Microsoft Windows Server Update Services Reviews

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is the fact that we can deploy patches from Microsoft security patches and deploy software.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could improve by being less cumbersome to use. It's somewhat difficult to use, but we manage to get through it.

I have used Microsoft Windows Server Update Services within the last 12 months.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is highly stable. It is one of the most stable solutions from Microsoft.

The support was great from Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. When we were implementing it or upgrading it to the version we have now, the representative was able to do a Teams meeting with us and help configure it and create deployment shares. They helped us with everything.

The initial setup of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services is complex.

There is not a lot of maintenance required for the solution. The only thing we do is apply patches and approve patches to deploy. It's fairly easy, we do have a whole team that takes care of it, but the majority is hands-off.

My advice to others is if you are thinking about implementing the solution, I will highly suggest they use the support from Microsoft for the implementation. It requires SQL and needs to run SQL local to the server.

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

WSUS is used differently depending on the client and their requirements. For some clients, I only use this solution for security patches and updates. In some cases, I use Windows Updates and Windows Upgrades.

I have more than 4,000 clients and it is important to me to make sure that the upgrade process does not affect my third-party software. This means that for most of them, I stopped the upgrades and only use the WSUS security patch tool to keep up with the latest protection available for my environment.

It is a principle that you have to keep your environment updated because cyber attacks are changing on a daily basis and you have to protect your network. Without this tool, I would not be able to update my entire network manually.

The most valuable feature is the decreased level of internet usage by my network. When there is a new patch available, I can just connect my WSUS server to Microsoft, download the upgrades, and then use the internal traffic to upgrade all of the network clients.

WSUS allows me to choose what kinds of upgrades or updates that I need for my network. For example, I can download specific security patches for Windows Server or different versions of Windows.

There are some incompatibilities or conflicts between WSUS and IIS because sometimes when running WSUS, I have to stop my IIS and restart it in order to connect. I have searched Google on the issue and I have found that it is a common problem. This is something that Microsoft should solve in the next release.

I would like to see support for other operating systems such as Linux. If you install WSUS and there are other operating systems on the network like Linux Red Hat, Ubuntu, or Debian, then it should be able to update them. It would be amazing.

I have been using WSUS for more than two years.

Scalability is a good feature of the WSUS server.

I have not needed to contact the Microsoft helpdesk concerning WSUS.

The initial setup is very easy. It is a Windows Server feature and can be set up with a few clicks and a few simple settings.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.

We use the solution to update servers in our company. We're a construction company and a customer of Microsoft. I'm a systems administrator. 

The most valuable feature is the practical and security updates. It downloads updates separately; security and critical. That's very good. 

I think some features could be added to improve this product. I'd like to see a critical update alarm where I get notifications regarding critical or security updates and receive a review of it.  

For an additional feature, I'd like to see the option of receiving alarms wherever I am, so that if something happens and there's nobody at work, the problem can be dealt with efficiently. 

I've been using this solution for about a year. 

The stability can sometimes be a bit problematic, depending on the Windows version you are using. 

I don't have any issues with scalability. We have about 150 users in the company and many outside. We currently have four people in the company who deal with the maintenance. 

Initial setup is not that simple but also not too complex. 

I would suggest that anyone considering implementing this solution take the time to research it completely before implementation. Without doing that there will be problems when it's installed and it's important to remember that with this product there are some things that cannot be edited once it's been implemented. 

I would rate this product an eight out of 10. 

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 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 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.

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.

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.