Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

We have just implemented a patch management solution. We are using SCCM for the server. For the client or endpoint, we are using a different product called Ivanti.

It is a very good solution. It has a good interface and is easy to use. On top of that, it is very reliable in terms of distribution as well as getting the report.

Its client interface should be more accessible, and the notifications should be more customizable from the console. It should be more user friendly and have some kind of customized notifications so that we can use it on the client side. These are the reasons why we restricted its use only for the server environment and didn't use it on the client side.

I cannot say anything about its scalability at this time. We are still exploring this solution. We are using SCCM for the server, so only IT people use it or log into it. In terms of nodes, about 500 nodes are using the product effectively.

I have not been in touch with Microsoft in terms of support for this solution. We are good. We do have people who get support from Microsoft for any issues, but I don't remember facing any issues recently on the SCCM front. We did have a call with Microsoft because SCCM was not supporting some applications on the patch upgrade front, and we wanted to explore and know future trends. 

It is easy.

We are still exploring this solution, and we haven't yet explored all the features.

I would rate SCCM an eight out of ten. It just needs a better user interface and some kind of customizations because currently, they are very limited.

SCCM does everything from A to Z for a Windows operating system. It provides a full-featured deployment for Windows-based systems from the setup screen.

It has reduced a lot of burden from external and internal IT teams, where they have to build systems individually.

There are many features that are useful, I will mention a few of the primary ones. You have a tool that enables you to build an operating system image and deploy it to a number of devices, system patching, application deployment, compliance checking, thorough documentation for installation and it has the ability for easy policy assignment management.

SCCM supports the Windows operating system well: however, there is minimal support for Mac and none for mobile devices. Organizations that do not just go with a single operating system, having the flexibility to support more operating systems and devices would be an added advantage. This would allow them to stand out from other products on the market.

I have been using the product for approximately two years.

The solution is stable enough to manage your Windows operating system.

We use the solution for a user base of approximately 500. It is scalable.

I would say it's a bit complex. There are prerequisites which you have to install first before installing SCCM. You need a server in place, a SQL database and some other software installed separately, for example, Management Studio.

We had experienced before allowing us to install the solution ourselves by following the documents provided. It usually takes five to six hours. The time is all depending on the hardware configuration on the server and if there are good hardware installed. It could take much more time if the setup is not good or if you are new to installing these type of solutions.

We have had a lot of issues with Mac application deployment support. They need to improve the support for the Mac operating system.

There are a few licensing required. When you purchase the SCCM licence the SQL server license is included. When you compare this solution with other tools in the market you might actually find a lot of variation in the pricing and that's why people opt for the other tools rather than Microsoft tools.

Compared to other tools I would recommend SCCM as a good solution for Windows systems only for managing your systems because it provides support for server operating system as well, rather than only for the client's operating systems.

I would rate SCCM a nine out of ten but since their support for other operating systems other than Windows is limited, I rate them overall, a six out of ten.

We use Microsoft Authenticator as well as Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Normally, we enable MFA for all users who have email access and application access. Users can choose which authenticator they want to use. Based on their convenience, they enable Microsoft Authenticator or Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Almost 80% to 90% of users use Microsoft SMS Authenticator. Users who travel a lot choose Microsoft Authenticator.

We are using the latest version. It is updated by default, and we don't have to update the application. It is also automatically updated on mobile.

It has been working for us, and it has never been down so far.

Its dashboard can be improved and made a little bit better.

I have been using this solution for the last two years.

It is stable.

It is scalable.

We didn't have any issues or concerns. Therefore, we have never raised a ticket for Microsoft SMS Authenticator.

The initial setup is very easy. You have to enable MFA on the portal for a user. You have to put a user's phone number, select the user, and then specify that you want to give all three SMSs.

It comes free with the Microsoft account. We have a yearly agreement, and all products are covered under it.

We plan to keep using Microsoft SMS Authenticator. 

I would rate Microsoft SMS an 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.

Our main use is, first of all, to update the patches and to push the patches from SCCM, to check systems software, and to see which software is installed along with the systems. These are the major three things that we use on SCCM. 

We are on the endpoint side. We just ensure that the SCCM agent is installed appropriately. 

I have an on-site server also. There are the primary servers, and then there are site servers of SCCM. I have a site server also. With the site server, I have to make sure it is working and there is no hardware level or any other issue on these machines. This site server is replicating with the main servers in our data center. 

Due to the fact that we have different sites in different locations including the UAE, Oman, and other sites, there are other site servers, that are replicating with the main servers. They may be taking other information from SCCM as well.

The main, clear valuable feature is updating the latest patches, Software distribution, remote control and computer inventory. This is the main feature we really utilize a lot.

The main SCCM lacks some things, which they incorporated into Microsoft Intune. When I evaluated these two products, one from VMware Workspace One and one from Microsoft, I found that there is something missing in SCCM, which is available and works very well in VMware Workspace One. SCCM should work to add these features into their service offering.

For example, devices like smartphones and tablets are managed very well on VMware Workspace One, however, they are absent in SCCM. I could configure the iPad from the VMware Workspace One cloud and it was done very easily. It should be just as possible on SCCM.

I've been using the solution for three to four years.

It's constantly running alongside computers. When they are on, SCCM is on. It's a stable product. There aren't issues with it crashing or getting glitchy. There is no issue, we have not faced any issue with SCCM.

Everyone in our organization uses SCCM, as it's on all of the device endpoints. There are two to three people that have access to the SCCM  servers. 

The scalability is very easy. If a company needs to expand it to more endpoints they can do so easily.

Initially, when we were installing the agent originally, we did run into a few issues. We found SCCM was not installed on a few computers or servers during installation. We had to get some help to deal with those problems and getting SCCM installed correctly. We figured out the requirements. Now it's working fine. 

That was just initially. We do not spend a lot of time with SCCM now. Whenever we have a new computer connect with our networks, within two minutes it starts working. There are no more issues. Therefore, since implementation, we haven't really had to call them.

We were not previously using any other solution. SCCM was our first.

I did the configuration of SCCM from scratch, however, I did not configure the VMware Workspace One as it was installed on cloud. I basically just did it for an evaluation to have a taste of VMware Workspace One.

Therefore, I don't know about the level of complexity or if it's easy or it's difficult in VMware Workspace One. In SCCM, however, there were some issues which I had to search and get assistance with and there were some issues that I resolved. I would describe it as somewhat complex. It was not so simple that anyone can do it.

For me took me three to four days to configure it and set it up in perfect working condition. That was mostly due to the fact that I took some time to research the issues I came into contact with.

The main production server is in our data center in Pakistan and production site server in Qatar and UAE, and their configuration is performed by a team in corporate office in Pakistan

I'm more interested in features, which is where I spend most of my research time with products. I don't really get into pricing. I'm not sure of the exact price. I can't say if it's cheaper or more expensive than other options.

I've considered evaluating VMware WorkspaceOne, however, their product is limited when users are just trying them out.

We are at an endpoint site. The servers that are in our data center.  I don't know which exact service-side version we are using at our data center.

I would recommend SCCM to others. I've used it from scratch and with the new features, especially Intune. I do recommend the SCCM, especially in the Microsoft environment.  VMware Workspace One is also good, from what I understand. The issue is they give very limited trial features. If they would give I full fledged trial base version of the VMware Workspace One, it would be easier for someone to completely evaluate the two. Microsoft gives you a six month evaluation period, for example. That's a lot of time to get to know the system. 

SCCM, therefore, is the best that I can tell, as I've been able to evaluate it fully. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

Our primary use case of this product is for infrastructure, capturing all the configuration items within our infrastructure. I'm the configuration manager and we are customers of SCCM. 

I like that this solution captures all the devices in our infrastructure, quickly identifying those items based upon everything we've identified within the SCCM, as far as the proper nomenclature goes. Other things along those lines like serial numbers, and the location of things, it's all good stuff. The solution does exactly what it needs to do and in terms of being on the ITSM side of the house it just feeds into it. 

I'd like to see some cosmetic improvements on the user interface. 

I've been using this solution for two years. 

This solution definitely does what it's supposed to do. 

Microsoft does a good job as far as putting information out there for anyone to train themselves, especially if it's within their Microsoft Virtual Academy. I don't deal with the administrative side of the house, but we have Microsoft system engineers we can contact if we need. The support is sufficient, very responsive and easy to work with.

The initial setup was straightforward and took around five hours. It was carried out by the two administrators in the company. We also have people on the team who are familiar with SCCM.

I don't know much about the licensing structure but I believe everything is probably included within the package.

It's important to be aware of the capabilities of the software and all that it says it's designed to do, and to make sure that you educate yourself on the use of the software. 

I would rate this solution an eight out of 10. 

I am a system administrator and I use the System Center Configuration Manager for test deployment and Windows update.

The most valuable feature is the scalability.

If you need to reboot the system during Windows Update, it can take a long time.

The deployment process is lengthy and should be quicker to complete.

I have three years of experience with SCCM.

I haven't had any problems with stability.

This is a scalable product. We have approximately 1,000 users and we plan to continue using it into the future.

The technical support from Microsoft is fast,

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup was not easy. It takes about half an hour to install, and then it has to be configured. The deployment will take approximately six hours in total.

I deployed it myself.

In summary, this product works well and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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.

We primarily use the solution for client management, especially for day-to-day operational activities, like access management or software deployment.

The main key feature that we find the most valuable is the patching. The remote desktop is a very useful feature as well. The software deployment aspect is helpful too. These are the three core features from which we see the customers really benefit if they have a System Center Config Manager. This is especially true for enterprise organizations here.

Microsoft is being very competitive right now, and they are really investing in a lot of new features to be more competitive in the marketplace. 

We are okay with all the available features.

In the future, we're looking for tighter integration with cloud solutions like Windows Intune. It is already there, however, it's still in need of some improvements. It's not straightforward in terms of the administration on offer. 

We'd like the solution to make it easier to manage remote users.

It offers a very difficult cloud gateway when it comes to cloud management.

The solution does need a lot of configuration and fine-tuning, so a company will need a dedicated person who's knowledgeable in the product to manage it.

A few people complained that SCCM is very complex without CPS, depending on the SQL database, and when using SQL as a backend service. Sometimes updating the dashboard and getting the reports, can be slow. They're not getting an instant update on the database. That is where most of the customers tend to complain. 

I've been using the solution since version 2.0 or something close to that. It may be at least 15 years.

We don't have very many issues in SCCM. It's not a plug and play software, however. From time to time it does require fine-tuning. You need the right management and administrative people in place to manage the product. This is essential in order to keep it running correctly.  

We have clients in both the private and public sectors. 

The solution requires fine-tuning and configuration tweaks. In order to scale it, you will need a knowledgeable person to manage the process.

Technical support from Microsoft has been good. We've been satisfied with their level of service.

We don't find the initial setup to be complex. We've done many implementations a this point, and we find it to be straightforward. Our team is very much experts at this point. They know all the processes and they go through everything step by step. 

In terms of how long it takes to deploy the solution, this question is very tricky. It's all dependant on the customers, and their environment as well as the customer's readiness to proceed. If it's a POC, where I don't have any dependencies on the customer side, that everything will be within the private network, isolated environment, I can handle a deployment within two days. We can install, configure, and make everything ready in that short amount of time simply because we don't have customer dependencies.

You do need to have the correct people in place to manage it once it's up and running. They need to be experienced and dedicated to the product.

We're an integrator and service provider here in Bahrain, so we have done more than a couple of installations, so where our team is very confident in our ability to implement the solution on behalf of our clients.

We're actually looking at ServiceNow as a potential product to use in the future.

We are a Microsoft gold partner.

We're noticing many users in our country moving away from Microsoft and towards AWS.

We tend to use the latest solution, or something close to that. We always are trying to keep it up to date in all the customer database and systems. Whenever there is the latest update available, we update everything immediately for our customers. The latest version may be 19.06.

While all the customers we have are currently on-prem, we are looking for cloud-based solutions going forward, due to the fact that our customers tend to gravitate towards the cloud. They are like looking for something they can easily manage. That's all clients, irrespective of whether they are in the office or are our mobile users. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I really like the product, however, there's always room for improvement.