Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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. 

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. 

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.

The solution is used for patching updates.

The product is quite stable. I like the stability. It makes updates easy. It enables users to track updates.

The security could be improved.

I have been using the solution for the last five years.

I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The tool is very scalable. We have ten users.

We get premium support from Microsoft. It's very easy for us to get the support if we need it.

The initial setup is straightforward. We need two engineers for the deployment and maintenance of the tool.

We have an enterprise agreement.

I would recommend the solution to others. It is a good product. Overall, 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. 

We have more than 200 users in our organization.

We get server updates from the internet and from the Bluetooth server. All of the clients are connected to it, and they're all updated from this exact server. It updates automatically.

We faced issues with updates with some clients, so we have downloaded a patch appliance in those instances.

I have used this solution for nine years.

We haven't had any issues with stability.

The scalability is okay.

Setup is complex. I would rate it as seven out of ten.

For the installation process, we had to install a service from Windows and load the drivers.

The amount of time it takes to deploy will depend on the operating system. It can take from 45 minutes to one hour.

We have the M&A ticketing system, which we use to get information about the clients and issues. It's not difficult to maintain the solution.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. I would recommend it.

The primary use case is to update the server and Windows desktop.

The deployment model we are using is on-premises, mainly.

WSUS doesn't have many features, so it's very difficult to answer this question.

This solution is easy to use.

Tagging in the server is complicated, and it's not easy to understand how to put it into a specific category. This solution is difficult for some people to understand.

The package validation process should be improved.

In the next release, I would like to see additional tools added to fix the engine issues on the client's side.

This solution is stable.

This solution is scalable. 

We were able to deploy in multi-levels, now we have two levels.

I did not have to contact the technical support because this solution is easy to use.

We did not use any solution previously.

The initial setup and activation are straightforward, and the configuration tends to be quick with the validation of the package.

The deployment of this solution only took one day. It was quick.

I did not implement this solution through a vendor. I did it myself.

The WSUS cost is included in Microsoft Windows, and there are no licensing fees.

If you have many operating systems you would have to add more storage.

We did not evaluate other solutions.

I would suggest sharing packages between clients.

I am not using this solution extensively now because I am on the architect's side.

I am working as a freelancer and I use this solution with most of my clients.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

Our primary use of this solution is installing Windows updates.

The most valuable feature is its ability to identify which updates are needed on a particular machine.

When updates are displayed they are in one big list on the screen, and the naming convention isn't such that it groups them by the operating system. This makes it difficult because there are updates for Windows 7, Windows 10, and so forth, and I have to scroll through and select out the ones that are relevant to the operating system. Having the ability to group updates by the operating systems would be very helpful.

We have been using the Windows Server Update Services for a few months.

I use it on a daily basis and I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. While I haven't experienced any issues, I assume that they are there and I just haven't encountered them yet. At this point, we do not have any plans to increase usage.

The scalability seems to be appropriate. We don't have a big environment, although if we did, the sorting of the updates may be a bigger problem.

There are two of us in the company, myself and the system administrator, who are using this service.

I have not been in contact with Microsoft support, as there seems to be a lot of information about it available on the internet. This product is an industry-standard, and any product in this category is easy to find information on.

The initial setup was straightforward. I just downloaded a Udemy video series about how to install it. I followed those exact steps, it was accurate, and it was simple.

If you already have the server running then it requires adding the WSUS role. It will take between one and four hours to deploy.

I deployed this solution and am also doing the maintenance.

At this point, it accomplishes everything that I need to do.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.