Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

In our network, we have configured two methods. One is Symantec's GUP server on the graph of the server, which is directly updated with OSHS and server update packages. The second method is the WSUS server, which is connected to Active Directory and is a client within our network. It automatically updates Windows patches and services.

Operationally, our team in Haridwar updates the Windows services and critical patches on their end. We monitor the Windows Server patches to ensure they are updated and functional, minimizing operational disruptions and enhancing network performance.

We use the security patch-level services provided by Microsoft. This is essential for keeping our network secure.

Microsoft should address the issue where some updates cause the blue screen (BlueDump) error in the server OS, which is not supported in the hardware. Removing unsupported patches or providing solutions directly would help mitigate this issue.

I have over ten years of experience working with the solution.

We face stability issues with some critical patches, which are not supported by the hardware. Accepting this issue, everything works well.

I rate the scalability of Windows Server Update Services as a ten out of ten.

We have some experience with Microsoft technical support, but I am not satisfied with their service. They often do not provide proper solutions and direct us to various resources without resolving the main issue.

Neutral

We use Symantec GraphUpdate, which remotely updates Windows patches and services.

The setup experience is good overall. However, sometimes we face technical issues that require us to search for solutions externally.

The cost of the solution is managed by our purchase department, however, it is deemed a good solution overall.

I recommend using Windows Update Services to IT administrators. It is a user-friendly system with minimal challenges in updates or services.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use the solution primarily for patching. It is a very crucial activity in terms of maintaining up-to-date images and safeguarding the operating system from different bugs and avoiding crashes. We keep everything updated, including security patches. We have multiple servers based on different flavors of Windows Server and different versions also from 2008, 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2022.

Based on the policy, we deploy patches on whichever particular Windows Server on the required schedule.

Patch and security management is a very crucial activity. It is actually periodical and it should be done on a monthly basis or a weekly basis, depending on the requirement. Maintaining the patching to the latest version is a very crucial and difficult task. It's helped us to maintain patch management cycles.

We can easily download particular patches, and we can apply them on a group basis and policy basis.

It is stable.

We can scale the product.

We have a web-based GUI and can access it from other systems, also. We can always update all the policies and patches with ease if there is a good GUI. They need to continue to offer the GUI interface to make patching easier.

They should offer patch management across platforms.

They should also include application software. Catered options should be included for different applications. They should offer a generic patch management solution for general applications.

I've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

This is a stable solution. We don't find many bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

The solution is scalable. We can add multiple Windows Servers in the groups. We handle between 400 and 500 (or more) devices.

We can easily scale up at any time just by adding servers to the updated services. 

Technical support has been helpful and responsive. 

Positive

We tried some different products, including ManageEngine Patch Management and Automox.

The implementation process offers a moderate level of difficulty. It's not easy, nor is it complex. 

You need one Windows Server, at least for maintenance. 

We don't require the purchase of any commercial products for patch management and therefore aren't really investing anything. From the technical side, we can easily manage the patching and keep our system up to date, which is useful.

In terms of licensing, it's a Windows Server feature, so it will come under the Windows Server. That said, we require some care licenses for that Windows Server.

I'm using the latest version of the solution. 

New users need to precisely and carefully define the policies and catalogs at the outset. It's important to have everything aligned before deployment to avoid downtime. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. 

We have Microsoft Windows Server Update Services in place to deploy standard Microsoft updates. It does not allow us to update or patch other products, which is a limitation. We use it for the deployment of updates without additional costs.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services allows us to deploy updates efficiently at no additional cost.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is its low cost, as it requires no additional licensing fees.

There are several areas needing improvement, including the management of third-party patches, better enforcement of patch deployment on user PCs, and the ability to schedule updates at specific times. If these areas were improved, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could be more competitive.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for more than ten years since it was in place when I joined the company.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is very stable and does not require special maintenance.

I do not have much experience with its scalability since our company size has not changed significantly, but it's easy to deploy additional servers if needed.

We have not needed to contact Microsoft's customer service as the available documentation is comprehensive and helpful.

Positive

We previously used Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and are now exploring Qualys for its added benefits, like a more comprehensive approach to vulnerability management.

The initial setup of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services was straightforward and uncomplicated.

One person can deploy Microsoft Windows Server Update Services; it does not require a team.

Since Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is free, we do not have any additional operational impacts, and there are no additional costs incurred with its use.

Our experience with Microsoft Windows Server Update Services involves no setup cost or licensing fees, as it is included with our existing licenses.

I did not participate in the evaluation process for choosing Qualys, and therefore do not know what other options were considered.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

In my company, we have dedicated servers for our project, so we used to do the compliance on those servers, and we had to patch them using Intune. Recently, my company started using ManageEngine Desktop Central for some of the projects. Users have to keep the tool updated to the latest versions.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it is easy to use.

It offers a friendly UI, so my company does not have to do the coding every time one wants to use the device. It is feasible for our company to use the product. If you have to perform any operations anywhere, you don't have to open the command prompt and run the command. There are features like PowerShell and batch scripting, but those are for the server part.

The current versions offered by the product are really great. I like to work on them.

The product's most critical features for maintaining the security and compliance of our company's systems stem from the security updates provided by the solution. Microsoft Defender and some of the other firewall products can be considered some of the most critical services offered by Microsoft Windows.

The product lacks to offer some of the features offered by some of the open source solutions like Linux and others, making it an area where improvements are required. I feel that the product's scalability can be improved.

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

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a nine to ten out of ten.

The product's initial setup phase is straightforward, and there is no need to get involved in complex operations. You just have to select the partition, install the OS, and do a few clicks, after which the product gets installed, and you are able to work on it.

The solution can be deployed on either the cloud or on an on-premises model since both are easy.

For my home appliances, I have to make certain payments to use the product. In my company, there is a team that takes care of the licensing part associated with the tool.

I recommend the product to those who plan to use it.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I use the tool to update the main servers. 

The tool's most valuable feature is Active Directory. 

The challenges exist according to the planning. For example, if you plan to implement and apply updates to your infrastructure, including servers and clients, you must provide storage information and have a clear plan for that from start to end.

You need to define the space needed to download all the information, how to implement and apply it to your network, the deadline, and what to do with outdated data. For example, if something was downloaded now but isn't needed after a year, you must delete it. This is not an easy task. You must have some information, education, and training about this. If done correctly, everything will work perfectly.

I rate the Microsoft Windows Server Update Services' stability a ten out of ten. 

The solution is scalable. The number of users using Active Directory depends on the company. In my opinion, it is recommended to use it if you have at least around 20 users.

Setting up the tool requires knowledge. It's not as simple as installing a client or an operating system. You need some education and understanding before implementing and setting it up.

I remember some steps for deploying the tool, but not all of them. You must have some knowledge about Active Directory and its procedures. You need to install the prerequisites, such as a DNS server. Sometimes, you will install it while installing Active Directory services on the Windows role. You must know the domain name and whether it is the first domain or a subdomain. You need this information before you start the setup.

You must expose your infrastructure to the internet, ensuring each server or client can use your internet bandwidth to download updates. By downloading updates to one point and then distributing them to all clients and servers from there, you minimize unnecessary traffic.

Without this central point, each client would download updates independently, increasing costs and traffic. The most valuable benefit is downloading updates once and applying them across all clients and servers in your infrastructure.

You can manage daily users for administration, user, and domain policies. For example, how many days before you must change the password, how many characters the password must have, and the complexity of the password. These policies can be implemented and defined before being used for reports. If I remember correctly, there are no specific reports for this. You can see what policy is implemented and applied in your infrastructure. For example, you can trace and monitor users in the Windows events log.

I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten. 

The primary use case is for managing the distribution of updates within a corporate environment. However, SCCM remains the major tool for patching.

In the current era of heightened cybersecurity concerns, ensuring that your systems are consistently updated and well-protected is imperative. This solution becomes particularly crucial for services accessible to the public, especially those exposed to the internet—a condition that is increasingly prevalent for most entities today. It stands as one of the essential measures for safeguarding against potential cyberattacks.

The noteworthy aspect is the system's capability to handle an extensive range of services and workloads, with the potential for almost unlimited scalability.

One area for potential improvement involves the administrative portal, where numerous options, including asset management and patch management, are integrated. There's a suggestion that decoupling these integrated tools might be beneficial. This decoupling could involve separating services or options to provide more flexibility and potentially reduce costs, allowing for a more modular approach to the utilization of these tools.

I have been using it for approximately twenty years.

The system is notably robust, particularly when utilized with Microsoft products. The stability is high, and it could be rated around eight out of ten.

Scalability, particularly with the integration of cloud services, is notable. In the cloud environment, scalability is essentially bound by your budget—expanding resources as much as you're willing to invest. On-premises, however, scalability involves purchasing additional subscriptions and compute resources before increasing the number of servers, introducing a more upfront and structured approach to resource expansion.

Technical support needs to be organized into different levels, starting with frontline support and extending to backend support. For the backend, a team of around four individuals is typically required to effectively manage those responsibilities.

The initial setup of the system is complex. It requires the expertise of an individual who can set up and comprehend the intricacies involved. Even after installation, the configuration of processes, services, and other elements necessitates specific attention and configuration.

Deploying the system requires the assistance of an expert, especially if you are not familiar with its nuances. The application is comprehensive, covering various aspects, and demands expertise in specific configurations for accurate setup.

The licensing cost is a component of the enterprise services associated with Microsoft. Given the multitude of features within the solution, it tends to be on the higher side in terms of expenses. While it might be relatively more expensive for smaller companies, larger enterprises can find it robust and capable of delivering significant value.

I would suggest to evaluate your environment, analyze specific use case scenarios, and weigh the benefits the system provides. The suitability of this solution varies depending on the size of the organization. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

We can use the tool monthly to make updates concerning security and other things.

The tool has only one feature, which is updates. 

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services needs to improve its reporting feature. The tool's competitor has better reporting capabilities. 

I have been using the product for 15 years.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is scalable. My company has around 1000 systems. 

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services deployment is easy. You must go to the Windows features and configure the system. Then, you can install the updates. Once installed, you can start configuring the required settings. All these configurations are straightforward and can be set up in the Windows Update System Server console. Once it is set up, it downloads all the updates from Microsoft. It will then deliver the updates to the system based on our policies and rules.

The solution's deployment can be done in-house. 

We need one single key for Windows deployments, which is a better option. Buying a license with the same key for all systems, like Windows and Windows Desktop, makes configuring easier. Otherwise, it isn't easy to manage multiple keys for different systems.

You can get the tool as a default feature in Windows. You can manage everything from one single place using WUSS. It's free and comes with Windows, but you must buy a license. I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. The solution requires people with experience in systems. 

We use the solution to update servers and clients.

The solution performs well.

We have some problems when we update the servers.

I have been using the solution for 15 years.

The tool is very stable.

The tool is scalable. We have approximately 1000 users in our organization. We have about 20 people in our technical team.

We contact support if we face any errors. We get support from the integrators.

Positive

The initial setup was complex. Sometimes, if there is an error, it takes a very long time to correct it.

The deployment can be done in-house.

We can use ManageEngine instead of Microsoft. I recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.