Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

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.

We primarily use the solution for internal updates. What happened is that one of our equipment items had a problem with a new Windows update and so we have to uninstall this update. We were looking for ways to do it centrally. There were some Lenovo boxes that were restarting automatically and we had to take out these updates.

The most important aspect is that we can centrally deploy the updates that are necessary for the organization. It's important. The solution is great for internal updates.

The solution has very good patches. They recently released one for Chrome, which was quite helpful.

We've found the stability to be pretty good.

It's not always easy to set up.

Their Local Group Policy works well for the Microsoft environment, however, we need it or other software as well. We've realized that we have to pay. We have to buy extra items in order to access this catalog of different updates.

The reporting is not as practical as I would like it to be. It's something that I would like them to improve in future releases.

It would be nice if there were more alerts to let us know what is missing. It would be nice if there was an integration with the main server and with the active directory so that I can receive the necessary alerts. It would be good to know which equipment is connected to the directory and which are behind schedule with updates. 

I just started using the solution this year, and therefore I've only used it for the last couple of months. However, in this office, they have been using it thing for a couple of years, at least. 

The solution is quite stable. It's reliable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. As long as it can help us manage the data, it's good. 

I cannot speak to the scalability. I have never tried to scale the solution.

I've never been in touch with technical support. I cannot speak to how helpful or responsive they are.

The initial setup isn't easy to set up. However, it's not necessarily always hard, either. It has a moderate amount of difficulty.

In our case, we had remote offices to set up in different cities. We have not yet implemented interconnection between these offices. Each office has its own server, its own Windows environment. We have this implemented in our central office, and I would like it across all of our remote offices as well. I'm not sure how long that will take. I'm just beginning to dive into that.

We are just a customer and an end-user.

I'm not sure of which version of the solution we're using.

I'd advise new potential users to implement the product and to regularly check on it. We have some equipment that is not being updated. That's on us. It's necessary, however, to implement constant evaluations for which equipment is actually connected to the solution.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten overall. We're mostly quite happy with the product.

We use this product for patch management.

The most valuable features are that it is included with Windows, and it can be driven by Group Policy Objects (GPOs).

Reporting flexibility is something that can be improved.

Job management and control is an area that is in need of improvement.

We have been using Windows Server Update Services for probably four years.

This service is generally very stable.

This is a very scalable product.

This solution does not really come with specific technical support. It is all covered by the Microsoft support that is available online.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. It took maybe an hour to set up and deploy.

This product comes included with Windows and can be used free of charge.

My advice for anybody who is looking into Windows Server Update Services is that if you want something with more control then you need to look into getting an alternative product.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the on premises version.

With WSUS, you can automatically install and distribute Microsoft security patches without using an internet connection for all clients and servers. It is not difficult to understand how it works and I think it's a very nice tool.

I think there is no other product on the market that is so easy to implement and use.

Microsoft should improve their support for the product. A lot of guys are installing their products, especially Xero. If you have a real problem, though, it's quite difficult to find someone who you can support you.

I think Microsoft should develop its ReFS volumes in a little bit more detail. Also, I wish they would demystify their updates scenarios, like patching and updating the system.

The product is stable.

I think most installation scenarios are brought in with the system for the customer, so the scalability is good enough. However, especially with the hypervisor, they could develop the products a little bit more.

I only use Microsoft products. I have it for federal use and I think you have no option to do this with another vendor. Also, there are no other vendors who support so many applications and scenarios.

It's quite easy to install.

I would rate this solution as eight of ten.

I use Microsoft Windows Server Update Services to facilitate updates.

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

 Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is stable.

The scalability of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is good.

I am the only one that uses its solution in my company.

The support from Microsoft should be faster.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is a simple implementation.

I did the implementation of the solution myself.

I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services an eight out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is to minimize the data flow from outside.

The interface is easy to use.

Many areas need improvement and many features don't work.

The clean up feature doesn't work. It's doesn't delete old updates that are not needed anymore.

The configuration process needs improvement, as it is not very good. The integration with Windows 10 was difficult, and a bit tricky.

The old backup files created by this solution use up a lot of storage, and this needs to be improved.

This solution would meet my needs if these issues would not occur every month.

We have between one hundred and one hundred and fifty users.

We have not used any technical support.

The initial setup was complex.

The deployment took three to four hours to complete.

The implementation of this solution was not done through any vendor, integrator, or consultant; I implemented it myself.

The pricing is ok. I don't have any issues with the pricing.

The integration is included in the Windows Server system, and there are no additional fees.

I am not satisfied with this solution. There are constant issues and most of the time it doesn't work.

I would rate this solution a four out of ten.

We primarily use this for deploying and downloading through systems and servers. 

It provides central management interface for deployment.

The most valuable feature is the integration of updates with our AD management. You can make an easy policy, embed WSUS, and in that actual policy we can embed to the extent to any device that generates gets automatic downloads from WSUS.

I would want the GUI on the continuing interface of the WSUS and more fine grain control. I don't want full blown enterprises. I want another object deployment, in a different kind of way that the enterprise just doesn't provide for me right now.

It is quite stable.

It is quite scalable. You can integrate it with your organization. It can be scalable to what you have set it to be.

I have not used tech support.

The initial setup was quite straightforward.

The ability to have more fine control within this solution is very important. It is not available for the solution in its current state.