We did not have an alternative solution prior to ME. 

VMware was our solution at first. It was a PaaS (Platform as a Service) offering with built-in security and a part of vCloud Air. Workspace ONE was on the top of that. It was the first real desktop virtualization. Like Citrix, it gives you VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure). With that, VMs can easily be managed through Workspace ONE and integrated VDIs.  

If I already have VMware and vSphere as my core backbone for the virtualization strategy in the organization, I might also look at automation for deploying updates. If I have a containerized application that is not automated, I can build in the automation using the DevSecOps pipeline or I can look for another solution. If you want to do the DevSecOps pipeline in the VMware workspace, you can do that with vRealize automation.  

VMware, compared to Desktop Central, is far more expensive. Desktop Central has got a license and pricing advantage similar to your windows update and Windows WUSP (Windows Update Services: Client-Server Protocol). That is your Windows update platform. With Desktop Central, you pay something similar to that. It is only a few dollars per license per user.  

Switching to Desktop Central was a matter of having an opportunity to make a switch, keeping aware of the developments in the technology and on the market, and moving to a product that was cheaper and had the capabilities that we needed to carry out the task.   

Other tools were used and we switched because the other solutions were weak in some areas and support was unable to help when bugs were found, services were unreliable or when services stopped working for no reason. 

We didn’t use any other solution previously.

Yes, the solution didn't offer enough options for the complexity of our environment.

In the past, when I first joined this company, we were using WSUS to patch all of our machines, but we didn't have any control over what patches were installed. We didn't have a proper reporting aspect in WSUS—we could have, but it's very complicated. We'd have to connect the information using SQL Server and pull the information, and that's lots of querying. But with ManageEngine, it's explicit. You go and collect the reports as you want, such as the number of patches installed on a machine or how many machines got a particular update. We even have the option to uninstall patches once they're installed, so we can go back to the previous patch version of the application. 

Another drawback with WSUS is that you don't have the option to scale a reboot. With ManageEngine, we can give reboot notifications in a user-friendly manner to employees, with the option to postpone, and after a certain number of days, you can reboot forcefully. This relieves the time that we spend with end users, who now get a pop-up. You don't have many options with WSUS, but with ManageEngine, you do. 

I previously used Microsoft SCCM, but it was difficult to deploy, while Desktop Central is more flexible and user-friendly.

I've also worked with VMware. 

We use the asset management from LANDesk Ivanti, although we can't compare all the features as we use it for other processes. 

We also did POCs with HPE and IBM. We also looked into CA, Computer Associates.

Before moving to ManageEngine's Desktop Central and doing the POCs we did not use any different products.

I did not previously use a different solution.

We have not used a different solution. We only deployed this kind of environment for managing endpoints. Endpoint Central, we consider a good price for the features we get and it scales very well, so we only recommend Endpoint Central, or different editions maybe. It's great for the customer. 

We used to have a Windows SUS server for patch management. There were other products that needed to be taken care of - for example, Adobe, the WinRAR, and multiple other software, which needed to be patched, and in which the assets needed to be managed. There are things such as warranties that need to be managed, and their tracking needs to be done, we were looking for an application wherein we would get everything on a centralized product, which is why we chose this solution.

We did not use a different solution. We did a trial Desktop central and immediately fell in love with it and have not regretted the decision.

I have used other solutions in the past.

We did not use a different solution.

I have used Spiceworks.

We did not use another similar product before this one.

Compared with VMware Workspace, ManageEngine Desktop Central is a better product.

GFI LanGuard has poor capicity and feature for patch deployment. We find many client computer OS getting corrupt due to improper patch deployment.

Before we moved over to Desktop Plus, we were using Spice Works, mainly because they were free. They had several applications that are similar to Desktop Central, but they were just not the same.  It was a great investigation to make the switch to Desktop Central. 

We used Altiris for our service desk, as well as systems management, before it became Symantec. It was a very good but expensive solution. 

I was tasked with finding a replacement for the cost of the maintenance of Altiris. I did that with the combination of ServiceDesk Plus, Desktop Central and OS Deployer.

We previously used SCCM which is a great enterprise solution if you can keep the administration knowledge on-site. For a small business, SCCM did not meet the ease of use or the price break which was the reasoning for the move to Desktop Manager MSP 9.

We previously used SCCM and ARD. Cost was a big factor. Just the ability to manage all operating systems on a single console was the main reason we chose this solution. Ease of use for the administration was also a big factor.

For Windows updates we used WSUS. With MangeEngine it’s so much easier to administer and monitor. We struggled to update 3rd party applications in the past. Software deployment is also not an issue anymore and easily manageable.

We previously had a full time employee running around to install software when demanded.

We used to use a local solution provided by us, however, it was too expensive to maintain. That is the reason we switched to this product.

Before DC9 I used Scense (Dutch-programmed software distribution tool) which was only good for distribution of software, mostly through scripted applications. DC9 was very much more intuitive, flexible and clear.

I used some trial versions of Microsoft SCCM and different ManageEngine products including ADaudit Plus , ADmanager Plus.

We used Altiris, but they did not support Windows 7.

I haven't used any solution previously.

We used Novell's ZENWorks 10 and 11. We chose it based on it's small footprint and the features such as 3rd party patch management

Yes, before we used Microsoft SCCM, and we’ve switched to Desktop Central for its minor cost and its simple usage and deployment.