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.

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 for this product is for patching and sending back packages to the client.

SCCM helps to file the claims from servers.

Patching is the main feature because SCCM is made to control the entire environment without manually interpreting. So it is good to use for patching.

The main room for improvement is the on-screen display. I think it would be good if some improvements were made.

Overall, as of now, it's sufficient for us. I don't have any scope of what new features would be needed for our company. I'm not sure if we require anything more. We are good with this product. If our companies move to the cloud or something, maybe we'll need additional features.

I have been using SCCM for 10 years.

The stability is also quite good.

The scalability is quite good.

We don't have a separate team using it. It's an operations team, where everyone works in every technology.

There are about 5 - 10 people using it - Windows server persons, applications teams, and other teams.

We very rarely have contact with the technical service. I think about once a year. That's it. We don't require it because most of the time we fix any issues ourselves.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was quick and it took a day. We didn't have any issues.

My advice for this product is that it's a team tool that can be helpful. At the same time, it can be harmful if you are not using it properly - it can ruin your company. That's because if someone messes up, they can send a package to one client instead of sending it to another. Once you start the initial installation, it is difficult to stop it. So you should be careful.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SCCM an eight.

We use it and our clients use it for device patch management, servers, and management processes.

We deploy it for clients but we don't usually maintain it for them.

The best thing about SCCM is the patch management. You can make sure that all of your devices are there. You can see all of them and see your levels.

It lets you know what your infrastructure is like and what state you are in.

SCCM internally works great. On your internal infrastructure, it is fantastic. It gives you everything you want it to do.

Because of the way SCCM is, we are moving to the Intune platform similarly to the way that everybody else is. Microsoft is slowly migrating SCCM to the new Intune product for management.

There are so many issues with SCCM, but they are already working on migrating the desktop to the intune platform. They have already improved the management and the patch management. They are also looking at cloud integration and being able to deploy it in Azure properly and run the Azure infrastructure.

The main or legacy issue is not being able to do remote management of devices without being on a VPN to get their updates. It didn't work well on non-corporate networks. This has been resolved by the new Intune platform.

It's Microsoft, they have their issues, but they are getting better. They are integrating it with their office products, and their platforms.

In the next releases, I would like to see them make it easier to do remote sessions into the boxes.

It would be nice to have everything in one place. Now they have Intune for the desktops and SCCM to handle their servers.

I have been using SCCM for ten years.

We were using some of the older versions.

The stability is only as good as your infrastructure.

The scalability of SCCM is good but now that it is on the intune platform, it's even better.

The usage and how extensively it is being used depends on the client and the client's roadmap.

As gold partners, you have a direct line to Microsoft technical staff. It is easy for us to get support.

Our experience with the support is a positive one.

I have been using Zabbix for ten years. I have deployed it in my infrastructure.

I have integrated it with Grafana.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

Depending on the customer and their infrastructure, it could be easy. If it is a small infrastructure the installation could be quite quick. You could fire up SCCM, sent the probes, let them detect it, and put it in. 

For large infrastructures or complex networks, it can be more difficult. It can take as long as a day to get it all set up and running or it could even take a week.

One of the joys of SCCM is that one person could easily maintain it but we have two people from the service desk.

They are always changing their price model, which I don't like. It would be better if they didn't keep adjusting their price model.

The price model is different for every client. It depends on the corporation, the company's subscription balance, and how many machines they have. For us, it fluctuates. 

Some clients have a smaller infrastructure, and for those with large infrastructures, it will cost them more. Others will also have multiple versions of it for backup and failovers.

I was looking for a comparison to see if I want to propose them to some of my clients.

If you are implementing from new, go with Intune directly, don't use the on-premises version.

With the transitioning state to the cloud versions, I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

They have handled desktops very well but they haven't transitioned servers very well.

• Application deployment
• Software metering
• Batching

There tons of ways it has improved our organization, especially when you tie SCCM in with cloud-based tools like Intune. You can have global 24/7 coverage and purview off your workloads. When you are outside of the network, it still is covered by Intune's policies and procedures. That's the main value that we see now.

Application deployment is the most congenial tool we have seen. With the right administrator, it can do wonders.

The main thing is that SCCM has to become an appliance instead of a server.

When I say appliance, it has to come preconfigured so that it is drop-shipped into the enterprise and then you activate the feature sets that you want. It should pull down all the latest binaries. Once that is all there, it should have a discovery tool which goes out and discovers the assets within an enterprise. If the server, workstation, and applications are all coming from the same vendor, why not have the vendor do this work for us and automate it as much as it possibly can?

SCCM has the same DNA, it is coming from the same vendor. It does exactly what every other tool does, but since it is from Microsoft they should have thought about these things.

SCCM should be an automated solution, an appliance. Drop-shipped into the organization, discovery should be automated. Inclusion should be automated. Portals should be within the product itself. And it must have a cloud component to it. It should automatically upload the metadata to the cloud so we can monitor it in the cloud at a very high security level.

It is stable. We haven't experienced crashes for the last four or five years. Since Windows Server 2012, crashes are literally nonexistent.

No issues with scalability.

Tech support is horrible, but that's expected from any big-box company.

We used to use a third-party company which, unfortunately, went out of business. The solution was beautiful. But that was something like 10 or 15 years back. It was gobbled up by BigFix and they completely reduced it to garbage. Literally, there was nothing to look at.

We are very knowledgeable about SCCM so for us it takes an hour or two, at the most, to set up. For other people, it may be complicated, but for us, setup is the least of our concerns.

We evaluated BigFix. Again, I'm talking about 10 years back. It was garbage. We evaluated NetIQ at the time but it was complete fluff.

Pricing and licensing are horrible. You have to not look at dollar value to use SCCM. It's super-duper expensive but it works. The acquisition cost is expensive, it's labor-intensive. But it works.

There is no advice anybody can give on SCCM. Everybody has to go through their journey. It's like giving birth. There's no advice. It works. But you have to deliver yourself.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is used for ingenuity and automation.

The configuration of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager could be improved, it is a bit complicated.

I have been using Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager for a few years.

The stability is very good.

Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is very scalable.

The support from Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is good, they are friendly.

The initial setup of Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager is straightforward. The time it takes for the process depends on the environment, typically it can take one day.

There is not a license needed to use the solution. 

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

We use this solution for image and software deployment.

It wasn't very user-friendly.

The reporting is not very good.

It was hard to effectively manage with one person.

I have been using SCCM for ten years.

We have version 2012.

It's a stable product. In terms of our experience with any bugs, glitches, or crashes there were not more than what is normal for Microsoft.

SCCM does not scale well, which is one of the reasons we are not going to continue to use it.

We have six people in our organization who are using it.

I have not had any contact with technical support.

Previously, I did not use another solution. SCCM was the only one that we used while I was there.

The initial setup is complex.

You need more than one person to manage the environment.

We are currently evaluating some EDR alternatives.

I would not recommend using this solution. I didn't really like anything about it. In general, I am not a fan of Microsoft.

I would rate SCCM a four out of ten.

SCCM is used to manage both users, and your devices. It's an administration tool used for endpoint protection.

I would like to see more automation.

I have been using SCCM for three years.

We are using the 2019 version.

SCCM is a stable solution.

I have not scaled with this solution. I use it for a specific reason.

I have never contacted Microsoft technical support. I use our internal support.

I was not involved in the installation of this solution.

I would recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.