Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

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.  

We primarily use the solution for client and server deployments, and software deployments, as well as software metering.

The entire solution, from end to end is excellent. It's doing essential work for us at our company.

The initial setup is straightforward and not too complicated.

I can't think of any features that are lacking in the solution. It's quite complete, and a rather standard setup.

If you want the best support, you need to pay for it. Otherwise, you may get less technical help.

We've been using the solution since its inception. It's been maybe ten years or more at this point.

The solution is very stable. It's reliable. You don't have to work about bugs or glitches. There aren't any crashes. It doesn't freeze.

The solution is very scalable. If an organization needs to scale up, the can do so easily using this product.

Right now, we have about 4,000 users on the solution.

We have Microsoft Premier Support.

With Microsoft Premier Support, you get what you pay for. There's Third Tier Support that you pay for. If you pay for that, you get excellent support, and if you don't pay for that, then you get the less experienced staff. There are products where we do have Third Tier Support, and there are products that are not so mission-critical, where we don't pay that much.

At Microsoft, if we wanted to, we can get the level of that kind of super support, super fast. It's not that they leave a void open that we would like more. If we want more, faster, we can pay for it.

If the company did use a different solution, that would have been about 15 years ago and before my time. I couldn't say what it might have been. Right now we're System Center 2012, before that it was 2007. Then before that was 2003, and then 2004. Before, the product was called SMS, so it's been around for a while. The previous product might have been a solution called Altaris. Again, that's about at least 15 years ago.

The initial setup, for the most part, is not complex. It depends on the company's individual setup, however, it's quite straightforward if you know what you are doing.

Deployment typically takes about three months.

You only need about four staff members for deployment and maintenance. They are all systems specialists and engineers.

We used to use sellers or consultants. However, we are moving away from that and attempting to implement the solution ourselves internally. We want to have the knowledge completely in-house.

We have a basic enterprise agreement with Microsoft which isn't cheap, per se.

I can't get into the exact cost structure.

The question of pricing is a bit relative. The enterprise-level that we use is always a negotiation. I don't want to use the word monopoly, however, there's no alternative enterprise vendor that covers all bases, from server storage and backup and everything else in between. Pricing is just a matter of negotiation every time the contract renewal period comes up.

Right now we are starting a POC for Azure and Office 365. The idea is that it depends on the government and if data privacy and compliance rules allow any change. If we can use Azure's public cloud, and Office 365, then the usage utility of the on-prem requirements would go down. 

Microsoft Cloud has integration with Intune, which is the cloud version of SCCM in the center. As far as I can see, there is good integration.

We're a Microsoft customer.

It's a very good product. The basic question is the size of the company itself that may want to implement the solution. the point is if you're big enough to afford an enterprise agreement, with Microsoft, then I would highly recommend it. It's a suite of products. If you're a small to medium business, which does not have an enterprise agreement with Microsoft, I would recommend that you look around for third party products. Simply from a cost perspective, you might be better off, but if you have the money and the size and the revenue, then definitely, Microsoft is the way to go, because it includes everything.

I'd rate the solution ten 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.

We have an environment of eight thousand machines and eleven thousand users.

This solution helps to ease the day-to-day system operations and standardization of the organization.

The most valuable features are Remote Connect, SUP, Cloud functionality, Report, Query, and third-party patching.

The cost of the product can be improved.

I have been using this solution for two years.

Our primary uses for this solution are packaging, imaging, and patching.

This solution has made life easy with respect to patching, compliance, and OSD.

With SCCM 2012 and SCCM 2016, it allowed users to install non-licensed products when required.

The most valuable features of this solution are Package deployment, Software Center, OSD Creation with Task sequence, and Patching.

This solution needs to be supported on all Operating systems.

We use this solution for implementing System CenterConfigMgr in our organization, and for standardization.

This has made the management of our environment easier.

The most valuable features of this solution are the OSD and application deployments, and it also automates updates.

Not everything is readily available, and there are a lot of commands that are only executable via PowerShell. In this regard, the user interface could be improved.

This is linked to how Microsoft designs the products: They release a product and a visual interface, but also provide PowerShell commandlets. This usually is in ratio of 30/70 (UI / PowerShell actions).

We use this solution because we need to manage patching and system provisioning.

This solution helps us by automating the patching of our system. We are able to standardize our Windows configuration, and models are supported through imaging.

The most valuable features of this solution are:

• Imaging - standardized Windows builds
• Software deployment - deploying updates and automating the installation of software
• Patch deployment - increased security
• Reporting - better view of our environment for decision making

This solution should be simpler, and more consistent across modules/sections.

Reporting and collection queries should be made easier to do.