Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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.

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 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.

I use Update Services to ensure our server estate remains adequately patched.

The most valuable feature is Server Update's stability.

More integration with different platforms would be an improvement. In the next release, Microsoft should expand on automation.

I've been using this solution for more than ten years.

Server Update is stable.

This solution is scalable.

Microsoft's technical support is fine.

The initial setup was straightforward.

I would recommend Server Update for anyone looking into it and rate it as eight out of ten.

I am using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for patch management.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is the efficiency once configured.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve the ease of use.

I have been using Microsoft Windows Server Update Services for approximately 12 years.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is stable.

The support could improve because we needed to do a lot of research to use the Microsoft Windows Server Update Services and hardware. It was a time-consuming process.

The setup and configuration of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services are difficult. It could be made easier.

I used two people for the implementation and maintenance of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services.

I would advise others that this is a good solution but it takes some time to configure. It is important to do it right.

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

My primary use case of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is to enforce patching for applications. I act as the client, not the server admin. If, let's say, my laptop has not restarted frequently, this solution will force me to take a couple of minutes to restart. This solution is deployed on cloud, so I'm always using the latest version. 

A valuable feature about this solution is that it enforces an updating and patching process for my applications. 

This solution's deployment could be improved. When I was the admin, there were some problems when deploying to clients. Sometimes the policy is not effective. I guess, more on the reliability side, more reliable means working more often with the clients. It could be easier to deploy. 

I have been using this solution for the duration of time I've been in my company. 

This solution is stable. 

This product is scalable. In my organization, there are about 600,000 people using Microsoft Windows Server. 

I have never contacted Microsoft support. 

I didn't use another patch management solution before Microsoft Windows Server. 

We had a lot of issues during deployment. I remember when we first deployed this solution, it didn't work, so we had to retry, we had to troubleshoot, and then after we finally got it, we could only partially use it. It would be great if the process were more simple so that we could deploy it on the first try to hundreds and thousands of clients. I don't remember the time duration of the installation or how big our deployment team was. 

We implemented through an in-house team. 

For licensing, I think it's on a framework contract. I'd guess my CIO would know, but I didn't buy my license—it's by default on my PC. 

I evaluated BigFix as part of my research, but I haven't used it. 

As an end user, I rate this solution a 10 out of 10. I've had no issues so far. 

I'm not sure if I can recommend this solution because I don't know what the alternatives are, so I have no experience in an alternative solution. It could be the case that BigFix is better. 

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.