Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

I use Update Services to ensure our server estate remains adequately patched.

The most valuable feature is Server Update's stability.

More integration with different platforms would be an improvement. In the next release, Microsoft should expand on automation.

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

Server Update is stable.

This solution is scalable.

Microsoft's technical support is fine.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would recommend Server Update for anyone looking into it and rate it as eight out of ten.

I am using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for patch management.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is the efficiency once configured.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve the ease of use.

I have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for approximately 12 years.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is stable.

The support could improve because we needed to do a lot of research to use the Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and hardware. It was a time-consuming process.

The setup and configuration of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services are difficult. It could be made easier.

I used two people for the implementation and maintenance of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services.

I would advise others that this is a good solution but it takes some time to configure. It is important to do it right.

I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a seven out of ten.

My primary use case of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is to enforce patching for applications. I act as the client, not the server admin. If, let's say, my laptop has not restarted frequently, this solution will force me to take a couple of minutes to restart. This solution is deployed on cloud, so I'm always using the latest version. 

A valuable feature about this solution is that it enforces an updating and patching process for my applications. 

This solution's deployment could be improved. When I was the admin, there were some problems when deploying to clients. Sometimes the policy is not effective. I guess, more on the reliability side, more reliable means working more often with the clients. It could be easier to deploy. 

I have been using this solution for the duration of time I've been in my company. 

This solution is stable. 

This product is scalable. In my organization, there are about 600,000 people using Microsoft Windows Server. 

I have never contacted Microsoft support. 

I didn't use another patch management solution before Microsoft Windows Server. 

We had a lot of issues during deployment. I remember when we first deployed this solution, it didn't work, so we had to retry, we had to troubleshoot, and then after we finally got it, we could only partially use it. It would be great if the process were more simple so that we could deploy it on the first try to hundreds and thousands of clients. I don't remember the time duration of the installation or how big our deployment team was. 

We implemented through an in-house team. 

For licensing, I think it's on a framework contract. I'd guess my CIO would know, but I didn't buy my license—it's by default on my PC. 

I evaluated BigFix as part of my research, but I haven't used it. 

As an end user, I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. I've had no issues so far. 

I'm not sure if I can recommend this solution because I don't know what the alternatives are, so I have no experience in an alternative solution. It could be the case that BigFix is better. 

Our primary use of this solution is installing Windows updates.

The most valuable feature is its ability to identify which updates are needed on a particular machine.

When updates are displayed they are in one big list on the screen, and the naming convention isn't such that it groups them by the operating system. This makes it difficult because there are updates for Windows 7, Windows 10, and so forth, and I have to scroll through and select out the ones that are relevant to the operating system. Having the ability to group updates by the operating systems would be very helpful.

We have been using the Windows Server Update Services for a few months.

I use it on a daily basis and I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. While I haven't experienced any issues, I assume that they are there and I just haven't encountered them yet. At this point, we do not have any plans to increase usage.

The scalability seems to be appropriate. We don't have a big environment, although if we did, the sorting of the updates may be a bigger problem.

There are two of us in the company, myself and the system administrator, who are using this service.

I have not been in contact with Microsoft support, as there seems to be a lot of information about it available on the internet. This product is an industry-standard, and any product in this category is easy to find information on.

The initial setup was straightforward. I just downloaded a Udemy video series about how to install it. I followed those exact steps, it was accurate, and it was simple.

If you already have the server running then it requires adding the WSUS role. It will take between one and four hours to deploy.

I deployed this solution and am also doing the maintenance.

At this point, it accomplishes everything that I need to do.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use for this solution is varied and broad. There is not a single solution that we use it for because it can take on different roles. It could be an exchange server, it could be the SQL server, it could be used for security and analytics, it could be used in cross-configuration, it could be used for domain name systems, it could be a file server — the potential of the solution leaves almost limitless possibilities. It truly has a million uses.

I don't really know what can be improved in the newest version of the product because they are about to release Windows Server 2019 and I am still working with version 2016, which is the previous versions of Windows Server. I'm not aware of the current improvements in the 2019 version first-hand so I don't know how to improve the newest release.

What I hope to see in the 2019 version of Windows Server is an improvement in how terminal services are implemented. This is one of the problems with the 2016 version. There are parts where functionality would be better if it wasn't based on PowerShell commands. I'm more of a GUI (graphic user interface) guy and I like the way a graphic interface can simplify using a product. I like to be able to see the GUI windows and graphic controls and I am less interested in using the command line because it is more complicated. There is no reason why the graphic interface is not better while also allowing access to the PowerShell.

One of the most interesting things that could be improved from the 2016 version would be having the ability to use SIC codes for call centers. They have some solutions for video chat and messenger, and other communications services. But when you need the work station's IP for the phone, you have to turn to the manufacturer for a solution. For example, with Panasonic, you end up purchasing the entire stack of server IPs to host the operation and operator. On-premises, it would have been nice if it was in Microsoft Server and not implemented through linked servers or messenger servers or other options. It would have been more convenient if it were just included.

One of the best things about this solution is the stability. The last time I turned off and re-started one of the servers was over eight months ago. That was eight months of uninterrupted, non-stop service. It's extremely stable.

I'm not much involved with scalability because I don't have reason to scale with our business model as it is at the moment. 

We implemented the solution on-premises, which means that I own the exchange. We did the installation and the server is sitting next to a door right near me.

It is not really a matter of evaluating other options because I have used this one for twenty years. Nothing is perfect but this product is good or I would not have stayed using it for so long. So I base my usage on being familiar with the solution. I might change when I find a solution that is somehow better or if this solution does not meet our needs.

When I see the other open-source solutions — such as Linux and other options like FreeDSB or Unix — almost every one of them has an alternative solution to Microsoft Windows Server. That becomes a big problem for products that are not open-source because people don't need to spend money to get a good working product. If it comes freely, there really is no good reason to pay. The development of products that are not open-source begins to suffer in the market because the profitability is limited.

So that's a problem. Sometimes the non-open source solution would be chosen because the selection of the right product is dependent on the need and capability and not the cost. In other situations, the cost is more important and the choice will be for users to go to the open-source solutions because they are free.

The point is that choosing Microsoft Windows Server over other options is not a black-and-white proposition. There is a big gray area depending on the need.

Because Microsoft Windows Server is not open-source that makes it have limited application. In rating the product, because of that, I would rate this as only a five out of ten. This is not so much because the product is bad, but because there are so many other solutions that are essentially free that many companies can take advantage of.

The solution is used for patching updates.

The product is quite stable. I like the stability. It makes updates easy. It enables users to track updates.

The security could be improved.

I have been using the solution for the last five years.

I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is very scalable. We have ten users.

We get premium support from Microsoft. It's very easy for us to get the support if we need it.

The initial setup is straightforward. We need two engineers for the deployment and maintenance of the tool.

We have an enterprise agreement.

I would recommend the solution to others. It is a good product. Overall, I rate the product a ten out of ten.

My primary use case for the product is to manage product updates for my Windows servers and client computers.

The central points of managing product updates have been the tool's most valuable features. 

The product needs to improve its user interface. 

I have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for 15 years. 

I would rate Windows Server Update Services' stability as nine out of ten.

The product scales by itself. I rate it a nine out of ten. My company has 100 users. 

The initial setup was medium in complexity.

I rate the solution's pricing a nine out of ten. 

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We have more than 200 users in our organization.

We get server updates from the internet and from the Bluetooth server. All of the clients are connected to it, and they're all updated from this exact server. It updates automatically.

We faced issues with updates with some clients, so we have downloaded a patch appliance in those instances.

I have used this solution for nine years.

We haven't had any issues with stability.

The scalability is okay.

Setup is complex. I would rate it as seven out of ten.

For the installation process, we had to install a service from Windows and load the drivers.

The amount of time it takes to deploy will depend on the operating system. It can take from 45 minutes to one hour.

We have the M&A ticketing system, which we use to get information about the clients and issues. It's not difficult to maintain the solution.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. I would recommend it.