Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service) Reviews

I am publishing desktops as well as applications.

Citrix offers a range of products that can be used straight out of the box.

When it comes to Citrix, the main advantage is its protocol, which has gone through several name changes including ICA and HDX. It originally started out as Thinwire in 1988, and now they are back to using that name again. 

This protocol allows for faster transmission and beats competitors such as RDP. Citrix has tried various approaches with VMware, but nothing can beat the speed of their protocol, which works very effectively. 

Using the app layering feature can be quite difficult and cumbersome.

I have experience installing Citrix since 1997 when we published desktops using Windframe 1.7. Back then, we had to publish desktops and applications from the terminal server, which is now known as the remote desktop server, but we didn't have a desktop for over a decade. 

We had to figure out all the applications and printing for ourselves. However, everything has become much simpler now, and the issues we used to face have been largely resolved. 

Citrix has proven to be quite stable in my experience. Of course, its stability ultimately depends on the skill and expertise of the people managing it. However, I have personally overseen the implementation of Citrix in very large hospital systems, with over a hundred thousand concurrent connections, specifically for the deployment of medical applications and desktops. Overall, I find Citrix to be very reliable and stable.

I would rate the stability a nine or a ten out of ten.

Provisioning Server is a fantastic option for image management in Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops. It offers excellent performance and reliability. On the other hand, while Machine Creation Services can be scaled easily, they can significantly increase storage consumption. For instance, creating a Windows 10 image in MCS typically requires at least 80 GB of storage, in addition to any separate disks needed.

To store changes made by users in Machine Creation Services, the differencing disk must be equal in size to the base disk, leading to significant storage consumption. On the other hand, Provisioning Server uses image versioning, creating a new image version every time it's modified. As a result, virtual machines streamed from the server revert to their original state after a reboot, which is similar to their state during the first boot.

Using the provisioning server, I start by configuring a virtual machine with either a 2016 or 2019 server operating system. I install the necessary Citrix client provisioning server target device software, followed by installing the required applications. After that, I capture the entire configuration to a file share. The image is then streamed from the file share to the hypervisor, which can handle multiple machines. In some large-scale deployments, we have used a single image to provision thousands of servers.

Once the image is captured and stored on the file share, it is set to read-only mode, and any changes made to it are not accepted until it is put in read-write mode. When a virtual machine is rebooted, it returns to its previous state before the changes were made. This feature can be beneficial in situations like a virus outbreak, where a simple reboot of the virtual machines can remove any malicious code or changes.

A provisioning server offers a faster recovery time from a bad change and is generally faster than machine creation services. With the provisioning server, changes are not accepted until the read-write mode is enabled, and if a virus outbreak occurs, rebooting the machines restores them to the previous state. On the other hand, machine creation services' speed is dependent on the storage's speed, and recovery time from a bad change can take longer, especially with a large number of devices. If a bad change is made with machine creation services, the replication process can take a while to revert, whereas, with a provisioning server, all machines can be rebooted quickly.

Within thirty minutes, I can restore my system to its previous state using the provisioning server.

Technical support is not the best. The quality of technical support has declined over time. Previously, their support was excellent, and you had to pay for each call. 

The support staff were very efficient and did not waste time. However, they have now changed their support model so that it's included with your licensing, and they have hired new staff. 

The first-line support staff follows a scripted process, and they are not necessarily highly skilled. You have to go through all the steps before you can speak to someone knowledgeable, or you have to insist that it's an emergency and you need immediate assistance.

In general, the support used to be good, but currently, I am not satisfied with it.

It depends on the image management that you choose to use. 

Provisioning Server is one such solution, but it can be challenging to set up without the right expertise. As an alternative, Citrix offers another image management technology called Machine Creation Services, which is easier to use but can significantly increase storage consumption.

Their licensing model used to be on a per-year basis, where you would negotiate the cost per user for a year. For instance, if you had 25,000 users, you could negotiate the cost accordingly. However, they are transitioning to a subscription-based model where the cost is incurred monthly. 

They argue that this model allows companies to switch from a capital expense to an operational expense, making budgeting easier. However, I am not a fan of this model. I prefer paying only for the number of licenses that I need based on the number of concurrent users, like the previous model.

It is important to receive proper training rather than relying solely on online resources or Googling.

I have been using it successfully in larger enterprise deployments since 1997.

I would rate Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops a nine out of ten.

I am currently working as a senior infrastructure engineer for a company, but in the past, I have also been a reseller and had my own consulting company where I sold and provided consulting services for Citrix products.

Our usage of Citrix Workspace includes standard office applications as well as specialized ones, such as those for automotive design and engineering from a major car manufacturer.

This solution has been convenient for us and has our capital cost increased.

The most valuable feature of Citrix Workspace is the virtual desktop that we can use anywhere, at any time, and without taking our laptop.

I have noticed that the current compatibility issue with the latest version of Windows 11 is a concern for me and my client. While the client has support for Windows 11, it appears that the Citrix Workspace is only compatible with Windows 10, which does not support the newest version. This is an area that I believe could be improved upon.

I have been using Citrix Workspace for approximately two years.

Citrix Workspace is stable.

The solution is scalable.

We have approximately 6000 users using the solution.

Sometimes we escalate issues to the technical support of Citrix Workspace.

I rate the support from Citrix Workspace a seven out of ten.

Neutral

We have tried VMware but it did not fit our needs and this is why we are using Citrix Workspace.

The initial setup of Citrix Workspace is simple.

The process of deploying Citrix Workspace is simple and straightforward. All you need to do is download the front portion of the website, double-click on the package, and utilize the default settings. It should not require much effort to successfully implement this application.

We used a Microsoft solution called SCCM to automatically install Citrix Workspace.

The solution is straightforward to maintain.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Citrix Workspace an eight out of ten.

We use the platform to manage apps and virtual desktops.

The product has reasonable licensing costs for hardware. It has the best remote working features. It helps us easily use and manage machines with system policies and other aspects.

We encounter compatibility issues related to hardware, scanners, and other devices. There could be web control management features and persistent VDA.

We have been using Citrix DaaS for eight years.

It is a stable platform.

It is a scalable product.

We evaluated Horizon Cloud a few years ago. Back then, we found Citrix had higher capabilities than Horizon. Thus, we went with Citrix. However, it is providing better services now.

I rate Citrix DaaS an eight out of ten.

I use Citrix DaaS to connect to devices.

Citrix DaaS is pretty slow. In Citrix DaaS, I have to connect to the computer in another form and always have to keep waiting. Sometimes, I click on Microsoft Teams or Outlook, but it doesn't work at all. We use a few PDM (product data management) software in another company, and they're pretty slow through these things. So we always have to keep waiting, and a lot of time goes wasted.

The speed and connectivity of Citrix DaaS could be improved. Most of the time, it doesn't work for any colleagues. At least one or two employees complain about the solution's speed every day.

I have been using Citrix DaaS for a month.

Citrix DaaS is not a stable solution. I rate Citrix DaaS two out of ten for stability.

I rate Citrix DaaS ten out of ten for scalability because it is scalable and it's been used in a huge form. Around 1,000 users are currently working with the solution in our organization.

The initial setup of Citrix DaaS is very easy. I rate Citrix DaaS ten out of ten for its ease of initial setup.

Getting access to Citrix DaaS took a while, but installing the solution took five to ten minutes. Just one person is enough for the solution's deployment.

I won't recommend Citrix DaaS to other users. I don't know if there are any other better solutions. However, Citrix DaaS is also a good solution if the speed issue is resolved.

Overall, I rate Citrix DaaS a four or five out of ten.

The primary use case is for organizations with a large number of users, such as warehouses or production facilities. In these environments, users access a few applications from multiple computers. Citrix Workspace simplifies the deployment of these applications by installing them on the session host and distributing them to the users. 

From my perspective, the most valuable feature is the manageability. Citrix Workspace offers a wide range of options and makes the deployment procedure much easier.

Some customers find the price to be a significant factor. They have a hard time understanding the extra cost of the services. However, in the long term, I have seen a more stable business due to using Citrix Workspace.

I have been working with Citrix Workspace for many years.

It has been very stable. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

It is a scalable solution. It is easy to scale. Around four customers are using this solution. 

The deployment varies depending on the client and their specific requirements. For example, some of our clients in the healthcare industry have specific applications and data that require special handling.

The deployment model depends on how you define a cloud-based solution. We host the session host and deployment in our data center, and customers connect directly to our data centers from their offices. So, we provide the infrastructure, but it may differ for different users based on whether they use the workspace plugin or have their own clients.

It's a monthly subscription. Some customers find the price to be expensive. Because first, they have to pay for Microsoft Remote Desktop user accounts, and then on top of that, they need Citrix accounts. It's not exactly double the cost, but it's a significant increase. Some customers are sensitive to costs, but some have started to understand why they need to pay for all the services.

If you only have a few users, it's hard to justify the costs. So using this solution will depend on individual use cases. 

I like this solution. Overall, I would rate it a ten out of ten. 

I use the solution to give my workers access to several application in the form of Citrix internal applications for the company.

We had an old software that our servers did not support. So we moved to Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for cyber engineering in India and Mexico.

The support offered by Citrix's partner needs to improve. The partner support platform should aim to provide more technical information to users.

The solution is very expensive, including the license, and the support, of all the platforms.

For example, the solution of Microsoft, if you are partnered with Microsoft, you have access to the license, and you only need the variable servers from the virtualization with Microsoft.

I have been using the solution for six years.

It is a stable solution. We don't usually have problems with the platform, but escalating the issue is difficult.

It is a very scalable solution. In the last semester, we updated the video graphics on the virtualization and video 3D graphics for the simulation on the hardware, and it was implemented in three days. It took six to seven months to get the GUI and firewall, but that was because of the problem in the country rather than Citrix. Four thousand users are using the solution presently.

The technical support with Citrix is a nine but support with a partner is a four. So the problem with support is not with Citrix. It is more with the partner who was supposed to provide the solution.

Positive

Talking of my own experience, I have tried VMware and Microsoft Hyper- V solutions. But here in the company, Citrix is the only solution.

We recommended a partnership the first time we bought it from Citrix and Citrix. The partnership was closed several years ago, and the new partner could be better. It's not good. Now, Citrix has been bought by another company.

It's costly in the market. But it is not expensive for the company. For the company, it's relatively inexpensive because the core of the work is compensated with the price. Secondly, the price is included in the cost of the business.

Presently, we are in the process of evaluating other competitive solutions and collecting their names. I must propose an error to show why we must change or stay with Citrix.

People planning to use Citrix must take the right decision for their firm rather than evaluate the cost from the start. 

It is a robust solution. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The main use case for me is the solution’s ability to provide remote users access to enterprise LAN over thin Internet-connected devices securely and efficiently.

I have found the NetScaler or ADC devices by Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops valuable. The product is simple to set up, and its deep integration with Microsoft is also a valuable feature.

Their customer support can be improved a lot as it lacks a lot of knowledgeable help.

I have been using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for the past 14 years.

It is a stable solution. It is a fire-and-forget solution. Once you set it up, things keep happening, and you don't even have to monitor it until you want to get some statistics.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 10,000 users use the solution in my company. We often use Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops in our company, but it all depends on the use cases. If we find the solution convenient for our projects, we will definitely use it. However, we'd only do it on a case-to-case basis. Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is our go-to solution for any server-based computing.

The customer support for Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops should be more knowledgeable.

The setup is pretty simple and easy. We keep deploying it very often based on our requirements, but the complete setup can be done in three days or less than three days for a 1000 people user base. It's more of a fire-and-forget solution. It will take three days if you have the entire idea. If you want to chart out from the beginning, that could take around two months. However, if you know what you're doing, it can be done in three days.

Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is a decade-old technology. We don't need any consultants to set it up. Any candidate with five to six years of experience should be able to set it up. We analyze the applications, the customers, and the users. We also consider the type of user base and the type of applications, and then we plan our infrastructure to meet their requirements and do a POC before deploying the solution. Considering Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is a 24/7 uptime solution, we need at least six technical staff for its deployment and maintenance.

We do have an ROI using this solution.

Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is an expensive solution.

I use the latest LTSR version of Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops.

Someone who needs an enterprise solution with a stable working environment should go for Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops. If there is no 24/7 requirement, and they can manage a few hours of outage, people should look at alternatives for Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops. This solution is for critical users who cannot do without it. Banking and finance customers should adopt the cloud version of this solution and not the enterprise version.

Overall, I rate Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops an eight out of ten.

We are using Citrix for remote connectivity. We have multiple types that are deployed in different clients. Some are desktops as services, some as workspaces, et cetera.

Our company is procuring the license for it; the customer is using it.

It's for engineers to remotely connect to the console or desktop of the client or the customer side for debugging or resolving issues. That's where we use it primarily.

The remote desktop connectivity is where we have our focus. That's the main use case. 

The product is stable.

We've never had scalability issues.

We want to reduce costs. They should offer a different pricing model. 

Some manual work is required now with Citrix, like installing some client agents, et cetera, which could be automated. We'd really like to see more automation in the future. 

It is not easy to set up. 

It's part of our application, so we've been working with the product for more than a year or so.

So far, the solution has been quite stable. I would rate it eight out of ten. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

We haven't had any issues with scalability. That said, scaling also depends on how many users are trying to access it at a given time. As we move some of these applications to the cloud, we will face the scalability question. However, those issues will be addressed later. 

We currently have hundreds, or even thousands, of users on the solution right now.

Technical support is good. I would rate them eight out of ten. 

Positive

I've also worked with AWS Workspaces. I also have experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I haven't previously worked with any other solution in this company.

The initial setup is not easy. For example, there are agents that need to be deployed and the agent deployment has some issues when the customer has certain patching or operating systems that are not compatible. 

While this solution is mostly on-prem, we are working to move more toward the cloud. We'll have to explore how we can leverage cloud capabilities in the future. 

I'm not sure how long the deployment takes precisely. 

There are a few ways customers may save costs by using this solution. 

It's basically to maintain the applications, especially medical devices. Typically, one way the product can save a company money is if a person would traditionally have to go to the site and find the problem. If there is no option for remote connectivity or desktop, then that can be expensive. That will add to the costs. 

A second issue is uptime. If you don't have the capability to jump on a machine and start troubleshooting right away, then it'll take more time to get the system up if something happens.

We'd like the solution to be less expensive and are looking for alternative options. The cost is on the higher side. We pay for the licensing on an annual basis.

The technical support costs depend on the contract. We have separate contracts that are different based on the customer. If the contract covers technical support, that is fine, however, if it's a basic contract, then we have to pay for the technical support.

I cannot speak to the exact amount the company pays at this time. 

We now want to see the other options in the market and make some comparisons. As we go forward with the next application, we will probably look at the whole picture and see the best product, especially from a feature and host perspective.

We need to see what's there in the market and which has less manual work. We want to see how we can reduce costs and also improve the overall CI/CD process of packaging something with the customer.

We're a partner. We are using Citrix both for ourselves and our customers. 

Citrix is one of the pioneers in this area and has been around for a long time. The technical support is good. From a usability standpoint, it's also good; however, there are some aspects, like hosting, and especially on-prem deployments, where some manual work is needed. It could be that we are not doing as per the latest guidelines or something, which we need to look at and see what we can improve. That said, overall, it's a good product for remote connectivity and remote desktop applications.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.