One piece of advice I can give is that it's important to acknowledge that, sometimes, updates can bring their own problems. For example, when you install an update, you need to wait until the computer restarts, and in some cases updates can cause the computer to crash. The crash may even be so severe that you need to reformat the machine and, thus, you lose your data.

When talking about other administrators who are wondering about whether to use WSUS, I can confirm that it's a very good tool. And, if you're also using SCCM, WSUS is even better because SCCM will give you a lot of features that are not provided by the basic version of WSUS.

If you want to deploy updates with WSUS, you must remember that it's always best to deploy only the security updates and critical updates that are recommended by Microsoft, because other types of updates such as essential updates, driver updates, and feature updates can sometimes cause instabilities in the system.

And sometimes these extra updates can cause problems with other products. For example, you can sometimes disrupt another product from Microsoft by installing an independent system update that will cause, for example, the mailing service to malfunction. You always need to be sure to do backups of the servers before using WSUS to perform updates.

Finally, there are a few other things that you will need to know in order to run an effective WSUS server, such as how to work with Active Directory. With Active Directory, you can more easily configure which servers will use the WSUS and which ones will not. For example, if you want the servers to perform updates through WSUS, you need to set this option in the Active Directory server. If, instead, you want the leave the computers to get their updates from the internet directly, you will also need to set this up in Active Directory. To do all this, you need to have at least a minimum amount of knowledge in creating group policies, security policies, and so on.

I would rate Microsoft WSUS an honest eight out of ten, because even though some of the features are lacking, it handles the basic stuff very well.

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 would suggest to evaluate your environment, analyze specific use case scenarios, and weigh the benefits the system provides. The suitability of this solution varies depending on the size of the organization. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would recommend the solution to other users. If someone wants a less costly solution and doesn't want to invest too much in licenses, they can choose Microsoft Windows Server Update Services. The solution is more suited for small businesses, not huge enterprise customers.

Overall, I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a nine 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 implementation of Microsoft Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) has significantly improved our patch management process by shifting our approach from reactive to proactive. We can automate the process instead of relying on manual methods.

The platform provides good value in terms of time and effort by eliminating the need for manual patch management. It gives us more time to concentrate on other aspects of the project.

We encountered a few technical issues with the application related to deployment agents and operating system compatibility. We were able to overcome the challenges by escalating the case to the engineers.

I recommend the product to others as it is an easy-to-use patch management or deployment monitoring system. It is the best solution for all business use cases. However, I advise others to understand their business requirements before making the purchase decision.

I rate it 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.

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.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

It's robust and stable. It provides options to figure out which patches to deploy, when, and how to deploy them silently, depending on the customer or user preferences. These are the best facilities I see in this service.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight 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 can use ManageEngine instead of Microsoft. I recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I rate the product a ten out of ten. 

I would recommend this solution to potential users as it's a vital service in every network.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a seven. 

I would recommend the solution to others. It is a good product. Overall, I rate the product a ten 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. 

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.

I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services a ten 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.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I would recommend Server Update for anyone looking into it and rate it as eight out of ten.

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.

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.

I would rate this solution as nine out of ten. I would recommend it.

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 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.

At this point, it accomplishes everything that I need to do.

I would rate this solution an eight 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.

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 would rate this solution a seven 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.

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. 

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 rate this solution as eight of ten.

I rate Microsoft Windows Server Update Services an eight out 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.

The ability to have more fine control within this solution is very important. It is not available for the solution in its current state.