What needs improvement with Microsoft Windows Server Update Services?

There are several areas needing improvement, including the management of third-party patches, better enforcement of patch deployment on user PCs, and the ability to schedule updates at specific times. If these areas were improved, Microsoft Windows Server Update Services could be more competitive.

Microsoft should address the issue where some updates cause the blue screen (BlueDump) error in the server OS, which is not supported in the hardware. Removing unsupported patches or providing solutions directly would help mitigate this issue.

Microsoft Windows Server Update Services needs to improve its reporting feature. The tool's competitor has better reporting capabilities.

The tool is not good for managing updates across the organization. It doesn't update the clients as well as it should. We end up going through things manually to ensure that everything's right. We can't rely on the product. I don't think there's anything we can do to make it any better. It's a really poor product. It doesn't work. The product must identify machines on the network and add them to the system. At the moment, we can't add a machine to the system. We have to wait until the tool finds it.

The challenges exist according to the planning. For example, if you plan to implement and apply updates to your infrastructure, including servers and clients, you must provide storage information and have a clear plan for that from start to end. You need to define the space needed to download all the information, how to implement and apply it to your network, the deadline, and what to do with outdated data. For example, if something was downloaded now but isn't needed after a year, you must delete it. This is not an easy task. You must have some information, education, and training about this. If done correctly, everything will work perfectly.

The policies must be made easier. The tool must allow users to update the policies. Currently, we can only create policies and update a few things in them. The product must provide more functions. The approval process must be improved. Currently, it is a very simple process. We just approve security updates and critical updates. Other vendors have better approval processes.

The solution must provide the issue description of the patches. We are not able to trace the issue resolution for the patches. The issues must be available in the patch portal. It will help us to be aware of the upcoming patches and the resolutions provided. We are not able to trace the problems we are facing on our platform. We need to know which patch or update will give us a solution for our issues. There should be more frequent updates.

We have some problems when we update the servers.

The database could be improved. In large environments, for example, we often get problems with reporting.

The product needs to improve its user interface.

IIS is the web server for Windows Server. There are some bugs in IIS. It must be improved.

The product must improve its support.

The only complex part was the solution’s tricky setup phase. It should be made easier. The person working in our company faced challenges initially while trying to enter the solution's setup phase. However, going through the documentation for the solution might be helpful.

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

We have a web-based GUI and can access it from other systems, also. We can always update all the policies and patches with ease if there is a good GUI. They need to continue to offer the GUI interface to make patching easier. They should offer patch management across platforms. They should also include application software. Catered options should be included for different applications. They should offer a generic patch management solution for general applications.

A few bugs need to be figured out for the security side. A few of the bugs are not even fixed completely on a full scale, and sometimes that will be tough. If a client is not maintaining proper network security, their data will be breached. The security updates need to be released regularly from Microsoft so that there won't be any loopholes in the OS. The initial setup may be a bit difficult for beginners. The solution is costly. When we shift onto the graphical user interface, there'll be a bit of a lack of processing speed as there are a number of graphics included in the OS when we shift to the GUI. We'd like CLI and GUI to be equally responsive. Many users prefer the GUI, yet then they suffer from less performance due to the graphics.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

One area for improvement is that WSUS does not give 100% accuracy, so you cannot be completely certain that all of your systems are fully patched. There are always 5-10% of your systems that have not been updated with the correct patches, which is an open gate for security threats. I also think that the product needs a better utility and report mechanism. In the next release, I would like to see better compatibility for non-Windows servers and tools.

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.

Reporting flexibility is something that can be improved. Job management and control is an area that is in need of improvement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.