Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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.

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.

I use it to update.

It's free, easy to implement and use. It supports all the Microsoft operating systems, not only our systems but also the clients.

The easy way to use it is the biggest benefit.

The database could be improved. In large environments, for example, we often get problems with reporting.

I have been using it for over ten years. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten because stability depends on the size of the environment. If we use it in a small environment, with less than 200 devices, there are no problems.

We are using it in small companies and medium enterprises.

It's a scalable product. I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The support could be improved, but it's a free product. So, we can't expect too much.

The Microsoft support service calls have long wait times to solve issues or even recognize them.

Positive

The installation is quite easy. To deploy it completely it took about four hours for installation and configuration.

Only one person is enough to deploy. It does require maintenance , but not a lot. It's quite easy to update the system itself. 

The main problem is the database, and the solution doesn't work well in larger environments. But even then, installing a new solution is quite easy, which is also a benefit.

It helped automate the process of updating our Windows operating systems and also our Windows or Microsoft software components, like SQL Server, Exchange servers, Office products, and so on.

It's part of the main operating system. So, I use it for free.

It's a quite good product. If you use it in an environment with less than about 200 managed devices, it is a good product.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

The solution is used to push the patches, have a central location for patch management, attach all your service infrastructure, keep up to date, and serve security updates.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is an easy-to-use and stable solution.

The solution's stability could be improved because sometimes, there are some problems in communication and sending updates and patches.

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

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is a very stable solution.

I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a nine out of ten for stability.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is a scalable solution. Around 60 to 70 users use the solution in our organization.

The solution's technical support is great.

The solution's initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution's deployment takes around three months. The solution can be deployed in-house depending on how strong the IT department is within the organization.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is not an expensive solution.

I would recommend the solution to other users. If someone wants a less costly solution and doesn't want to invest too much in licenses, they can choose Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. The solution is more suited for small businesses, not huge enterprise customers.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a nine out of ten.

PowerShell is a valuable feature.

The product must improve its support.

I have been using the solution for a few years.

The solution is pretty stable. I rate the stability an eight and a half out of ten. Sometimes, we have minor issues.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight out of ten.

I opened a ticket with support two weeks ago. There have been only two email conversations between me and the team regarding the ticket. There have been no other responses. The support team is normally good.

Neutral

It is very easy to deploy the product.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight 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 use the solution for update management. 

The solution's most valuable feature is the ability to set logical rules. These rules allow us to automatically apply updates based on their criticality or assign them to specific computer groups. It allows for automatic deployment to specific groups based on predefined logic, eliminating the need for manual intervention in deployment creation.

The tool's integration is easy. It manages everything behind the scenes. 

The product should improve its third-party management. 

I have been working with the product since 2008. 

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten. 

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services' scalability is fine. 

Regarding technical issues, I had one that had to go through many levels and back and forth. I don't think they are great. Technical people still treat you like a beginner, assuming you don't know much. The first-level support is not very good, and we almost always have to go to the third level. As a result, it takes a lot of time.

The solution's deployment is easy. 

The tool is included with server products, and its pricing is good. 

The tool can function effectively for small—to medium-sized businesses. However, for enterprise companies, especially in regions like the United States or Europe, it would likely require additional support from a system center management framework to fully meet their needs.

I rate it an eight out of ten. It's beneficial, especially if you have more than a few systems to update. Using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services automates the update process, saving considerable manual effort.

Our company currently uses Microsoft Windows Server Update Services to install updates on the Windows systems that have been provisioned in the cloud.

The primary use case for the solution is for managing and monitoring a distributed database system in a production environment.

We were specifically looking for cloud-native solutions, and this particular solution perfectly aligns with our roadmap to transition to the cloud and leverage as many cloud-native tools as possible.

It is a tool that helps our organization meet our work requirements. I haven't exploited it to an extent where I can't comment extensively on what features I like in the tool. So, it may take me a year to do so.

The only complex part was the solution’s tricky setup phase. It should be made easier. The person working in our company faced challenges initially while trying to enter the solution's setup phase. However, going through the documentation for the solution might be helpful.

I have been using the solution for about two months. Also, I am using the solution's latest version.

Considering the two months that I have used the product, I am absolutely happy with its stability and performance. It is a stable product.

Our company started using the solution recently. We have a limited number of users and administrators within the Azure cloud team who currently utilize the available cloud solution. To be more specific, there are only about three to five users currently using the solution.

Since it can handle a much larger workload than it claims, it is a scalable tool.

Our company plans to increase the usage of the tool extensively when there is a need to move the workload to the cloud platform.

Our company has previously used Microsoft System Center's on-premise version. Since it was a native cloud tool, we moved to Microsoft Windows Server Update Services.

Even though the initial setup was tricky, it was easy since ample documentation was available.

The solution is deployed on the cloud. Regarding the time taken for the deployment process, after experimenting with the tool for a couple of weeks, we were able to get it up and running in our company.

Our company had only one engineer who experimented with the solution and deployed it on the cloud.

An ROI is there using the solution since, with the cloud-native products, one has to put less effort into using and managing it.

Microsoft's operating model determines the solution's pricing, and we use it based on our enterprise agreement, which incurs an annual cost.

Managing the additional cost beyond the standard license fee can be tricky when deploying a solution on the cloud, as you may also incur charges for data transfer and other related expenses. It is important to be aware of these costs and include them in your total cost considerations so that they don't come as a surprise later on.

I suggest that those planning to use the solution consider whether a cloud-native solution works for them from a cost perspective. If it does, then they should definitely consider it. Since the solution meets my company's requirements, I rate the overall solution a seven to eight out of ten.

I often use Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for updates and loyalty patch management.

I like that we could evaluate every client and compare some weaknesses and vulnerability exploits in Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. This is a useful way to test applications against an attacker attempting to exploit the operating system.

In the next release, I would like them to provide better connectivity. They must improve the connectivity between the WSS with Microsoft or the client.

I have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for a couple of years.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is a stable solution. However, there have been some problems with the Microsoft update. We had to do some maintenance before restarting the WSS service or checking the connection between the OS and Microsoft accounts.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is very scalable. It could be deployed on the network with even 1,000 clients. At present, we have about 10,000 users. 

The initial setup wasn't complex. It's easy. I think that it could be run in one day. It needs weekly or sometimes daily maintenance to check and update the signature or to check and get the update via Microsoft.

We implemented this solution.

It doesn't need a license. It's offered for free with Microsoft.

I would recommend this solution to potential users as it's a vital service in every network.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a seven.