Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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.

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. 

The product helps us to fix the vulnerabilities in the system.

The product provides a valuable Single Sign-On (SSO) integration feature within our IES environment, particularly with the IT directory and server systems.

They could reduce the platform's prices. Additionally, they should enhance cloud security and make it more user-friendly.

We have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for over ten years.

I rate the product's stability a ten out of ten. However, sometimes it works slowly.

We have 50 Microsoft Windows Server Update Services users in our organization. We use it 24/7/. I rate its scalability a ten out of ten.

The technical support services are excellent.

Positive

The initial setup is easy. It took us an hour to migrate the data from on-premises to the cloud. I rate the process a ten out of ten.

A team of three executives in our organization worked on SQL server migration and application hosting.

The product is expensive. 

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

I like the solution. When we do patching, the tool gives us error messages. We have around 1,000 production servers. It is tough to push Microsoft patches to 1,000 servers. When the servers fail, we troubleshoot to understand why they were not patched.

IIS is the web server for Windows Server. There are some bugs in IIS. It must be improved.

I have been using the solution for three years.

I rate the tool’s stability a seven or eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. We are a printing and packaging company. We have more than 4,000 customers globally. We maintain all our customers’ data in our data center.

Whenever we face issues, we raise them to Microsoft and resolve the issues.

Positive

Compared to Linux, Windows Server’s setup is easier.

We are planning to move to AWS. Our organization has given the employees the credentials to learn AWS. We also have Linux servers. We are not using all the services from Microsoft. We use what our organization needs. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

The solution gives authentic updates. 

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services must include functions for providing updates about inventory. 

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is stable. 

The solution is scalable. My company has 23-25 users. 

The tools deployment is straightforward. 

The solution is expensive, and the licensing costs are yearly. 

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

In terms of use cases, our clients use this Windows update service to deploy patches and service packs across all their servers and computers.

Once we configure it and it keeps updating the patches, all I need to do is filter out which patches are required or not. First, we test all the patches in a test environment, and if it's successful, we approve it for deployment. That's what I do. It fulfills all the requirements.

It would be good if it could deploy third-party patches or applications.

I have been using this solution for ten years. We are using version 3.0 of the software update service.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

Scalability is pretty high, so I would rate it a ten out of ten. In our organization, we have three source services and two servers. As for the number of users, it is around the globe, actually. There are more than two thousand users.

The customer service and support team is good. I hardly approached Microsoft for the solution.

Positive

The setup is very easy. One benefit is that it downloads from the internet, and we can select which patches to deploy onto the client computers. The client computers don't need to download it again. 

The initial setup was the easiest thing I've seen with Microsoft. I would rate the setup a ten out of ten. 

Generally, we should do the deployment during the late night hours, and it takes around two to three hours max to deploy it for our set of seven computers.

It is not really expensive. I would rate it one out of ten,  where one is for low pricing and ten is for high pricing. 

It's robust and stable. It provides options to figure out which patches to deploy, when, and how to deploy them silently, depending on the customer or user preferences. These are the best facilities I see in this service.

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

The solution is used for Microsoft updates and you can file the updates that you want to use.

Every time we need to install our security updates and critical updates, we use this software so that we don't load the bandwidth.

I like that I can filter for critical and security updates.

The dashboard is okay.

The initial setup is easy.

It is a scalable solution. 

I have found the product to be stable. 

Support is helpful.

The customization capabilities could be improved. 

The product must integrate with third-party applications. I'd like to use the product to verify third-party updates as well as Microsoft updates.

I've used the solution for about three years. 

My understanding is that it is a stable product. We didn't have any issues with it overall. I don't recall coming across bugs or glitches and I don't recall it crashing or freezing.

The solution scales very well. If a company wants to expand, it can do so.

About 100 people in our organization use the solution currently.

Technical support is very helpful and responsive. We have been satisfied with their help.

Positive

We have found the implementation to be pretty straightforward and simple. It is not a difficult or ultimately complex process. I'd rate the experience a three out of five in terms of ease of deployment. I can't remember exactly how long it took to deploy.

You only need about two to three people to handle deployment and maintenance. They handle planning and infrastructure.

I'm working in a personal service company, so I asked my team to handle the implementation process. It was done in-house.

I can't speak to how much the solution costs.

We're Microsoft partners.

I'm using the solution via a third-party application.

We are a professional service company. Our field is information technology. We use a third-party application to make updates.

I'd recommend the solution to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use WSUS on a host in our main data center so that all the Windows and the endpoint updates are downloaded to a central location before being distributed to the endpoints through our local network. The aim is to avoid the endpoint downloading the update directly from the internet and killing the office bandwidth.

This product provides the option to create multiple downstream servers. If the infrastructure is distributed to different sites or different countries, you can create a structure where the upstream server downloads all the updates using the specific internal connection, and then distributes those updates to the downstream servers at a scheduled time when the workload is minimal. 

The interface is not user-friendly. It looks like Windows 98 and it needs a different format, maybe something web-based, or perhaps it's time to rebuild from scratch. It needs to be something that provides clear options and should include an FAQ section to help provide some answers without having to search Google or contact technical support. 

I've been using this solution for about three years. 

This solution delivers updates to the endpoint. We worry about server stability but not the endpoints. If there are any issues we can manage without it functioning at peak level.

The solution is very scalable. You can add servers as needed and add batches of endpoints to it. 

The initial setup is difficult. It's easier if you don't need downstream servers but if you want to do it properly and securely and have the packages distributed without any interference, it's a little bit complex. To configure it from scratch for 1,000 endpoints, can take up to three days.

When purchasing the operating system, WSUS is included in the price of the product.

It's important to monitor bandwidth usage and traffic that might be blocked on the firewalls.

This is a good product and it does its job but it's quite complex to configure, implement, and maintain, and the interface is terrible, so I rate it eight out of 10.