Information Technology Executive at Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Real User
Top 5
2024-09-18T09:25:00Z
Sep 18, 2024
I recommend using Windows Update Services to IT administrators. It is a user-friendly system with minimal challenges in updates or services. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
You can get the tool as a default feature in Windows. You can manage everything from one single place using WUSS. It's free and comes with Windows, but you must buy a license. I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. The solution requires people with experience in systems.
There are better ways to get information than using the product's reporting capabilities. We use support to learn about updates. People must not use Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. Overall, I rate the product one out of ten.
You can manage daily users for administration, user, and domain policies. For example, how many days before you must change the password, how many characters the password must have, and the complexity of the password. These policies can be implemented and defined before being used for reports. If I remember correctly, there are no specific reports for this. You can see what policy is implemented and applied in your infrastructure. For example, you can trace and monitor users in the Windows events log. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.
Learn what your peers think about Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: December 2024.
It's a quite good product. If you use it in an environment with less than about 200 managed devices, it is a good product. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
Principal Cloud Security Consultant at Pegasystems
Real User
Top 5
2023-10-16T12:23:00Z
Oct 16, 2023
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.
I suggest that those planning to use the solution consider whether a cloud-native solution works for them from a cost perspective. If it does, then they should definitely consider it. Since the solution meets my company's requirements, I rate the overall solution a seven to eight out of ten.
I'm using the latest version of the solution. New users need to precisely and carefully define the policies and catalogs at the outset. It's important to have everything aligned before deployment to avoid downtime. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
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.
Network Security Engineer at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2022-08-17T18:11:42Z
Aug 17, 2022
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.
IT Systems Administrator at a tech services company with 1-10 employees
Real User
2022-05-29T13:12:10Z
May 29, 2022
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.
Systems Engineer at a healthcare company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2022-05-02T23:07:59Z
May 2, 2022
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.
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.
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.
Lead - Global IT Networks at a recruiting/HR firm with 10,001+ employees
Real User
Top 20
2021-11-11T13:26:43Z
Nov 11, 2021
Currently, I'm looking at other solutions because the enrolment we have is not boundary-defined, so we require a product with total remote infrastructure management, vulnerability assessment, and complete control of the system built in. For best results with WSUS, you need to keep close track of things with regular function checklists. I would rate this product as eight out of ten.
Computer network and Data Center administrator at a sports company with 1,001-5,000 employees
Real User
2021-04-01T10:06:13Z
Apr 1, 2021
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.
Chief Operating Officer at a transportation company with 5,001-10,000 employees
Real User
2020-10-14T06:36:53Z
Oct 14, 2020
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.
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.
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.
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.
Microsoft Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) is a patch management tool that simplifies the administrator’s task of deploying the latest Microsoft updates. Administrators use WSUS to manage the distribution of updates released through Microsoft Update to computers in their network.
WSUS has features you can use to manage and distribute updates from a management console. The WSUS server can also be a source of updates to other servers within the organization, acting as an upstream server. ...
I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
I recommend using Windows Update Services to IT administrators. It is a user-friendly system with minimal challenges in updates or services. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.
You can get the tool as a default feature in Windows. You can manage everything from one single place using WUSS. It's free and comes with Windows, but you must buy a license. I rate the overall product a seven out of ten. The solution requires people with experience in systems.
There are better ways to get information than using the product's reporting capabilities. We use support to learn about updates. People must not use Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. Overall, I rate the product one out of ten.
You can manage daily users for administration, user, and domain policies. For example, how many days before you must change the password, how many characters the password must have, and the complexity of the password. These policies can be implemented and defined before being used for reports. If I remember correctly, there are no specific reports for this. You can see what policy is implemented and applied in your infrastructure. For example, you can trace and monitor users in the Windows events log. I rate the overall solution a ten out of ten.
We recommend the tool to our customers unless they specifically require a different solution. Overall, I rate the product a seven out of ten.
The solution is built-in with Microsoft Windows Server. I will recommend the product to others. Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
We can use ManageEngine instead of Microsoft. I recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.
It's a quite good product. If you use it in an environment with less than about 200 managed devices, it is a good product. Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.
I rate the solution a nine out of ten.
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.
Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.
I suggest that those planning to use the solution consider whether a cloud-native solution works for them from a cost perspective. If it does, then they should definitely consider it. Since the solution meets my company's requirements, I rate the overall solution a seven to eight out of ten.
I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. I would recommend it.
I'm using the latest version of the solution. New users need to precisely and carefully define the policies and catalogs at the outset. It's important to have everything aligned before deployment to avoid downtime. I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services an eight out of ten.
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.
Currently, I'm looking at other solutions because the enrolment we have is not boundary-defined, so we require a product with total remote infrastructure management, vulnerability assessment, and complete control of the system built in. For best results with WSUS, you need to keep close track of things with regular function checklists. I would rate this product as eight out of ten.
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.
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.
At this point, it accomplishes everything that I need to do. I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.
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.
I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.
I would rate this solution as eight of ten.
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 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.
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 ability to have more fine control within this solution is very important. It is not available for the solution in its current state.