Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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.

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.

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.

It is being used both in my company as well as in my client's companies. We work on the basis of customer demand and whether they go for Windows or Linux. 60% of users use Microsoft since it's user-friendly and if they want the capability of maintaining the servers over the CLI then they tend to prefer Windows.

The centralized management and merging capabilities are useful. Windows users can switch from open access to data from the Linux servers. 

The various security updates are good for the users as well as the organizations it helps keep the solution safe.

The performance has been okay.

Technical support is responsive.

It can scale. 

A few bugs need to be figured out for the security side. A few of the bugs are not even fixed completely on a full scale, and sometimes that will be tough. If a client is not maintaining proper network security, their data will be breached. The security updates need to be released regularly from Microsoft so that there won't be any loopholes in the OS.

The initial setup may be a bit difficult for beginners. 

The solution is costly.

When we shift onto the graphical user interface, there'll be a bit of a lack of processing speed as there are a number of graphics included in the OS when we shift to the GUI. We'd like CLI and GUI to be equally responsive. Many users prefer the GUI, yet then they suffer from less performance due to the graphics.

The performance is okay. I would rate it seven out of ten in terms of stability. There sometimes are bugs in the product.

The solution can scale. 

We have medium-sized to enterprise-level organizations. We also use the solution for smaller organizations that would like the cloud to save costs on IT infrastructure. 

We work with 250 or more companies that use this solution.

Technical support responds spontaneously if you raise any tickets or queries regarding to the products. I raise a fewer number of queries to technical support since we are the engineers. We tend to go to the client and fix issues. In the case of major issues, we'd reach out to technical support, and they respond spontaneously within 24 hours.

Positive

We previously used Linux servers. We switched based on client requirements as they wanted a user-friendly service even with engineers assisting them.

For beginners, it might be a bit complex to set up the solution. However, with well-experienced guides like engineers, it would be easy for them to fix the infrastructure and deploy these Windows servers.

It is a bit expensive. 

The cost would be taken care of by my accounts team, so I'm not that involved in licensing. That said, to my knowledge, it's a bit expensive. If any clients want to implement their infrastructure to be run on Microsoft, then they need to purchase every license for each service. If the client wants to go for a Windows server, they need a license for the client machines and a license if they want to operate a Mail Exchange server. If all this could become bundled into one thing where small-scale industries and medium-scale industries can buy it as one item, that would be ideal. 

I'm a consultant as well as a Microsoft-certified system engineer. We are Microsoft partners.

Most likely, all my clients would prefer an on-premises deployment. They want the data to be secure as they likely have confidential data regarding their users, as well as the company's data, would be on their servers. 

That said, a few clients would prefer cloud services like AWS. It totally depends upon the clients and what they would like to go for and whether they be like to invest on the on-premises or if they would like to go for a cloud to cut costs.

Most people are moving onto the Linux side, where they feel more secure, however, compared with the admin agents who are not well-versed at the CLI level, many prefer the Windows server, which is the alternative. People should remember that though there is a graphical user interface for Windows Server, they can still operate in CLI mode, which would be very fast, and very similar to a Linux OS.

I'd rate the solution eight 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.

The product's most valuable feature is efficiently updating our server using the services provided. It ensures we get the necessary updates and features from the servers. 

While the product is generally effective, I believe the integration with other applications could be enhanced. Additionally, improvements in the stability and user interface would be beneficial.

We've used Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for over two years.

The platform is generally very stable, though there is always room for minor improvements. I rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

We have more than 3000 Microsoft Windows Server Update Service users in our organization. It continues to perform efficiently.

I wasn’t directly involved in the installation process, so I can’t provide detailed insights. However, from what I understand, it was relatively straightforward. I believe some deployment aspects could be streamlined further.

The critical features are security solutions that ensure the security of our business data and operations.

The reporting capabilities are robust. We collect information from various sources and schedule updates accordingly.

Overall, I rate the product a nine 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. 

The use case for this solution is to update machines with controlled versions to prevent crashes on applications.

The product reduced the number of crashes on our applications that were not able to use the latest versions of Windows updates. This allowed me to control it and reduce the time restoring machines or installing applications.

We need control over the versions of Windows to test them before using them on our network.

I don't have any notes on improvements.

I've used the solution for some time.

I can control everything in the same place, and it's nice.

I used support for Office in the past and it has been good.

Positive

I've just used this solution.

At first, it was hard to set up. However, after some time, we learned how to deploy without problems.

I used to do the setup by myself without anyone helping.

We reduced the number of crashes on our applications that were not able to use the latest versions of Windows updates. It reduced the time of restoring machines or installing applications.

Microsoft is expensive, at least in my country. However, it's offering good value for money. It's not a crazy price.

I would recommend WSUS for update management. I's rate the solution ten out of ten.