Microsoft System Center is an enterprise-grade IT Operations Management (ITOM) suite designed for the centralized administration of data center infrastructure, virtualized environments, and hybrid cloud workloads. The platform provides unified management across heterogeneous environments, including support for Windows Server, Linux, and Azure Stack HCI.
System Center is Microsoft's ITOM stack for organizations that maintain a significant on-premise footprint, vs the company's Azure-based…
$1,323
Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization
Score 9.0 out of 10
N/A
OpenShift Virtualization is a feature of Red Hat OpenShift that offers a unified, scalable platform for migrating traditional VMs. It ensures consistent management across hybrid cloud environments and supports modernization efforts.
SCCM is often considered superior to Intune because it is more predictable and transparent in day-to-day operations. Errors in SCCM are clearer and easier to troubleshoot, whereas Intune issues can feel vague and harder to diagnose. SCCM also offers rich, built-in features such …
Microsoft System Center really integrated with our windows system better than any other 3rd party product which obviously you would expect to a certain extent. Our main reason to procuring System Center (apart form the options)was licensing costs. We already had a Microsoft …
None. We are a Microsoft business, and this is THE tool for imaging, packaging, remote support, and antivirus management. Microsoft's tool is the best for managing its software, systems, and antivirus clients. I will say that Microsoft Intune, the cloud platform, can be used …
The capability of SCOM as far as monitoring Windows systems is concerned is far greater than any monitoring product out there as both are a Microsoft product so integration and discoveries work well and fast.
The versatility of the suite of application provided by the Microsoft experience center was way above the other competitors , it helped gained leverage over the other products in the market . That why we made the decision of choosing Microsoft system center as a infrastructure …
We use Azure, we have lisences, so we have no needs any other cost. And also, we want to save backup data in Azure. Veritas ask additional cost reagurally and have to rebuild bakcup environment.
Because Datadog was too small, we decided quickly to use Microsoft System Center. We use a lot of other Microsoft products so that discussion was quickly set internally.
We have used Ghost from Symantec (licensed), FOG and Clonezilla which are freeware products. All three products had their pros and cons. The two freeware products were functional but did lack some polish, and Ghost was a good product for imaging of desktop computers. All did …
We previously used a mix of FOG and Clonezilla to image machines. The biggest issues with these products is that changing one piece of the image required you to rebuild the entire image itself. These pieces of software also did not allow you to manage applications and Windows …
We are using Microsoft products for a long time, so the overall confidence played a part in the decision, the feature set and licensing cost was also very high when compared with above products, so we decided to use System Center for our environment, so far it has solved many …
We selected it simply because it is less expensive than the competition, but yet just as good. We saw no reason to go outside the walls of Microsoft for this task. We are satisfied with the product.
This was used to monitor uor non-Windows systems and was cumbersome. Their licensing was per device with how many agents you needed; however, with System Center Operations Manager, their billing was a lot easier for their product.
All comparative features are way expensive and complex to configure in all other competitors. Value to money and ease of deployment for Microsoft based environment
Microsoft System Center has more options. Microsoft System Center has the ability to image PCs as well as remotely connect to PCs, and software installation and patching where Symantec Ghost Solution Suite didn't handle all of these options as well. We haven't looked at many …
Much better UI for system center. Also, Tivoli was discontinued, so it was an easy decision. Altiris was acquired by Symantec but was unreliable and painful. It's UI was unresponsive and generally outdated. It wouldn't clean up old packages and would hog GB of disk space, …
SCOM is better than OMi for Windows-based servers monitoring. You need to know how to use Visual Studio to customize the management pack. Dynatrace is way better for all Application Performance Manager.
It has its similarities between the two from a ticketing standpoint but as a primarily Microsoft shop it is nice to have a product that was created to play along with other tools that we are using such as SCCM. We like Jira for the project management tools and Cherwell for …
It is an excellent product for monitoring features like Exchange, Active Directory, DNS. Monitors are custom designed and can be adjusted to any system. Great monitors can be created even when monitoring open-source systems.
How SCEP stacks up against some of the other AV solutions/products is that it does a pretty good job overall (not the best in the industry) at detecting/removing malware, which is the main focus for a product like this. It is also easy to use on the end-user side, which can't …
They are all perfectly serviceable options but Red Hat virtualization seemed like a better fit for our technical needs, our existing environment, and the quality of our vendor relationship.
We do Ansible Automation Platform to facilitate our code deployments, to resolve vulnerabilities etc and that does simplify the work that we do. Likewise, OpenShift Virtualization helps simplify operating system maintenance etc
Nothing like OpenShift. Actually, this was our first one. We toyed with maybe doing raw Kubernetes, but with an enterprise company you need an enterprise product.
We used a product before that was designed to prevent users making changes and saving files to the desktop computer. This required a renewal of the license. By using SCCM in our environment we were able to discontinue using that product because SCCM allows us to completely restore a machine back to the original configuration. We have taught our users to save their individual work on either a network drive or a cloud drive. By doing this, if we do a re-image of their machine they have lost no data, and it makes for a faster resolution. In some instances having a computer in our SCCM environment it can become cumbersome when creating new users for very specific purposes. It can be done by creating new organizational units and applying new policies but when in a pinch it can be frustrating. For the most part we have tried to make "new" purpose images and groups to at least accommodate a quick install.
I believe that Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization is a very promising option for hypervisor at the moment and it seems to be improving quickly. Red Hat is doing a great job working with customers on feature set requests and improving UX and stability
One of the biggest drawbacks to SCOM is the sheer scope and complexity of the system. This can be a pro and a con. The system is very customizable, what you put into it is what you'll get out of it. That said, the learning curve is fairly steep. An organization needs to be committed to putting time and resources into SCOM to get the most out of it. I've heard stories from colleagues of several different companies that invested in SCOM and then abandoned it due to the excessive time and care required.
SCOM is expensive. Not only is the enterprise licensing costly, SCOM requires it's own servers, operational and warehouse databases to be maintained.
The OOB SCOM reports are a bit clunky and feel outdated.
OpenShift is really easy of use through its management console. OpenShift gives a very large flexibility through many inbuilt functionalities, all gathered in the same place (it's a very convenient tool to learn DevOps technics hands on) OpenShift is an ideal integrated development / deployment platform for containers
It is not user-friendly for the most part. With IT infrastructure, sometimes it cannot handle excess requests. Every few months, you will need an upgrade in terms of server resources to keep up with incoming alerts and requests. This does not happen all of the time, but it does happen when there are too many requests.
The product is maturing at an amazing rate, but there is still work to do to reach existing VMware customers. Most notably are the HA/DR features, and backup/recovery. We need to have faster backup capabilities, and I know this is in the works with change block tracking - but it is a challenge today. Some users are also scared by the number of volumes created by Red Hat OpenShift Virtualization, as opposed to the number of VMFS volumes they are used to.
We have already hab cases in which our customers have a better application performance even in legacy architectures running on Jboss, and even more on cloud native architectures. Customers who hosted their applications on Jboss and wildfly, when running on top of Red Hat OpenShift could benefit from more stability and availability, and in some cases, gains of performance.
There is a fair amount of documentation out there to help you when you have questions or run into issues with this product as well as tutorials on some of the more common tasks. Between the documentation and the overall ease of use we haven't had to deal with direct Microsoft support for this product.
None. We are a Microsoft business, and this is THE tool for imaging, packaging, remote support, and antivirus management. Microsoft's tool is the best for managing its software, systems, and antivirus clients. I will say that Microsoft Intune, the cloud platform, can be used for those with heavy 365 usage, but for us, that does not meet our current company needs.
Some of the various other Kubernetes out there, including Rancher, is probably one of the biggest one. Rancher has a reputation for being very easy to implement. I've found that Red Hat OpenShift is just as easy to implement as Rancher. People just don't really know about it. Nutanix is another hypervisor out there competing with Red Hat OpenShift. Again, I think OpenShift virtualization but maybe isn't as old as Nutanix. I do feel it's more mature.
The positive impact it has had on ROI is that it has been a solid AV product in our environment, meaning it has worked well when running on client computers. It doesn't use a lot of system resources on the client-side, so that helps end-users productivity of not being slowed down.
It has been good for the end-user, since they really don't need to take additional training or consult user manuals, in how to use the product.
It has allowed us to see where we need to be in the container world. I'm going to call it a net neutral impact, not negative or positive. It has given us a sense of what we are ready for and what we're not ready for. You know where you stand.
You don't know what you don't know, so it helps us know what we want to know.
