Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

I am using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for patch management and asset inventory.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is it's incredibly simple to configure and execute changes in bulk, allowing for seamless deployment. With this solution, you can easily track the status of all modifications and send them with ease, making it a comprehensive and efficient solution for any necessary adjustments.

The assets have reached their end-of-life, and patching them is a complex and laborious task. It would be highly advantageous if there were an integrated solution that provided distinct options for each end-of-life asset, streamlining the process and facilitating comprehension.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for approximately one and a half years.

I rate the stability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

We have approximately 10,000 users using the solution.

I rate the scalability of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager a ten out of ten.

I use Tanium in parallel with Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager. Tanium is a similar solution that has features, such as asset patching, and encryption, and can be configured around Microsoft assets.

The initial setup of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is simple.

There is an annual license needed to use the solution.

This tool is helpful for Microsoft assets but it is important to have clear visibility before implementation. It can be a complete solution but a plan.

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of the solution is to deploy the computers and servers.

The most valuable feature is that it integrates well with other Microsoft solutions.

The solution can be improved with the addition of a mobile device manager.

I have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The implementation was completed in-house.

I give the solution a nine out of ten.

I recommend the solution because it functions as advertised. The solution is user-friendly and easy to learn. The solution has a nice-looking interface, unlike others out there.

We use MECM for intelligent logic automation. About 400,000 users are impacted by the solution, but there are around 20 admins who work with it directly. We have multiple automation tools and use the one that makes sense as needed.

We're designing PowerShell scripts to automate patching the boot process. The ROI is there.

I like the data collection. 

The reports are too busy. They could be simpler. I'm a technician, so I don't care how pretty the reports look. They should be easy to read. I'm designing this for production folks. They need to read the reports quickly when they're patching in the middle of the night.

I have used MECM for about four or five months.

I rate MECM nine out of 10 for stability. 

I rate MECM eight out of 10 for scalability.

I haven't gotten support from Microsoft for MECM, but I've contacted them in the past for various tickets. They're professional.

I work in the lab. I design a solution before it's deployed in production. I wasn't involved in the actual deployment. Deploying things in the lab is different. It's a much smaller footprint.

So far, the ROI is pretty decent.

MECM is more expensive than Ansible, which is open and free. That's why we'll use other tools as needed for automation. 

I rate Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager seven out of 10. You need to have the right mindset to use it. The first question should always be: Can this be automated? From there, you'll see if the product will satisfy their automation requirements.

It is used only for endpoints. We are trying to decide if it is useful for server-based evaluation as well. Like everybody else, we want to track what software is deployed. We have a one-half deployment of this product now, and I'm not sure if it's useful for what we want to do, which is server-based. It is designed to detect any PC. Thousands of people are using it this way, and it's not a new thing, but some people also seem to use the product for server-based detection, and it looks like there are modules you can download for Linux and other things to make it work beyond just the endpoint, which is what I am after.

It works well for the endpoints for the customer I'm consulting. It has a bunch of knobs, and you can tune it to do lots of things. 

It is designed to detect any PC. You can do it agent-based, or you can do it by some other method. If it is agent-based, then as long as the PC has the Endpoint Manager agent on it at the time when the batch job runs, it detects the hardware and software and puts it in the database. 

I'm looking for a single solution for all discovery needs. It fulfills about 40% of the requirements, and I'd like to see the other 60% so that I don't have to keep doing this.

I've been consulting in this space for five years. It has been used by the customer for years.

I don't have enough data on that. While I've been observing it, it has been stable.

When you buy it, you license it with a total number of devices to be managed, and that's a wall. When you hit the wall, you're going to need more licenses. So, you can scale right up to the spot where you have hit your boundary on licensing. To that boundary, it scales just fine.

I don't have any experience with their support.

This client uses seven or eight different things to perform this function of discovery. They use two different things for networks, and they use a hodgepodge of things to track VMware and Virtual Data Images (VDIs) and basically back of the envelope to track things that are on servers.

As far as I know, it is an annual operating expense license.

You may need complementary products to handle the holes not envisioned by SCCM.

For what it was designed to do, I would rate it a nine out of 10.

We are using SCCM to manage the virtual machine configuration. We had around 100 or 200 virtual machines and wireless, and we need to configure different settings on all of the virtual machines. We need to handle patching, updating, and installing security updates. We prefer to use System Center instead of other solutions like GFI LanGuard that are already installed in other environments.

Previous to SCCM, the entire process was completely manual.

The solution is very flexible and very handy. It has helped us move past the process of manually updating.

It's helped us solve problems surrounding patching, installing, and reporting different patches, etc., on the virtual machines.

Based on my experience with SCCM 2016, the main, big issue is not having a good user-friendly environment. It needs much better GUI. 

We had some problems configuring Linux virtual machines. We needed to install agents. Microsoft should pay more attention to these Linux virtual machines in order to make implementation with them easier.

I've been working in the System Center on two projects for around two years. 

The solution is extremely stable. We've only really had to restart the solution twice in the first year. It's very reliable.

In terms of scalability, at that time I didn't need to scale the development. However, in the near future, it is possible. I don't have any idea of the timeline for our scaling the solution as I focus on VMware technology at this time.

Our company has around 60 users. However, we offer this solution to one of the enterprise customers that use it for bank data centers. They have around 3000 staff.

We are using the System Center to manage around 2000 virtual machines.

In my country, due to sanctions, we cannot use direct support. We just use third-party partners in different countries. Generally, we support the System Center and all their products directly and don't need outside support.

If a company migrates to a cloud environment, I prefer to use another solution. For example, in the Azure environment, I definitely use Intune instead of System Center. In other products, I use Jamf, which is a good product that is comparable with System Center in the cloud environment. 

In terms of the current initial setup, the new version is a little bit more complex as you need to design a great architecture for the enterprise environment when we use a lot of virtual machines. For example, when you have more than 1,000 virtual machines, there needs to be a high level of consideration for the design of different components of the System Center.

In terms of deployment, if you have a good design, the process may take about a week. You need, I would guess, one week for installing and preparing the environment. However, you need to relay different instructions in order to install it. In total, the process would take around one, or, at a maximum, two weeks.

Our team consists of five members; one senior and four support engineers. Their job is to configure and maintain the active directory environment and the SCCM platform.

I implemented the solution myself. I took a month to study the solution, and, after that, I was able to handle the process personally. I took only two days in terms of how long it took me to install it.

The solution is pretty expensive. A company really needs to consider their environment.

We're just a customer. In the past, we used System Center version 2012, and after one year we upgraded to System Center 2016.

Out of all the products in the market, the best solution is System Center, especially for Microsoft virtual machines and all services that are related to Microsoft Technologies.

If you are evolving in the Microsoft environment, I prefer to use the System Center due to the fact that it includes different solutions like System Center Configuration Manager, System Center Operation Manager, System Center Virtual Backup. It's a full solution and provides different services. It has great integration with other Microsoft products. 

I would recommend the solution to an engineer or administrator. And first, a new user will have to study different best practices and have a good overview of the architect of System Center and the functionality of the different components. After that, they would have to go in through the details about the Linux machines. The biggest problems we had at the time of implementation was related to Linux virtual machines, not Microsoft virtual machines. With the licensing and the price, it's a tricky point that the engineers should consider when they need to set up a license

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

The primary use case for SCCM is for managing workstations.

All of the software that runs on our workstations is packaged and distributed and managed. Along with that, some of our security software is managed a little bit differently, but is accounted for in that way.

We also use it for keeping track of our patches.

We're a Microsoft-centric organization, so we are happy with the integration between products.

The interface, customization, and security are all pretty good.

There is no asset management package included. You have to buy that separately so we need  to use another system to manage that. This is one of the biggest things that makes SCCM not as competitive as some other systems. If they had this functionality then their help desk software would be much better and much more useful.

It is a little bit fat on the client-side, in terms of the stuff it leaves in place after the management is complete. It would be nice if they could pay attention to that, although we have a separate way of dealing with it.

I have been involved with using SCCM in four or five different places for a total of close to 15 years.

SCCM has no issue with stability.

This is a scalable product. The biggest group that I have been involved with was maybe 15,000 people. Typically, the sizes are in the 1,000-person area and it's not the type of product that you put together and configure for an office.

Their SCCM support is slightly better than their general support. Their general support, Microsoft is tiered so you have to fight your way through the tiers to get to the real people. There's no way around that, but that's just the way they are. I understand that because they're such a big company

I have not done the initial setup alone, and I wouldn't recommend doing it for anybody who didn't know what they were doing, or that hadn't done it before, because you have to go through a certain learning process.

I have seen that a base installation complete can be done in three days, and I have also seen an environment with 1,000 workstations deployed in two weeks.

I have always worked with somebody who is well-versed in the solution to assist with deployment. I rely on a Microsoft MVP-level person to get the install done properly for me.

One person is enough for maintenance.

Pricing is negotiable with Microsoft, depending upon which of their packages you choose. They're changing their packages, and I don't know how they're changing them yet. It's been a few years since I have worked in that capacity.

We continually look at and evaluate everything.

Microsoft has Intune, as well. However, Intune is a choice if you're in a smaller-scale situation. Typically, I don't get called into things unless it is large, where I interact with clients on technical computing and solving network problems that are related to workstation issues. For these types of larger things, SCCM is a logical choice.

I haven't been in a Unix environment beyond having to do database-engine-related work.

My advice for anybody looking into implementing SCCM is that it has to be on a larger scale, and you have to be committed to Microsoft.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for remote control, patch management, and software deployment. 

The tool's most valuable features include security updates and patch management, which are critical functions for maintaining security. The automated software distribution and the ability to manage deployments are also highly useful. Enforcing compliance with set policies on systems is another key functionality we leverage.

The solution should incorporate AI. It should also incorporate real-time capabilities. If we could get real-time information about challenges or issues, it would allow us to take immediate action. For example, with the recent outage caused by the Windows issue, having a real-time warning system could have helped us avoid or reduce the downtime we experienced.

I have been working with the product for eight to ten years. 

I rate Microsoft Configuration Manager's stability a ten out of ten. 

I rate the solution's scalability an eight out of ten.

As a main competitor to Microsoft Configuration Manager, I've used Ansible quite extensively as an alternative. There are also other products like those from Ivanti or Jamf. From an automation standpoint, we've tried Ansible and Chef as competitors. However, doing a direct function-by-function comparison is difficult since they all have different capabilities.

Our team is highly skilled, so it seems fairly straightforward from my perspective. However, the difficulty likely depends on skill levels.

The solution is expensive. Microsoft Configuration Manager would likely be considered high-priced for small businesses because they may not fully utilize all of its features and capabilities.

The solution is mostly for enterprises. Smaller businesses can opt for Microsoft Intune or other third-party products. I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager, formerly known as SCCM, is used for patching machine servers and application deployments. It also stores an inventory of machine hardware. We are customers and I'm a consultant. 

Patching is an important feature in the solution. Because it's console-based we can create one application or patch in the console. It will download and from the console base we can deploy to all machines. If your company has around 1,000-2,000 machines we're able to patch and deploy to all concurrently. We're also able to check, report and troubleshoot if there are any issues or errors that occur during deployment. We currently have 500 plus servers which are managed automatically on cloud.

Cloud-based improvements need to be better managed than is currently the case. 

I've been using this solution for nine years.

The solution is quite stable because it's a Microsoft product. Even though it's cloud-based it's quite stable. We have two engineers that deal with maintenance. 

The solution is quite scalable, although there is a lot of competition from products such as AWS and IBM BigFix.

We've had good experience with Microsoft technical support. 

The initial setup was straightforward. It's a matter of downloading from Microsoft, updating on the console and deploying. The amount of staff required for deployment depends on the level of infrastructure. Before the deployment, you need to test the machines to check whether a particular patch is installed and updated properly on that machine and whether there are any bugs. Installation is a step-by-step process. We can do about 20,000 per week, so within five weeks the job can be done. If there are only 10,000 machines, deployment can be completed within a week. 

Licensing is better than with other solutions because it's Microsoft-based. Microsoft offers multiple options which works for us. 

The solution is good for us because most of our users are using Microsoft-based products and the solution is compatible for anyone using Linux-based or AWS.

I rate the solution nine out of 10.