Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

In most cases, it is used by us to deploy software or manage configurations of certain applications.

We are pushing the WSUS updates through it and getting the normal systems grouping. 

You can do your software package through it and you can create and run scripts.

The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration.

I am not sure if it is just bad administration and maintenance, but it fails quite a lot.

For me, it's the database, or maybe it's the maintenance overhead. It could be that it requires a lot of maintenance. If you don't maintain it, things could go wrong, this is my assumption.

We have been using this solution for a couple of months.

We are using the latest version.

It is not always stable. When it works it works, but It has a very sensitive database and it almost always crashes when we use it, especially if you don't take care of it.

I can't really say that the scalability is good or bad because I haven't had to do much of it.

I have never used any other similar product.

It is easy to install and quick to deploy.

We have admins to maintain this solution.

We didn't really evaluate other products.

We are more of a Microsoft house. It works out better to use these products.

As I have not used any other product, I can't say that I would or wouldn't recommend SCCM. If there is anything better, I would like to know.

It works, but the database fails almost every time. I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

The new CMD features are excellent. It is like a cloud environment gateway. 

The batch management is very helpful. The software deployment happens in there. 

There are many features relevant to many of our clients.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

The interface needs to be a little bit simpler. Right now, it's a bit hard to navigate with ease.

The integration capabilities could be better. They need to expand this aspect of their product.

The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter.

SCCM does not support Linux and Unix. That has been deprecated and is no longer there. 

It would be ideal if the solution came with more features supporting Mac, then it would be a better product.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't really dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

You can scale it up if you need to. You can add the client servers, for example. I've had multiple primary sites that I get as I go. A company that needs to scale can do so with relative ease.

We deal with companies that are often medium-sized or enterprise-level.

The technical support is good. It's provided by Microsoft and we have lots of cases with Microsoft. They have been able to support us effectively so far. We're satisfied with the support so far.

SCCM has been the only product that we have worked on. We haven't used anything else. We haven't worked with BigFix or anything like that.

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. That said, anyone who's doing it needs to be a bit clever. It's not for people with little technological background. There is a bit of research required. You need to learn a bit about the product for effective deployment.

We handle the deployments for clients.

I don't deal with the pricing. I'm not aware of the costs in general. I can't say if it's reasonable or expensive. It's not my area of expertise.

I haven't really evaluated other solutions. However, I just received a proposal from one of our sales associates, and the company had BigFix. They were trying to move on to SCCM. They had some questions regarding whether the same features would be available in SCCM or not. That's the reason I went to do some comparisons.

We are Microsoft partners. I'm a consultant. This solution is being used by my client's companies.

We are using the latest version of the solution, which is 2010.

I would recommend SCCM based on the requirement of the customers. However, if they are looking for Unix and Linux support, which is no longer in SCCM, I'd recommend BigFix. That solution is better for Unix and Linux.

Anybody who wants to implement SCCM should do some research online, depending upon what features they want. Once they see that SCCM will be able to manage, will be able to resolve their issues, they should choose it. However, they need to look for a partner, a Microsoft partner, that can take help from them for deployment purposes.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If the product used less resources, I would rate it higher

We are using Microsoft SCCM as the deployment platform for our environment to deploy laptops and PCs for the help desk technicians. We also use it to deploy applications and servers and provide some reports to the organization about what is currently deployed. We are using its latest version.

We do not have a big IT department, so it solves a major part of our problems and makes it easier to deploy applications, servers, PCs, etc.

It does the job and meets our needs. With everybody working remotely these days, we are using this solution to deploy everything. The deployment of PCs is easy.

It should provide the ability to remotely connect to mobile devices. There are some solutions that are doing that, but with Microsoft Intune, the only way to remotely connect to devices outside the organization and mobile devices is by using TeamViewer. It is pretty strange for a big company like Microsoft to not have something for that.

It is stable. When the applications are set up correctly, we didn't face any major problems. Most of the problems are related to DNS and other things that are outside of SCCM. They are not related to SCCM.

Currently, our business is really stable, and there is no need to increase the devices in our organization. We have six technicians who are using it currently.

We are not using any tech support outside our organization. We are handling it internally.

I have used some solutions in the past, but in our organization, there was no centralized management application before SCCM.

It is not hard to deploy and manage, but you need some knowledge of what you want to do. SCCM is strictly based on the specific configuration of the network. Therefore, you need to know the network configuration and how to use Microsoft Active Directory. If you have made a bad choice at the beginning, it will be hard to roll back and redeploy it. It works well when the environment is well configured. It doesn't really work well when the corporate network is not as good as it should be.

Its price is okay because it is part of our licensing.

I would recommend having someone to help with the deployment because the success of its deployment depends on the experience of the people who are deploying it. If you don't have enough experienced people in the internal IT department, it would be helpful to have a consultant from outside the organization to assist you.

I would rate SCCM an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for patch management.

The solution may be one of the top products from a management standpoint. It's excellent.

The solution has a very good set of features.

Its capabilities are quite robust.

Sometimes the time it takes to find the fault is a bit too long. The resolution time needs to be shortened quite a bit. There are just some analysis errors that need to be cleared up quicker in general. Otherwise, data blocks and the firewall can be affected unnecessarily.

The analysis is something that can be integrated. Their report analysis can be improved a little bit due to the fact that most of the time complaints policies are saved by the admins. It's something that we need to look into and search for. It would be nice if there was just a cohesive report of what was saved, etc. 

I've been working with the solution for about two and a half years at this point.

The stability is very good. We don't have any issues with it. It's very reliable. I'd give it five stars.

The solution is scalable. We do have options to integrate other products as well. You want to combine your MDM solution with SCCM, for example. Scalability is something I would give them five stars for.

As admins, we do have rules for distributing. Basically, to manage inventory on all those steps. In our current organization, we are connected to approximately 300 million servers.

We didn't previously use a different solution. Previous to initiating the use of SCCM, everything was pretty much a manual process.

The initial setup is not complex. I believe it is very straightforward. You can choose to do it manually or you can do it via an automation feature that is available to push everything for you. 

Depending upon how big your organization is, how the sites are spread across mainly on physical entities, on logical entities, the installation and the detection will not take much time. In most cases you can have it configured in five to ten minutes in order to detect once the reporting gets updated. That said, if there are different geographical locations, the entire process can take a day or so. 

I've had to reach out to technical support in the past and I'm satisfied with their level of service. They are very knowledgeable and responsive.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a business relationship with SCCM.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. We've been mostly satisfied with it as a product.

We have just implemented a patch management solution. We are using SCCM for the server. For the client or endpoint, we are using a different product called Ivanti.

It is a very good solution. It has a good interface and is easy to use. On top of that, it is very reliable in terms of distribution as well as getting the report.

Its client interface should be more accessible, and the notifications should be more customizable from the console. It should be more user friendly and have some kind of customized notifications so that we can use it on the client side. These are the reasons why we restricted its use only for the server environment and didn't use it on the client side.

I cannot say anything about its scalability at this time. We are still exploring this solution. We are using SCCM for the server, so only IT people use it or log into it. In terms of nodes, about 500 nodes are using the product effectively.

I have not been in touch with Microsoft in terms of support for this solution. We are good. We do have people who get support from Microsoft for any issues, but I don't remember facing any issues recently on the SCCM front. We did have a call with Microsoft because SCCM was not supporting some applications on the patch upgrade front, and we wanted to explore and know future trends. 

It is easy.

We are still exploring this solution, and we haven't yet explored all the features.

I would rate SCCM an eight out of ten. It just needs a better user interface and some kind of customizations because currently, they are very limited.

SCCM does everything from A to Z for a Windows operating system. It provides a full-featured deployment for Windows-based systems from the setup screen.

It has reduced a lot of burden from external and internal IT teams, where they have to build systems individually.

There are many features that are useful, I will mention a few of the primary ones. You have a tool that enables you to build an operating system image and deploy it to a number of devices, system patching, application deployment, compliance checking, thorough documentation for installation and it has the ability for easy policy assignment management.

SCCM supports the Windows operating system well: however, there is minimal support for Mac and none for mobile devices. Organizations that do not just go with a single operating system, having the flexibility to support more operating systems and devices would be an added advantage. This would allow them to stand out from other products on the market.

I have been using the product for approximately two years.

The solution is stable enough to manage your Windows operating system.

We use the solution for a user base of approximately 500. It is scalable.

I would say it's a bit complex. There are prerequisites which you have to install first before installing SCCM. You need a server in place, a SQL database and some other software installed separately, for example, Management Studio.

We had experienced before allowing us to install the solution ourselves by following the documents provided. It usually takes five to six hours. The time is all depending on the hardware configuration on the server and if there are good hardware installed. It could take much more time if the setup is not good or if you are new to installing these type of solutions.

We have had a lot of issues with Mac application deployment support. They need to improve the support for the Mac operating system.

There are a few licensing required. When you purchase the SCCM licence the SQL server license is included. When you compare this solution with other tools in the market you might actually find a lot of variation in the pricing and that's why people opt for the other tools rather than Microsoft tools.

Compared to other tools I would recommend SCCM as a good solution for Windows systems only for managing your systems because it provides support for server operating system as well, rather than only for the client's operating systems.

I would rate SCCM a nine out of ten but since their support for other operating systems other than Windows is limited, I rate them overall, a six out of ten.

Our main use is, first of all, to update the patches and to push the patches from SCCM, to check systems software, and to see which software is installed along with the systems. These are the major three things that we use on SCCM. 

We are on the endpoint side. We just ensure that the SCCM agent is installed appropriately. 

I have an on-site server also. There are the primary servers, and then there are site servers of SCCM. I have a site server also. With the site server, I have to make sure it is working and there is no hardware level or any other issue on these machines. This site server is replicating with the main servers in our data center. 

Due to the fact that we have different sites in different locations including the UAE, Oman, and other sites, there are other site servers, that are replicating with the main servers. They may be taking other information from SCCM as well.

The main, clear valuable feature is updating the latest patches, Software distribution, remote control and computer inventory. This is the main feature we really utilize a lot.

The main SCCM lacks some things, which they incorporated into Microsoft Intune. When I evaluated these two products, one from VMware Workspace One and one from Microsoft, I found that there is something missing in SCCM, which is available and works very well in VMware Workspace One. SCCM should work to add these features into their service offering.

For example, devices like smartphones and tablets are managed very well on VMware Workspace One, however, they are absent in SCCM. I could configure the iPad from the VMware Workspace One cloud and it was done very easily. It should be just as possible on SCCM.

I've been using the solution for three to four years.

It's constantly running alongside computers. When they are on, SCCM is on. It's a stable product. There aren't issues with it crashing or getting glitchy. There is no issue, we have not faced any issue with SCCM.

Everyone in our organization uses SCCM, as it's on all of the device endpoints. There are two to three people that have access to the SCCM  servers. 

The scalability is very easy. If a company needs to expand it to more endpoints they can do so easily.

Initially, when we were installing the agent originally, we did run into a few issues. We found SCCM was not installed on a few computers or servers during installation. We had to get some help to deal with those problems and getting SCCM installed correctly. We figured out the requirements. Now it's working fine. 

That was just initially. We do not spend a lot of time with SCCM now. Whenever we have a new computer connect with our networks, within two minutes it starts working. There are no more issues. Therefore, since implementation, we haven't really had to call them.

We were not previously using any other solution. SCCM was our first.

I did the configuration of SCCM from scratch, however, I did not configure the VMware Workspace One as it was installed on cloud. I basically just did it for an evaluation to have a taste of VMware Workspace One.

Therefore, I don't know about the level of complexity or if it's easy or it's difficult in VMware Workspace One. In SCCM, however, there were some issues which I had to search and get assistance with and there were some issues that I resolved. I would describe it as somewhat complex. It was not so simple that anyone can do it.

For me took me three to four days to configure it and set it up in perfect working condition. That was mostly due to the fact that I took some time to research the issues I came into contact with.

The main production server is in our data center in Pakistan and production site server in Qatar and UAE, and their configuration is performed by a team in corporate office in Pakistan

I'm more interested in features, which is where I spend most of my research time with products. I don't really get into pricing. I'm not sure of the exact price. I can't say if it's cheaper or more expensive than other options.

I've considered evaluating VMware WorkspaceOne, however, their product is limited when users are just trying them out.

We are at an endpoint site. The servers that are in our data center.  I don't know which exact service-side version we are using at our data center.

I would recommend SCCM to others. I've used it from scratch and with the new features, especially Intune. I do recommend the SCCM, especially in the Microsoft environment.  VMware Workspace One is also good, from what I understand. The issue is they give very limited trial features. If they would give I full fledged trial base version of the VMware Workspace One, it would be easier for someone to completely evaluate the two. Microsoft gives you a six month evaluation period, for example. That's a lot of time to get to know the system. 

SCCM, therefore, is the best that I can tell, as I've been able to evaluate it fully. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I am a system administrator and I use the System Center Configuration Manager for test deployment and Windows update.

The most valuable feature is the scalability.

If you need to reboot the system during Windows Update, it can take a long time.

The deployment process is lengthy and should be quicker to complete.

I have three years of experience with SCCM.

I haven't had any problems with stability.

This is a scalable product. We have approximately 1,000 users and we plan to continue using it into the future.

The technical support from Microsoft is fast,

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was not easy. It takes about half an hour to install, and then it has to be configured. The deployment will take approximately six hours in total.

I deployed it myself.

In summary, this product works well and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.