Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

Systems management, inventory, pushing out deployment, and patching. It has multiple purposes.

It helped our internal IT get ahold of all the applications that we are actually running out there. With the SCCM inventory, we found a lot of rogue applications. We were able to identify them, find out who was running them, and either put them on our application list or remove them.

One of our goals with the patching of systems was to automate it so we wouldn't have to manually push out patches anymore. It gave us the ability to set up schedules, set up all the groups and collections and, according to what our security requirements are, to automate the patching of our servers and desktops. Everybody knows now exactly what days it will happen and what is going to get patched, on a schedule. That was a huge culture shift.

What's valuable is the basic management of the systems, being able to control who can access the systems.

You can remote control or RDP. That has been the most valuable because we can go into one console and can get to anything we want. Instead of going to all these different consoles, we centralized everything. That's the big one that we really are enjoying, that we have a central console for everything.

We run into little stuff all the time. There is a reboot issue with the patching. Sometimes, if patching runs into any issue whatsoever, it doesn't reboot but it doesn't tell you it errored out. It just sits there and we don't find out until the next day whether it patched or not. That was a big issue for us. We're working through that. They added some stuff in there now where you can actually tell reboot is pending. At least that tells us which ones didn't reboot, but before that got put in the 2018 version, it was really tough because management wanted a report of what patched and what wasn't, we couldn't give it to them.

We went into the feedback site and added our feedback and voted on it. The reboot pending was a big step forward, but we still need some kind of notification that if something fails or is pending, we know. We shouldn't have to go in and look. They don't have anything for that right now.

I would also love to be able to patch Linux servers. I would love that ability to be on one console and patch my environment. I know they're doing it with the Azure piece right. I saw that at Ignite last year, where they're looking to almost have SCCM as part of the cloud, and they will supposedly let you patch your Linux boxes from the cloud. Being a law firm, that is not going to happen for us. We are not cloud-friendly.

Finally, their compliance reporting is not accurate, and they admitted it on the phone when we had a call with them. We were trying to understand why their numbers didn't match on our compliance reports. Our security really liked the idea of being able to get compliance reports themselves, on patching etc. However, it is not accurate and you cannot depend on the compliance reports. The numbers just don't match, and we can't figure out why. We called Microsoft and they said, "Yeah, that's a known issue." But there is no word that they're working on it or anything like that. That's all they said, "It's a known issue."

We've had no stability problems at all. Things have been running great for a year, we haven't had any real issues with the system itself. We've had to tweak some things like everybody does, some registry keys here and there, but there has not been a stability problem at all.

It scales, but it gets expensive. If you're looking to do - and this is something I hear they're changing in one of the future versions - built-in HA, high-availability, right now you have to use Microsoft clustering. So you have to buy Microsoft clustering to make it highly available. 

As far as load balancing across, they don't have that support yet, so that you can actually build multiple primaries and have it load balance across. They don't have any of that functionality yet. That would be a nice feature, to scale that way. The way they have designed SCCM is to put the load in the offices. You put secondary sites out there where you put DPs on the sites and they pull from the local site, not from across the LAN. That helps with the load, it doesn't really hit the primary server.

We had to escalate our issue because you always get that person at first-level support who reads off a script. Then, after a couple hours, you say, "Escalate this." Once we got to the second person, we were able to figure our issues out. I would rate tech support at seven out of 10, based on our experience.

We used ZENworks for years. I used to work for Novell, so I was biased toward it too. We switched because we weren't sure where they were going. With Novell going away, Micro Focus taking over, and somebody taking over the whole umbrella corporation, we had no idea. They couldn't give us a real roadmap out for a long period of time. We were a little worried about being on a product that might not be around in five years.

We had no problems with ZENworks. It was fine, we loved it, but we were worried about the future.

I did a lot of research before I set it up. I watched a lot of YouTube videos, talked to Microsoft, demos, etc. I did enough homework so that when we set it up it was pretty simple. You just have to understand the SCCM infrastructure and how it works. If you don't understand that it might be confusing when you first install it. You have to understand your primary site, your secondary site, your distribution points and how they work, so you know how to set it up correctly.

After that, installing it was easy. Just understanding what connects to what. What has to go first, what has to go second, what services you need installed and set up, and how to set them up. Once you do your research on that it is pretty simple. But if you go in blind, I can see how it could be rather difficult.

Pricing and licensing are a downside of SCCM. It's expensive. I'd have to confirm this, but I think they changed the licensing to core-based instead of socket-based. It's not cheap, because you have to buy the software, you have to buy SQL. Another thing we learned from talking to Microsoft is that they provide you a license for SQL if you run it on the same box as the primary server. If you run it outside that box, you have to buy SQL. Microsoft does recommend you running it on the same box because of performance. But then, in order to run SQL, SCCM, and everything on the same box, you better have some resources.

It's an expensive solution. There's no doubt about it.

We looked at some small-time vendors, third-party stuff. No major names. There was one that we looked at that was really small and it actually seemed pretty powerful. It was called PDQ. But it turned out to be more for small business than enterprise-ready. 

The only enterprise solutions we came across were SCCM, ZENworks, and BigFix from IBM. Even though BigFix did Linux, it did everything, the price point was really expensive. It was something that wasn't even in our ballpark, and they didn't seem to want to deal with us.

We were already on ZENworks and we knew how it worked. We knew everything about it, but again, we didn't know its future. When it came down to having discussions with our team, myself, and other architects, we decided the more we keep with a single solution - we are mainly a Microsoft shop, Windows on the desktop, and mostly Microsoft servers - the more we keep the stack together. That's why we went with SCCM.

Do your homework. Understand the basics of it, how it works between services. When you go to install it's going to ask you specific questions, and you might not know what the question is unless you did your homework ahead of time.

Microsoft offers architectural sessions. Right before we installed it, we went to Microsoft and they sat down with us and did a session with us to understand how to architect it, how do design it. I would definitely advise doing that. I don't know who they offer it to, but that was very helpful. We met with their architects at Microsoft and they helped us understand how to architect it.

I give SCCM an eight out of 10. It's powerful. It's not a 10 because it has little bugs here and there. It has little issues that are annoying. For example, you may want to do something on a maintenance window. There's no way to say, "I want this maintenance window to be on the second Tuesday of the month." It's strict. This window is this and that's it. You can't fluctuate. There are little intricacies that are a little annoying. Sometimes we find the flexibility is not there in certain circumstances.

Our Windows environment has about 100 servers, Windows 2012/2016, and more than 500 desktop and laptop computers with Windows 7/10.

We use SCCM 2012 mainly for installing and deployment of images for new operating systems on end-user computers, for application management, distribution of new applications, software and hardware inventory, remote assistance, application virtualization and, of course, for software updates on servers and workstations.

It has improved distribution and the migration of existing desktop computers and user profiles to new machines.

Excellent reports for compliance, status of updates, and software metering.

I would like to see some improvements in WSUS and control of other, non-Microsoft, product updates.

I use the solution to manage security and policies. 

The solution effectively handles inventory management, deployment, and reporting. 

The solution does not support remote devices so CMG is still required. 

I have been using the solution for six years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is for ICCM so does not scale like a cloud application. It is intended for security, management, or device teams and not end users. 

Scaling is always available with a monetary investment. 

Technical support is pretty good. 

The complexity of setup depends many factors such as the number of sites or distribution points and whether they will be centrally administered. Proper planning and execution are important. 

Deployments of an ICCM server can take up to four weeks. 

The solution operates on a licensing model that can be expensive. 

Pricing is reasonable for small companies but large companies or enterprise environments require multiple licenses. 

The solution is very stable and robust with a longstanding reputation. It works well with Windows devices and offers good management for ICCM.

The cloud-based platform is a good option for managing only Android or iOS devices. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

I like its ease of use. It does what you need it to do, and it's a one-stop-shop for the company and for all your deployments. If you incorporate Intune into it, you can have both. You can bring your own devices and corporate devices, and everything runs out of SCCM and Intune.

They should improve their anti-malware policies like the SCEP policies. For instance, you can't have different policies for different servers, there is only one policy in all the servers, and everything is covered under that. 

For example, say you want to scan one group of servers on Saturday, and then you want to scan another group of servers on Sunday, you can't do that. You have to scan all your servers, a regular scan or a full scan, on the same day and at the same time. That's definitely one thing they need to resolve. 

In the next release, it would actually be nice if they included Apple products. It will also help if you can use Intune again. Their compliance reporting feature could also be better. They can maybe work a bit on that for patching now.

It would be better if SCCM came with the functions of Right Click Tools built-in. If SCCM would have all those functions already built-in, we won't have to go and spend $5,000, just as an add-in from another company to get those functions.

I have been dealing with SCCM for nine years.

I used to be the SCCM administrator for quite a big company that had 80,000 people. That's pretty much all I did all day, every day.

BigFix is the poor man's SCCM. It's for people that can't afford SCCM and for small and medium-sized businesses. There's nothing else out there that can do what it can do.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give SCCM a nine.

The administration of the solution is very helpful.

It offers many of the same features other solutions would offer. It's very similar in scope.

The solution has been very stable over the years.

The product is capable of scaling.

Technical support is very helpful and very responsive.

It is a bit of an old and outdated product.

The cloud would have been the best improvement and already Microsoft is looking into it. They are moving into the cloud and all it will make the product better. There's a roadmap in place, from what I understand. We'll move ahead toward whatever Microsoft decided to deploy.

The solution is mainly used for client management and software deployment. However, there maybe should be a more self-service experience. Microsoft may be addressing it in their cloud-native solutions, as currently a lot of administrative tasks are still needed. Automation would be helpful in those cases. If they could add more automation, that would be ideal.

I've used the solution for the last eight to ten years or so. It's been almost a decade. I've worked with it for a long time. 

The solution offers good stability. there are no bugs or glitches. It's reliable. It doesn't crash or freeze. The performance overall has been very good.

A company can easily scale this product if they need to.

Technical support has been amazing. It's Microsoft and their bread and butter is understanding their product. They built this technology and therefore can offer amazing support. At any level, for any questions, they can support you. We've very satisfied with the level of assistance they've provided.

I've also evaluated VMware, which would be a good option for companies that are not dealing with a lot of Microsoft applications.

We're just a customer and end-user.

We use the latest version of the solution. I can't speak to the exact version number.

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten. It's an incredible product.

I would recommend other companies to go ahead with whatever the latest cloud option is on offer. That is due to the fact that there is no SCCM as a product now. They have already transformed it into Microsoft Endpoint Manager. 

If a company is heavy on Microsoft products, like Office 365, this is the right tool, however, if not, if they are not a Microsoft centric organization, then maybe they can explore VMware as well. 

The product is quite good. We are happy with the collaboration of SCCM with Patch My PC, which allows us to do patchwork.

While the solution is quite good, it can be difficult to understand the logic of this product when it comes to software inventory.

Upon examination of the on-premise and Azure environments, I feel that SCCM could be more flexible.

While the issue of documentation is not exclusive to SCCM, it can be improved. When it comes to Microsoft Office suite, it is not always clear to where the articles have been moved and the use of a built-in searching giant to find their whereabouts is not always a possibility. When the article is moved to a new location, it can make it challenging to find what I deem to be useful or interesting. 

I believe we started using SCCM in 2003.

Microsoft technical support used to be better. In spite of us being a premier customer, we find the support unsatisfactory. The qualifications are not at issue, but the excessive time it takes for them to react, investigate and provide us with answers is.

When it comes to technical support, it is a crapshoot. I know how Microsoft works from the inside, as we used to work for the company. There are times when we will speak with a person who is really qualified and interested in helping and the case can be closed in the course of a single remote session or call.

At other times the ticket is apparently not rotated to the right person. In such cases, we will encounter someone who is merely being polite, towards the end of keeping the customer engaged but without the ability to help. 

Pricing is not in my work description and is left up to management and my colleagues. 

Since I cannot think of anything in need of improvement concerning SCCM, I would rate it as a ten out of ten.

The new CMD features are excellent. It is like a cloud environment gateway. 

The batch management is very helpful. The software deployment happens in there. 

There are many features relevant to many of our clients.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward.

The interface needs to be a little bit simpler. Right now, it's a bit hard to navigate with ease.

The integration capabilities could be better. They need to expand this aspect of their product.

The solution is a bit heavy on the sources such as RAM or CPU and the software needs to be a bit lighter.

SCCM does not support Linux and Unix. That has been deprecated and is no longer there. 

It would be ideal if the solution came with more features supporting Mac, then it would be a better product.

The solution is quite stable. We haven't really dealt with bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

You can scale it up if you need to. You can add the client servers, for example. I've had multiple primary sites that I get as I go. A company that needs to scale can do so with relative ease.

We deal with companies that are often medium-sized or enterprise-level.

The technical support is good. It's provided by Microsoft and we have lots of cases with Microsoft. They have been able to support us effectively so far. We're satisfied with the support so far.

SCCM has been the only product that we have worked on. We haven't used anything else. We haven't worked with BigFix or anything like that.

The initial setup is easy. It's not overly complex. That said, anyone who's doing it needs to be a bit clever. It's not for people with little technological background. There is a bit of research required. You need to learn a bit about the product for effective deployment.

We handle the deployments for clients.

I don't deal with the pricing. I'm not aware of the costs in general. I can't say if it's reasonable or expensive. It's not my area of expertise.

I haven't really evaluated other solutions. However, I just received a proposal from one of our sales associates, and the company had BigFix. They were trying to move on to SCCM. They had some questions regarding whether the same features would be available in SCCM or not. That's the reason I went to do some comparisons.

We are Microsoft partners. I'm a consultant. This solution is being used by my client's companies.

We are using the latest version of the solution, which is 2010.

I would recommend SCCM based on the requirement of the customers. However, if they are looking for Unix and Linux support, which is no longer in SCCM, I'd recommend BigFix. That solution is better for Unix and Linux.

Anybody who wants to implement SCCM should do some research online, depending upon what features they want. Once they see that SCCM will be able to manage, will be able to resolve their issues, they should choose it. However, they need to look for a partner, a Microsoft partner, that can take help from them for deployment purposes.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten. If the product used less resources, I would rate it higher

The primary use case for SCCM is for managing workstations.

All of the software that runs on our workstations is packaged and distributed and managed. Along with that, some of our security software is managed a little bit differently, but is accounted for in that way.

We also use it for keeping track of our patches.

We're a Microsoft-centric organization, so we are happy with the integration between products.

The interface, customization, and security are all pretty good.

There is no asset management package included. You have to buy that separately so we need  to use another system to manage that. This is one of the biggest things that makes SCCM not as competitive as some other systems. If they had this functionality then their help desk software would be much better and much more useful.

It is a little bit fat on the client-side, in terms of the stuff it leaves in place after the management is complete. It would be nice if they could pay attention to that, although we have a separate way of dealing with it.

I have been involved with using SCCM in four or five different places for a total of close to 15 years.

SCCM has no issue with stability.

This is a scalable product. The biggest group that I have been involved with was maybe 15,000 people. Typically, the sizes are in the 1,000-person area and it's not the type of product that you put together and configure for an office.

Their SCCM support is slightly better than their general support. Their general support, Microsoft is tiered so you have to fight your way through the tiers to get to the real people. There's no way around that, but that's just the way they are. I understand that because they're such a big company

I have not done the initial setup alone, and I wouldn't recommend doing it for anybody who didn't know what they were doing, or that hadn't done it before, because you have to go through a certain learning process.

I have seen that a base installation complete can be done in three days, and I have also seen an environment with 1,000 workstations deployed in two weeks.

I have always worked with somebody who is well-versed in the solution to assist with deployment. I rely on a Microsoft MVP-level person to get the install done properly for me.

One person is enough for maintenance.

Pricing is negotiable with Microsoft, depending upon which of their packages you choose. They're changing their packages, and I don't know how they're changing them yet. It's been a few years since I have worked in that capacity.

We continually look at and evaluate everything.

Microsoft has Intune, as well. However, Intune is a choice if you're in a smaller-scale situation. Typically, I don't get called into things unless it is large, where I interact with clients on technical computing and solving network problems that are related to workstation issues. For these types of larger things, SCCM is a logical choice.

I haven't been in a Unix environment beyond having to do database-engine-related work.

My advice for anybody looking into implementing SCCM is that it has to be on a larger scale, and you have to be committed to Microsoft.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.