everything out.

As far as PCs go, and running Windows, the solution handles everything. I even have a Linux machine that I've imaged with KACE. I don't handle the Mac side of devices but I know there was a different solution that our Mac guy has used. It definitely makes it easier for us to keep inventory because, without it, our environment would be the Wild West. It would just be impossible to keep track of everything. The way I have it set up—and especially recently with COVID, we've had lots of people taking computers off-campus—I'm still able to keep everything together, even though we have computers all over the place. If we didn't have something like this, that would be an impossible task.

In terms of the amount of time KACE saves us, it's weeks of work on a monthly basis. We're able to do things in a day that used to take us about a month to do. It has also increased IT productivity because it takes less manpower to get the same amount of work done. Once a month, a classroom would go down, with some 25 computers in it. We would have to send a group of people out to take care of it. Now, we can do that work in a day, with one person. The other people who used to have to take care of that kind of issue can do other things that we need done.

The most valuable feature is the imaging of computers through the SDA. In the past, someone actually put images on CDs and walked around campus to image all the computers. We have around 3,000 computers on campus, and doing that with one disk, over and over, was very time-consuming. Being able to do that quickly is important because, on our academic side, we are re-imaging computers every summer, so that they have all the current updates. That means installing all the software on what amounts to about 1,500 computers. Being able to do that so quickly with the SDA, and to then use the SMA for reinstalling software, has been huge for our productivity.

It provides us with asset management, compliance, software asset management, mobile device management to an extent, and patch management. The combination of these abilities is extremely important. I'm able to download new patches pretty quickly and I send them out every week to all the computers on campus. That means we're constantly keeping everything up to date, and that helps, especially with the number of threats out there. Having everything up to date and being able to do it as quickly as we can is extremely important.

When I first started using the SDA, I used their default system image setup. But I do have a custom image that I created myself and, over time, I've been gradually going in that direction. It just took me some time to figure it out, but now that I have it figured out, it's super simple for me to set everything up the way I want it. It's been a great help to get everything set up that way for my environment. Obviously, everybody's environment is going to be different.

We also use the MDM functionality a little bit. We don't have any Android devices in our environment, but we do have a bunch of iPads that we were using the MDM for. It was easy to get those endpoints into the MDM for asset management. Originally, it was really easy to image them with KACE and then push all the software to those devices, even the iPads. But I think Apple is trying to push MDMs out of their environment. They want everything done the way they decide.

It's pretty easy to use. I didn't have too many issues in terms of setting everything up; that was pretty intuitive. From time to time there are hiccups with updates and I've had to contact their tech support. Something like that probably happens once a year. But overall, it's very easy to use.

Also, it took a little bit of time to figure out how to use the KACE Service Desk. I like the way that I'm able to customize it. But when it comes to how our techs are able to use it, it's not as functional as our current solution, which is BMC FootPrints Service Desk. I would like it to replace our current solution, and the only reason I haven't replaced it is that there's more functionality in our current solution.

I have been using KACE Systems Management for about five years.

It seems pretty stable. I haven't really had any issues, except for one time, when I was building the KACE boot environment. They had to add a hot-fix to it but that happened once in the last five years.

It's being used on every single computer that we have on campus, and we use it every single day, because we're always imaging or re-imaging computers. 

As of now, there is no plan to increase our use, but I would imagine that as things come back to normal, if we have more students coming to campus, we will add more computers and we will increase our use at that time.

Their technical support has been good so far. If there's an emergency, something that we need fixed right away, they usually get back to us within an hour. They've been very helpful.

We did not have a previous solution.

The initial setup seemed complex at first. But as I spent more time with it, it was actually pretty easy to set it up. It is one of those things that, when you look at it, you realize there are so many things that you can do with it. It was a little overwhelming. But it didn't take that long to get the hang of everything and get into it. On a scale of one to 10, it was about a five as far as complexity goes.

It took a month or two to deploy. It took a little bit of time to get it set up the way that we wanted it. But now that we have it set up, it has been relatively easy to maintain that setup. The more I work with it, the easier it gets when I have to make a major change.

As for preparation ahead of setup, we just had to set up a server for it to be installed on. There wasn't much preparation.

I do most of the main maintenance on it and I have one other person who helps me from time to time. There isn't a lot of work there.

We used a reseller to help with the deployment. I talked with them a little and didn't have any issues with them.

Don't scale up too quickly, because there was a period of time where we bought a bunch of licenses but we weren't using that many. When we finally needed more licenses, we lucked into a time when they had a discount on licenses, so we bought more at that time. So hold off for those times when the cost comes down a little bit.

There were a few options out there that had some of the things we were looking for, such as the SDA and SMA, but KACE had more of what we were looking for. Some solutions had half of it and some others had the other half, but as far as having all of it goes, KACE was the best option.

As far as the SDA goes, definitely look at the options for customizing your own images. I had problems with my images as far as the built-in system imaging went. But once I switched over to customizing my own images, I had fewer issues with imaging computers. And when it comes to the SMA, definitely take advantage of asset management and its scripting capabilities. They have significantly helped me and our organization.

I use this solution for software packages, security updates, upgrades, and asset management.

The Microsoft SCCM environment is much more robust than KACE, but obviously, Microsoft equipment or Microsoft software is very expensive, so we have decided to take a cheaper alternative. It was a Dell product and we have a Dell computer base, so it was easier. There is ease of use, and its pricing was a driving factor.

Sometimes the information is not as real time as it's supposed to be. In that scenario, they have to work with Microsoft and figure it out, because I think that's the challenge that we always come across. The information we get isn't always 100% accurate.

There could be a dynamic environment where you can select what products you're using, whether it's Dell or IBM or HPE, and it creates its own repository. When there's not much internet usage, it downloads those critical patches or firmware updates so you can push it. 

I think that kind of thing will make it much better, because I think Microsoft products are only geared toward Microsoft. I think because KACE is not a Dell product anymore, it can work as a vendor independent or vendor agnostic approach where you can select which products that you are using, which models that you are using, and based on that, it can tell you there is an update or firmware upgrade that's available for this particular product or this particular model. If I forget to research what's available on the internet and the latest firmware upgrade, the tool itself could go every night and fetch whatever is the important update or upgrades that is available, download it, and tell the admin, "In your environment, these are the things that you can upgrade." Some of the work can be automated.

I have been using this solution for about 10 years.

I would rate this solution 8 out 10.

We have to do a lot of things manually, which I don't like in a tool because  automation is the key to everything. The less human interaction that a tool can provide, the better the product will be.

We use it for the asset management of all our computers, servers, desktops, and laptops that are internal and external. We have multiple offices who use it to deploy some of our software. It is the system that we use for our help desk when people have issues.

We were using a physical server with a physical device up until the end of last year. Now, it is a virtual device but we are still hosting it internally.

It gets everybody on the same standard, standardizing software and versions. That is one of the key things to it. Everybody has the same version of stuff. It helps with reporting by seeing who doesn't have that same version and the help desk side of having one place for people to put in their help or technical support requests. 

It has one place where we can look at the history. For example, if several people are having the problem, we can go look at how we solved the problem last time. So, it provides us with historic data.

There is one place for a lot of different things. If somebody has a problem with their computer, they will put in a ticket. From there, we will know who it is and the assets assigned to them, because there is one place to go look for what we are talking about and with whom we are talking. Just having one place for everything is really convenient. For example, we are able to deploy software to hundreds of computers. We don't need to go to each individual device.

It seems to do what we need it to do. It is pretty intuitive.

In regards to managing computers, our help desk, and handling help desk tickets, it is a single pane of glass for what we need. This includes the reporting and our asset management, e.g., when we loan things out. This is one of the key reasons that we are keeping it. It is not six different systems.

We use it for IT asset management, software asset management, and patch management. These features are all very important for us. Without each one of them, it would be problematic. It is easier to use them all in one place. We do not need to jump to different systems or technologies to do things because we could do it from this solution.

The customization of the interface needs improvement for things like end user tickets. While the functionality is good, some of that UI stuff does need improvement. Though, I don't receive a lot of complaints about it.

Some of the reporting could be a little more intuitive. This is something that could be worked on.

You really need to take the training. There is a learning curve when using it because it is just different from other things. 

There are some newer things coming out where it won't cover quite as much with some of the Microsoft Azure stuff.

I have been using it for at least eight years.

The stability is good. There were some people who were hesitant to go onto the VM, but we did have a physical appliance. We haven't had any issues with it, hardware-wise or software-wise. There have been the occasional questions, but it is reliable as far I am concerned.

It has scaled for us. We are not using thousands of machines, but we are definitely double what we were, and it wasn't even noticeable.

We have hundreds of people putting tickets in. There are six help desk admins who are using it to administer and handle help desk tickets

We have a support contract with them. If there is a critical issue, I can call them and talk to somebody. 

The technical support has been pretty good. We haven't had any huge issues. There have been a few questions here and there over the years. When I have needed stuff, e.g., if there is a big upgrade, I will definitely reach out and call them to get a little background on what is going on and what to expect when we do it. They have been receptive to that. They have gotten back to us quickly.

When we switched over to the VM, we had some issues at first. We called them. We definitely were able to talk to somebody right away. 

They have been receptive and helpful. The people that I have talked to have been very helpful and knowledgeable. They have understood the issues and got through them quickly, which is definitely a positive.

I would rate technical support as nine out of 10 because there is always room for improvement.

Positive

We used Track-It! for some of our components previously, which definitely didn't do everything. In that case, it was just for asset management, not even for the help desk stuff. We switched to Quest KACE for what it offered and all the capabilities of what it did.

We watched quite a few demos, then we did a mini demo onsite where we applied it to a handful of computers for testing.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was well-documented. It was one of the better solutions that I have had to implement.

The deployment took about a week, then we did another week of monitoring. If we would have pushed it, then we probably could have been done in a couple days.

When we bought it, there was an implementation period. We were one-on-one with somebody who walked us through the setup process. A little after that, we customized some stuff a bit more for our environment.

It definitely saves us all kinds of time and value.

For a software solution in the past doing this stuff, it would probably take us a week to get software deployed everywhere. Now, we are able to do it in a couple nights with just a variety of things, e.g., people not restarting computers. It saves us well over half the time because we are not having to touch individual things or micromanage them.

It definitely frees up time. We are not doing redundant things on multiple machines, which frees us up to do other stuff. It makes us more responsive and able to come up with solutions faster when fixing some people's problems.

We definitely looked at a few options. When we got it, one of the key things was the pricing. It was good compared to some of the other solutions. Some of the other solutions were just astronomical in price compared with KACE and didn't necessarily have the ease of use either. So, we chose Quest KACE for its easy-to-use features and cost.

Quest KACE's ease of use is good, and it has gotten better. It was never bad. Compared to other solutions that we looked at, Quest KACE was nicer and easier to use, but there was definitely a learning curve. 

We are still using it. We are not even thinking about using anything else, e.g., Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager (formerly System Center) which is way easier to use. 

I would recommend watching demos and getting hands-on demonstrations.

We are in talks about getting the solution's Systems Deployment Appliance (SDA). It is on our wish list.

I would rate the solution overall as eight out of 10. The reporting and UI could be improved. Some of the other solutions are a little more user-friendly.

We use it for asset management for PCs and servers, and for doing updates. We also use it for monitoring all of our systems to keep them compliant with Windows updates or server updates. In addition, we use it to deploy and to uninstall software, and we use the Service Desk.

We're using Quest's K1000, which is the asset manager, and we're using the K2000, which is the deployment appliance.

The way it helps us is the easy organization and visibility that it gives into the software versions that are on our assets. It doesn't necessarily provide the solution but it provides us with high visibility into where we're at on all our assets. We can then address the different deployments to get things up to date pretty quickly.

The most valuable feature is the ability to monitor updates—the software versions—on machines so that we can keep everything compliant. We're very highly monitored because we are a financial institution. We have audits all the time and they look for vulnerabilities. So we try to keep everything to the latest software versions and firmware versions. We use KACE to monitor those.

The K1000 doesn't communicate well with some clients without SMB. There are some issues with getting things to image correctly because they rely on SMB, and SMB is a protocol that is being removed due to security reasons. Organizations are trying to rely less and less on SMB. I know Quest is aware of it. They've talked about having a new version that wouldn't rely on SMB for connection to the clients, but they haven't gotten there yet.

I've been using the Quest KACE Systems Management for four years. We're using 12.01.49 and we've been on it for about a month. We update pretty much every time updates become available.

The KACE solution is solid. We haven't had any issues with functionality.

It's definitely easy to scale out. We've had to add licenses as our environment has grown. We haven't had any problems there. We haven't hit our heads on any capacity issues.

We're using it to the capacity that we need to. We do most of our software deployment through it and we do about 150 to 200 tickets a month through the Service Desk.

Any time I've had to deal with their technical support, they've responded quickly and they're pretty thorough in getting things resolved.

For example, about six months ago, one of the updates didn't deploy correctly. I was doing it on a Saturday because I didn't want to interrupt production. It didn't go well, and a gentleman from Quest support jumped on and he went through it that day and we got it resolved. He knew what code needed to be executed manually and he worked through the problem and had us up within a couple of hours.

Positive

The initial setup is pretty involved because you have to set up Service Desk and you've got to set up all your environment labels for the different assets. As a part of purchasing the appliance, you do get to buy some services to help you get it set up in your environment, and that was a great purchase. They assisted us a lot in getting the Service Desk, and some of our labeling and environment, set up to get us going.

Between the two appliances, the deployment took pretty close to a week.

In terms of an implementation strategy, the first part was to get the Service Desk up and running on the K1000. Then we went to the K2000 with imaging and deployment through that.

We have about 85 to 90 people using the Service Desk, and we have five people in our IT department who administer the system. While they don't do so full-time, we have three people who do the admin work on the KACE appliance. One is responsible for software deployment, and the other two do most of the updates, as well as the monitoring of updates and vulnerabilities on computers, and pushing the patches through KACE. And we have four people who monitor the Service Desk in KACE. One is a basic Service Desk individual and the other three are systems admins who overlap and help out.

At the time when we bought it, it was a Dell product. Since then, Dell sold it to Quest. Dell provided a third party to help with the installation.

The solution has saved us a ton of time in several areas. We spend tremendously less time—probably 80 percent less—on updating now, versus before we had KACE.

I was using Microsoft SCCM in my previous environment and I replaced it with KACE. When I came to this new environment we put KACE in. Compared to SCCM, it's a lot better. With SCCM, when I was trying to push updates or get the stuff to function, the way it was designed it was more difficult. Usually, if I set up a script with KACE, it doesn't take long to get it to run successfully. Whether it's scripting or installing, it seems to be much smoother with the KACE product. The improvements are in deploying Windows and server updates automatically, on schedule.

We got rid of SCCM because we got out of our Microsoft licensing agreement at the time, and it was covered under that. And it just wasn't effective for us. We had a lot of issues with it.

There were a couple of us in IT who had used KACE in previous environments and we liked it, so we made the recommendation and moved forward with it.

Its ease of use is an eight out of 10. Some things can be a little difficult to find, but support's always there to help if we can't figure something out.

For both appliances, the K1000 and the K2000, make sure that you purchase the support for the deployment and get Quest's assistance in getting it set up properly for your environment. With the K2000, we got it set up with their support and then one of our technicians went in and started changing things and really set it in the wrong direction. Their support will help you start out on a firm foundation.

We are a small university of 10,000 students with 1,000 faculty and staff. We have to manage about 3500 computers spread over 3 sites.

There are 2,000 computers available for students. The rest are for staff, including 700 laptops.

Student computers are completely redeployed during the summer break, unlike staff computers which are redeployed during their replacement (every 5 years).

We use KACE SMA mainly to deploy software and security updates. We also use KACE to manage our assets and create monitoring reports.

We were using an end-of-life solution with limited software deployment management capabilities, as well as WSUS to deploy security updates. The asset management was done in an in-house tool that was also end of life.

With KACE, we were able to have a simplification of the software deployment management with more granularity and flexibility.

The use of replicas allowed us to relieve inter-site links during massive computer deployments or security updates.

The ability to create reports is also a plus that allows us to track the life of our computers.

On a single page I can have access to the hardware information, the status of the warranty, the associated support tickets, the installed software, the software waiting to be installed, the last user connected, the accounting information, the date of purchase, et cetera. It gives us the ability to create our own indicators by using customized inventory rules.

We can also create our own indicators thanks to personalized inventory fields and thus bring up very targeted information, including the state of Windows activation, the number and model of connected screens, the power supply scheme used, the presence of a file, et cetera.

What could be improved is the possibility to use replicas in a secure way outside our network in order to maintain the machines that never connect to our corporate network.

The helpdesk could also improve, although it has evolved a lot on the last versions. It does not meet the moment for our needs.

What could be interesting when deploying larger software or software to many machines on a remote site would be to be able to do it P2P in order to accelerate the local deployment and not to load too much of the inter-site links.

I've used the solution for ten years.

When you have a large number of computers, the price starts to become apparent.