Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

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.

We use Microsoft Authenticator as well as Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Normally, we enable MFA for all users who have email access and application access. Users can choose which authenticator they want to use. Based on their convenience, they enable Microsoft Authenticator or Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Almost 80% to 90% of users use Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Users who travel a lot choose Microsoft Authenticator.

We are using the latest version. It is updated by default, and we don't have to update the application. It is also automatically updated on mobile.

It has been working for us, and it has never been down so far.

Its dashboard can be improved and made a little bit better.

I have been using this solution for the last two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

We didn't have any issues or concerns. Therefore, we have never raised a ticket for Microsoft SMS Authenticator.

The initial setup is very easy. You have to enable MFA on the portal for a user. You have to put a user's phone number, select the user, and then specify that you want to give all three SMSs.

It comes free with the Microsoft account. We have a yearly agreement, and all products are covered under it.

We plan to keep using Microsoft SMS Authenticator. 

I would rate Microsoft SMS an eight 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.

My primary use case is for the product is mainly for helping with competitive analysis. It is not my main solution but it is one of the components.  

The most valuable part of the solution in my case is patch management.  

I would like to see Microsoft extend the coverage of the product to integrate better with other platforms beyond Windows.  

I have been using SCCM (System Center Configuration Manager) for about eight years now.  

The stability of the product is good.  

We do not have any issues with scalability.  

I have not had the need to contact technical support for any reason so I have no real experience with them.  

I also use BigFix by HCL Technologies (Hindustan Computers Limited). I use these products to check between SCCM and BigFix to see if they agree.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate System Center as an eight-out-of-ten.  

Our primary use case for this product is for patching and sending back packages to the client.

SCCM helps to file the claims from servers.

Patching is the main feature because SCCM is made to control the entire environment without manually interpreting. So it is good to use for patching.

The main room for improvement is the on-screen display. I think it would be good if some improvements were made.

Overall, as of now, it's sufficient for us. I don't have any scope of what new features would be needed for our company. I'm not sure if we require anything more. We are good with this product. If our companies move to the cloud or something, maybe we'll need additional features.

I have been using SCCM for 10 years.

The stability is also quite good.

The scalability is quite good.

We don't have a separate team using it. It's an operations team, where everyone works in every technology.

There are about 5 - 10 people using it - Windows server persons, applications teams, and other teams.

We very rarely have contact with the technical service. I think about once a year. That's it. We don't require it because most of the time we fix any issues ourselves.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was quick and it took a day. We didn't have any issues.

My advice for this product is that it's a team tool that can be helpful. At the same time, it can be harmful if you are not using it properly - it can ruin your company. That's because if someone messes up, they can send a package to one client instead of sending it to another. Once you start the initial installation, it is difficult to stop it. So you should be careful.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SCCM an eight.

The primary uses are PC imaging, application deployment and updates, Windows patching, and baselining.

Using SCCM has sped up PC deployment, made it much more consistent through automation, and provided a self-service application portal that users can go to and install software themselves without admin rights.

The most valuable features are application deployment and task-sequenced imaging.

The operations could be faster and you need some patience with this tool. I  wish that sending media to remote distribution points was faster.

I have been using SCCM for 15 years.