Microsoft Configuration Manager Reviews

We use SCCM to access user data.

Basically, my requirement was to get the data from wherever it was available within the organization. SCCM helped identify how many computers we had, what software was loaded on it, what different types of data were available, and so on. It helped us a lot when it came to extracting the data.

It uses detailed descriptions of the workstations, and that is good for me.

I think SCCM can improve whatever details they shared with the integration partner. There was a lot of junk software and data. There should be flexibility to allow us to extract the data we require. In other words, the flexibility of accepting the specific data that we are looking for.

I want the system to provide some dependency relations. For example, you have a laptop, and you start working on it. If I can be informed that you're using the laptop at work, other machines that are dependent on this laptop will be able to provide that dependency relationship. I would like to see the relationship between different machines.

For a small-scale industry, the storage capacity is good. However, the performance and storage capacity could be better.

I have been using SCCM for a while as part of an integration project.

We are running almost 5,000 machines, and it was working fine from a performance perspective. 

Technical support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward and took us about a week to deploy this solution. The strategy was simple. We just had to do it in the same plugin, and we actually did learn on the job each day.

We used an integrator, and we still use them regularly or even daily. We might use them for other integrations as well.

I would tell potential users that SCCM is a good solution if their focus is on the number of computers and laptops they have in the company.

I used it for the first time, and it was good. But users should know what kind of databases they are using and if the integration has sufficient rights to access that data.

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

In most cases, it is used by us to deploy software or manage configurations of certain applications.

We are pushing the WSUS updates through it and getting the normal systems grouping. 

You can do your software package through it and you can create and run scripts.

The database should be made to be more stable and robust, but not so much the configuration.

I am not sure if it is just bad administration and maintenance, but it fails quite a lot.

For me, it's the database, or maybe it's the maintenance overhead. It could be that it requires a lot of maintenance. If you don't maintain it, things could go wrong, this is my assumption.

We have been using this solution for a couple of months.

We are using the latest version.

It is not always stable. When it works it works, but It has a very sensitive database and it almost always crashes when we use it, especially if you don't take care of it.

I can't really say that the scalability is good or bad because I haven't had to do much of it.

I have never used any other similar product.

It is easy to install and quick to deploy.

We have admins to maintain this solution.

We didn't really evaluate other products.

We are more of a Microsoft house. It works out better to use these products.

As I have not used any other product, I can't say that I would or wouldn't recommend SCCM. If there is anything better, I would like to know.

It works, but the database fails almost every time. I would rate SCCM a seven out of ten.

We have just implemented a patch management solution. We are using SCCM for the server. For the client or endpoint, we are using a different product called Ivanti.

It is a very good solution. It has a good interface and is easy to use. On top of that, it is very reliable in terms of distribution as well as getting the report.

Its client interface should be more accessible, and the notifications should be more customizable from the console. It should be more user friendly and have some kind of customized notifications so that we can use it on the client side. These are the reasons why we restricted its use only for the server environment and didn't use it on the client side.

I cannot say anything about its scalability at this time. We are still exploring this solution. We are using SCCM for the server, so only IT people use it or log into it. In terms of nodes, about 500 nodes are using the product effectively.

I have not been in touch with Microsoft in terms of support for this solution. We are good. We do have people who get support from Microsoft for any issues, but I don't remember facing any issues recently on the SCCM front. We did have a call with Microsoft because SCCM was not supporting some applications on the patch upgrade front, and we wanted to explore and know future trends. 

It is easy.

We are still exploring this solution, and we haven't yet explored all the features.

I would rate SCCM an eight out of ten. It just needs a better user interface and some kind of customizations because currently, they are very limited.

Our main use is, first of all, to update the patches and to push the patches from SCCM, to check systems software, and to see which software is installed along with the systems. These are the major three things that we use on SCCM. 

We are on the endpoint side. We just ensure that the SCCM agent is installed appropriately. 

I have an on-site server also. There are the primary servers, and then there are site servers of SCCM. I have a site server also. With the site server, I have to make sure it is working and there is no hardware level or any other issue on these machines. This site server is replicating with the main servers in our data center. 

Due to the fact that we have different sites in different locations including the UAE, Oman, and other sites, there are other site servers, that are replicating with the main servers. They may be taking other information from SCCM as well.

The main, clear valuable feature is updating the latest patches, Software distribution, remote control and computer inventory. This is the main feature we really utilize a lot.

The main SCCM lacks some things, which they incorporated into Microsoft Intune. When I evaluated these two products, one from VMware Workspace One and one from Microsoft, I found that there is something missing in SCCM, which is available and works very well in VMware Workspace One. SCCM should work to add these features into their service offering.

For example, devices like smartphones and tablets are managed very well on VMware Workspace One, however, they are absent in SCCM. I could configure the iPad from the VMware Workspace One cloud and it was done very easily. It should be just as possible on SCCM.

I've been using the solution for three to four years.

It's constantly running alongside computers. When they are on, SCCM is on. It's a stable product. There aren't issues with it crashing or getting glitchy. There is no issue, we have not faced any issue with SCCM.

Everyone in our organization uses SCCM, as it's on all of the device endpoints. There are two to three people that have access to the SCCM  servers. 

The scalability is very easy. If a company needs to expand it to more endpoints they can do so easily.

Initially, when we were installing the agent originally, we did run into a few issues. We found SCCM was not installed on a few computers or servers during installation. We had to get some help to deal with those problems and getting SCCM installed correctly. We figured out the requirements. Now it's working fine. 

That was just initially. We do not spend a lot of time with SCCM now. Whenever we have a new computer connect with our networks, within two minutes it starts working. There are no more issues. Therefore, since implementation, we haven't really had to call them.

We were not previously using any other solution. SCCM was our first.

I did the configuration of SCCM from scratch, however, I did not configure the VMware Workspace One as it was installed on cloud. I basically just did it for an evaluation to have a taste of VMware Workspace One.

Therefore, I don't know about the level of complexity or if it's easy or it's difficult in VMware Workspace One. In SCCM, however, there were some issues which I had to search and get assistance with and there were some issues that I resolved. I would describe it as somewhat complex. It was not so simple that anyone can do it.

For me took me three to four days to configure it and set it up in perfect working condition. That was mostly due to the fact that I took some time to research the issues I came into contact with.

The main production server is in our data center in Pakistan and production site server in Qatar and UAE, and their configuration is performed by a team in corporate office in Pakistan

I'm more interested in features, which is where I spend most of my research time with products. I don't really get into pricing. I'm not sure of the exact price. I can't say if it's cheaper or more expensive than other options.

I've considered evaluating VMware WorkspaceOne, however, their product is limited when users are just trying them out.

We are at an endpoint site. The servers that are in our data center.  I don't know which exact service-side version we are using at our data center.

I would recommend SCCM to others. I've used it from scratch and with the new features, especially Intune. I do recommend the SCCM, especially in the Microsoft environment.  VMware Workspace One is also good, from what I understand. The issue is they give very limited trial features. If they would give I full fledged trial base version of the VMware Workspace One, it would be easier for someone to completely evaluate the two. Microsoft gives you a six month evaluation period, for example. That's a lot of time to get to know the system. 

SCCM, therefore, is the best that I can tell, as I've been able to evaluate it fully. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for this product is for patching and sending back packages to the client.

SCCM helps to file the claims from servers.

Patching is the main feature because SCCM is made to control the entire environment without manually interpreting. So it is good to use for patching.

The main room for improvement is the on-screen display. I think it would be good if some improvements were made.

Overall, as of now, it's sufficient for us. I don't have any scope of what new features would be needed for our company. I'm not sure if we require anything more. We are good with this product. If our companies move to the cloud or something, maybe we'll need additional features.

I have been using SCCM for 10 years.

The stability is also quite good.

The scalability is quite good.

We don't have a separate team using it. It's an operations team, where everyone works in every technology.

There are about 5 - 10 people using it - Windows server persons, applications teams, and other teams.

We very rarely have contact with the technical service. I think about once a year. That's it. We don't require it because most of the time we fix any issues ourselves.

The initial setup was straightforward. It was quick and it took a day. We didn't have any issues.

My advice for this product is that it's a team tool that can be helpful. At the same time, it can be harmful if you are not using it properly - it can ruin your company. That's because if someone messes up, they can send a package to one client instead of sending it to another. Once you start the initial installation, it is difficult to stop it. So you should be careful.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate SCCM an eight.

We use this solution for implementing System CenterConfigMgr in our organization, and for standardization.

This has made the management of our environment easier.

The most valuable features of this solution are the OSD and application deployments, and it also automates updates.

Not everything is readily available, and there are a lot of commands that are only executable via PowerShell. In this regard, the user interface could be improved.

This is linked to how Microsoft designs the products: They release a product and a visual interface, but also provide PowerShell commandlets. This usually is in ratio of 30/70 (UI / PowerShell actions).

We use this solution because we need to manage patching and system provisioning.

This solution helps us by automating the patching of our system. We are able to standardize our Windows configuration, and models are supported through imaging.

The most valuable features of this solution are:

• Imaging - standardized Windows builds
• Software deployment - deploying updates and automating the installation of software
• Patch deployment - increased security
• Reporting - better view of our environment for decision making

This solution should be simpler, and more consistent across modules/sections.

Reporting and collection queries should be made easier to do.

• Application deployment
• Software metering
• Batching

There tons of ways it has improved our organization, especially when you tie SCCM in with cloud-based tools like Intune. You can have global 24/7 coverage and purview off your workloads. When you are outside of the network, it still is covered by Intune's policies and procedures. That's the main value that we see now.

Application deployment is the most congenial tool we have seen. With the right administrator, it can do wonders.

The main thing is that SCCM has to become an appliance instead of a server.

When I say appliance, it has to come preconfigured so that it is drop-shipped into the enterprise and then you activate the feature sets that you want. It should pull down all the latest binaries. Once that is all there, it should have a discovery tool which goes out and discovers the assets within an enterprise. If the server, workstation, and applications are all coming from the same vendor, why not have the vendor do this work for us and automate it as much as it possibly can?

SCCM has the same DNA, it is coming from the same vendor. It does exactly what every other tool does, but since it is from Microsoft they should have thought about these things.

SCCM should be an automated solution, an appliance. Drop-shipped into the organization, discovery should be automated. Inclusion should be automated. Portals should be within the product itself. And it must have a cloud component to it. It should automatically upload the metadata to the cloud so we can monitor it in the cloud at a very high security level.

It is stable. We haven't experienced crashes for the last four or five years. Since Windows Server 2012, crashes are literally nonexistent.

No issues with scalability.

Tech support is horrible, but that's expected from any big-box company.

We used to use a third-party company which, unfortunately, went out of business. The solution was beautiful. But that was something like 10 or 15 years back. It was gobbled up by BigFix and they completely reduced it to garbage. Literally, there was nothing to look at.

We are very knowledgeable about SCCM so for us it takes an hour or two, at the most, to set up. For other people, it may be complicated, but for us, setup is the least of our concerns.

We evaluated BigFix. Again, I'm talking about 10 years back. It was garbage. We evaluated NetIQ at the time but it was complete fluff.

Pricing and licensing are horrible. You have to not look at dollar value to use SCCM. It's super-duper expensive but it works. The acquisition cost is expensive, it's labor-intensive. But it works.

There is no advice anybody can give on SCCM. Everybody has to go through their journey. It's like giving birth. There's no advice. It works. But you have to deliver yourself.