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

My focus has primarily been on publishing virtual applications.

Pricing and technical support need improvement. 

I have been using Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service) for fifteen years. 

The scalability of Citrix matches with almost all devices. 

The technical support was challenging in the beginning but now it seems to improve. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

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

Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is used to control our virtual machines and provide access to our devices from anywhere.

Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is capable of deploying and managing all servers or virtual desktop infrastructures.

The cost of Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is high and has room for improvement.

The technical support is slow and has room for improvement.

I am currently using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops.

Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is a stable solution.

Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is a scalable solution.

The quality of technical support is very poor. Insufficient staffing has resulted in delays in responding to tickets.

The initial setup is straightforward. The deployment process is simple. We just need to deploy the VDI server and its VDA.

The implementation is completed in-house.

Citrix licensing is expensive.

If we deploy in Azure, Microsoft has an advantage over Citrix because it provides effective solutions for deployment and management.

I give Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops a ten out of ten.

Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is recommended for midsize and enterprise companies because it is not affordable for smaller organizations.

I recommend conducting an analysis of the organization's requirements and compiling a list of viable solutions before proceeding to a proof of concept.

We use the solution for remote desktop access. 

The solution is deployed on the Citrix cloud.

The App is the most valuable feature.

Citrix should consolidate the multiple tools currently required into a single platform. At present, to access all the features, I need to log in to four separate locations and use four distinct tools.

I have been using the solution for four years.

The solution is stable.

The solution is affordable.

I give the solution an eight out of ten.

My use case for this product is to connect to secure environments. I'm the owner of the company and a user of Workspace. 

This is a simple solution and I like that I can connect remotely. 

I think there could be better integration with other vendors. If you install it on  a Mac, you get a message to say it's not working properly. I'm not sure why they'd develop a product not supported by Mac. 

I believe the solution is stable. 

The solution works as expected and I rate it 10 out of 10.

I need it to be able to access internal resources and work from a secure environment, wherever I am based. Frankly, security is my only concern.

I use the on-premises desktop virtualization and Remote PC Access. 

I am using it for personal use.

The only reason why I use it is I may need to access my files from anywhere that I am and where I cannot install a VPN to my place or anything else. I have managed to secure it enough to know that my files will always be accessible no matter where I am. I wouldn't use it otherwise.

I perform security tests with external providers.

The only thing that is really important for me is being able to connect from wherever I am. It is important for me because sometimes I am in places where there are not enough safe conditions to be able to work safely, in terms of security and confidentiality of my data. Being able to access internal resources from a secure platform allows me to work without fearing that my data has been stolen.

The NetScaler Gateway is very customizable. However, it is also a mess in a sense that you can't find what you want or where it's supposed to be. You are supposed to navigate dozens of manuals to find the right one. It is not well-organized. Then, it becomes messy when we talk about configuration.

Six years now.

I would rate the user experience when using the solution’s technology remotely as an eight out of 10, because it is normally quick and stable enough. The way it works, it may not be perfect, which is why I don't think it gets a nine out of 10, but it is stable enough to allow me to work. That is what counts in the end.

Since I use one machine, I don't need to worry about scalability, high availability, etc. I just have it up when I need it.

When I needed support for a couple of things, three people intervened. Each time, three people gave me a different answer. In the end, they did not manage to give the right answer. At a certain point, they stopped replying. That is no more than a one out of 10. If I could give a zero, I would give a zero.

Negative

I am using both Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops and VMware Horizon, so I am not really switching to Citrix. 

I prefer Citrix because it is faster and the interface is cleaner. The text is crispier. It looks like a pumped up version of VMware Horizon desktops.

The VDIs are very easy to set up. 

The NetScaler Gateway is very complex to set up, if you want to get to the right level of security. If you just want to set it up and make it run, then it is easy and takes 30 seconds, but it doesn't do anything. It is crap. If you want to really set it up, it is very complex.

The primary steps are pretty much forced. You install the Director and Studio, then you install the deploy machine, which makes it run. I'm not an enterprise, so I don't need to worry about all the preplanning. I just deploy machines and provide some cyberware. I just put it on the machine and let it run. In this case, that is very good. It allows you to do this with no real proper pre-thinking about how many machines you need to deploy, etc. 

To set it up as I wanted, it took me one month. However, I don't do that as a job. I just did it as a hobby or for personal reasons, which are not my job. Then, I worked on it when I had the time, not all day. 

Where Citrix really needs to improve is in their support and in the way that they manage their licenses. Everything else comes second because if I'm not in a position where I can get proper support or manage my own licenses in an easy way, then it is pointless. Today, I am at a point where I may not be able to use Citrix anymore because they want to take away some of the licenses that I bought, pretending they are not valid anymore. That is frankly unacceptable. If they don't solve this, everything comes second because I cannot use my product.

On a scale from zero to 10, I would rate pricing a zero. They are trying to take away licenses that I bought because they say they are not valid anymore, even if they are stated as permanent. On the site, they are characterized as permanent. They insist this is an evaluation version that I'm not allowed to use as permanent, which means I will probably be in a position where I can't work anymore. So, their licensing system is bad. The fact that I cannot relocate my licenses alone, but I have to go through and use their support center makes it even worse.

I do not know other vendors aside from VMware, Citrix, and Microsoft Hyper-V, which I am using as well.

• VMware is easy to set up as a pro and more cluttered as a con. 
• Citrix, as a pro, is very quick. As a con, their support in the licensing system is so bad that I may leave it very quickly. 
• Hyper-V is well-integrated as a pro. I just started working on Hyper-V so I cannot give any real con yet because I'm not yet at that stage. I'm still figuring out how it works. I have virtual machines running on Hyper-V, but it is really too early to comment on this solution.

Go for VMware. Seriously, they are the same thing. 

I would rate the solution as a two (out of 10). I cannot give an eight or nine (out of 10) to a solution that works well if the provider does not put me in a position where I can use it.

Make sure that you have data sources in-house to manage every problem because support may be useless. Make sure that you discuss well in advance and get written proof of what you are buying from Citrix, because there lies a risk not being able to work on your solution anymore from one day to another.

Citrix Workspace can be deployed in the cloud and on-premise.

Citrix Workspace can present desktop applications with ease, in an efficient and secure manner. The performance is good, it is a great piece of software.

Citrix Workspace can improve by being more secure, but this would apply to any solution not only Citrix Workspace.

There are times when the Citrix client is updated with a poor release. The update can effectively knock out aspects that were working previously. You can go one step forward, but two steps back. They will go through a period of having some very good software releases and then they will stop completely. It will take a couple more releases to get back everything that was negatively impacted. 

I have used Citrix Workspace within the last 12 months.

The solution is stable.

Citrix Workspace is scalable.

I have not had to contact the support from Citrix Workspace.

The initial setup is straightforward and simple.

The licensing of Citrix Workspace is worth it. However, it is expensive. Citrix is probably more competitive now than VMware, but it is still a costly solution.

I have evaluated VMware.

My advice to others is the initial installation is always straightforward, it's the second phase that you need a lot of good assistance or a lot of assistance to get it working right or working well. If you go into it thinking you can learn as you go, it's not that kind of solution. It is similar to VMware. The whole element about it is that installing the solution is easy and getting things up and running is not a problem, but getting it to work well in the environment requires a lot of expertise and you need to pay the money to get that to work well.

I rate Citrix Workspace a ten out of ten.

We use Citrix Workspace to login into our system.

We have several users and there are standards in the installation process because of the security. They have found that various systems with standard installations, restricting users to go ahead and install on their own.

Everything is managed through the infrastructure. ServiceNow is used for the CCM.

Everything is automated machine creations and installations. They take care of the machines with regular updates on weekends.

Everything is automated here, and there is no manual intervention for setting up any system if a new user is hired.

The feature that I like is that it is fast. For example, if I am new to the company, setting up systems can take up a lot of time, but, having standard automation in place allows this user to have the same set of software installed on his or her machine.

The only area that takes some time is that it requires us to get the approval. Once the approval is given, the system with everything is installed as a prerequisite.

Because it's a prerequisite, it's a standard installation in all the systems, there are no discrepancies because everything is standard, it's automated. If I am using a particular version, it will be the same version in my colleague's system.

It's very easy.

Performance is an area that can be improved. The meetings that use Skype in Workspace will lag when they run long or we screen share. At times, it is slow when there are multiple users on the server.

When it lags, we restart it to get it resolved. If multiple users are using a single server it will lag. 

The lag when using Skype or Screen Sharing with multiple users needs to improve, as it makes it difficult for us to continue when we have to restart the system. 

I have been using Citrix Workspace for almost one year.

The solution is stable, however, there are version discrepancies. For example, a new version of Citrix has become available and I am using the old version of Citrix the new version is not compatible with the Media version, which creates problems when using Skype or any video meeting.

Lag is something that we observe frequently, but it can be resolved because we have a guideline page that shows us the versions that should be compatible with our systems or Windows Operating System, and the Media Version, which is the Citrix HDX Realtime Media Version, should also be compatible with the Citrix Workstation that we are using. If both are good your system will work well.

It's a scalable solution and everyone in the organization uses it. We have more than 15,000 users.

We plan to continue to use Citrix Workspace.

I do not have experience with technical support. I have a PoC team that deals with them. They are quick to resolve issues.

We just need to create a ticket and ask for support.

Ther support is good and they are quick to respond and resolve issues.

Previously, we used A3 Machine, which was replaced by Citrix Workspace.

It is easy to install. There is a link provided on our homepage for login.

We just need to install it and restart the system.

It is very fast. It took half an hour or so.

Azure Desktop has been released and we will be using this along with Citrix Workspace. When we want to use something, we need to first have Citrix Workspace.

I have Citrix Workspace and on top of that, I can use Microsoft Azure Desktop, which may allow me to program in that machine. Citrix Workspace is the base and it works fine with most of our products.

Definitely, I would recommend Citrix Workspace to others who are interested in using it. It's very handy, portable, fast, and easy to install. Also, it is the standard amongst all users.

I would encourage everybody to use Citrix Workspace.

We are quite satisfied. I would rate this solution a nine out of ten.

The most valuable feature is the seamless application edition with the low-level network bandwidth because we have between 10 and 15 sites in France with a low level of communication needs. We need to deploy our main application, the ERP system, and we needed an efficient solution to provide a solution to the remote sites, with very small links between the data center and the remote site.

The application is now very complex. We started with Citrix on PCs. Now, to access the same application, we need to have a StoreFront Server. It's now very complex.

If we want to make a clean application, we need to have StoreFront for the web access between the receiver or the Workspace client. And then have StoreFront connected to the Delivery Controller. The Delivery Controller is connected to the database, NetScaler, which we use to secure remote access.

In the beginning, we used three servers in a load-balancing environment but now to run the same application, it's on many servers.

The price is a little higher compared to other solutions. Big farms need big infrastructure, but for mid-business like us, it's complex.

I have been using Citrix since 2002. 

Citrix is stable. We had an issue two weeks ago because of full infrastructure maintenance and some strange issue but it was the only incident we had.

We can say it's stable, but we are dealing very carefully with updates and upgrades too. It's getting a little bit more competitive now to upgrade because we have many components to upgrade.

When this is deployed it's stable, but when we think about upgrading some components, it can be more difficult. We need to do the updates carefully. Normally, we used to have a test farm, but it's expensive to have test farms.

It is easy to deploy a new server on the application.

I would recommend Citrix if the IT team is at a good technical level with people who can deal with many technologies.

I would rate Citrix Workspace an eight out of ten.