Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops Reviews

My primary use cases for Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops are for:

• Anyone who wants to modernize their business continuity plan
• Anyone who wants to deal with data regulation compliance
• Anybody who wants to promote a work from home or remote-first strategy for their employees and team members.

In terms of the hardware and software that the service requires our company to make use of, we can typically decommission if our client has existing servers. We can decommission after moving the data off of them. 

My firm is hardware apathetic. I don't care if it runs Citrix Workspace. If our clients want low cost and high performance, we generally point people to the Ncomputing RX420(HDX) which is a Raspberry PI 4 device that mounts very neatly onto the back of the monitor and it can link into their network via wifi or ethernet connection.

It's a fantastic little device that is very manageable, cost-effective, and tends to last for quite a long time. Every time I've put them into place, the desktop environment is a little bit different than what people are used to. The mouse movements are not quite as good as a full house computer, but we're spending a couple of hundred dollars for something that's going to last five to 10 years, versus buying a desktop or even a lightweight desktop for $600 or $700 which is going to last three to five years. Most of my clients have been pretty excited about that trade-off.

There have been radical improvements in IT efficiency. Cost savings are on a case-by-case basis. Some of my clients were not going all-in on any kind of management solution, so their initial monthly cost was higher when they went to Citrix. In most cases, it's a push. They're spending about the same money in either direction. But in a lot of cases, when you start to factor in the cost of downtime, the cost of inefficiency, the cost of a data breach, everyone is realizing much lower costs of management and ongoing costs to their IT department.

It's difficult to approximate how much it has saved because on one hand, I have a client that has 45 or 50 users and they realized a much higher increase of efficiency. A task in the previous model took half an hour, and under the new model, it takes five minutes.

When you spread that over 50 employees, that's a much higher percentage of drop than if a client has 10 employees. It's difficult to approximate but averaged across all of our clients, there is around a 25-to-30% reduction in costs.

We leverage the following technologies: 

• Application virtualization capabilities
• On-premises, desktop virtualization
• Cloud-hosted desktop virtualization
• Citrix managed cloud-hosted desktops

The fact that we can work from any device from any location is the most valuable aspect of the solution for us. In the last year, people have been restricted in their movements and we haven't been allowed to just show up to work. The fact that my clients can leverage a remote-first workplace that allows them a greater ability to recruit from a larger geographic area is valuable for us. 

You don't have to be able to commute to a major Metro in order to work there, you can work from any location. If you want to take a few days with your family but you have some projects that you're working on, it's going to take some of your time, but not all of it. You can just go to your Airbnb or wherever your family is staying and work remotely, do your job, and spend the rest of the time with your family.

Team members are relieved that they can continue to work and put bread on the table. They are relieved in the dichotomy that says they can put their family's needs ahead of their workplace's needs or vice versa. Maybe a child has a medical appointment or a social engagement that they would like to be at. You can fit those around your work schedule, work it out with your children and with wherever it is that they're going. In that way, both the employer and the employee realize a lower cost of operations. They realize increased flexibility and agility in their life. That dichotomy is either minimized or removed entirely. That's been very, very groundbreaking for them.

The deployment and management of hybrid Cloud Apps and Desktops is not 100% seamless, although it is very good. When you start mixing a third-party or a cloud-hosted app, it is generally pretty seamless. You don't notice a difference between a web-based app that you run on a physical machine, on a virtual machine, or through a Workspace. I have not seen any problems with that. A legacy application or a computer-aided design program has very specific requirements that can be a challenge. But with a little bit of research, once you settle on the solution, it's pretty good.

Security is a shining point of the Citrix Workspace. Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops is a very robust solution when security is a concern. Furthermore, the content collaboration data-hosting that Citrix integrates with Virtual Apps and Desktops is among the best there is.

It is the same for the security of clients' intellectual property and data when remote employees use the solution. Content collaboration allows you to share data securely and is supported with two-factor authentication. You can have a consolidated data set with a widely distributed workforce and they can all be on the same sheet of music, all accessing the same data. Version control, access control lists, anything you could wish for, is available in their solution stack.

Citrix simplifies the adherence to industry regulations for data protection and for compliance. HIPAA, for example, if you share that data over two or three different clinics or facilities, you have to create and maintain some sort of SD-WAN or VPN in order to make sure that those applications and those datasets are shared only between those locations. With Virtual Apps and Desktops, that either reduces or removes the need for either the VPN or an SD-WAN, because they aren't actually sharing between various locations. You are accessing that data set through various locations. The benefit to that is that you have reduced complexity at the infrastructure level so there's less to troubleshoot. There's less to go wrong.

Templating the deployment process could use improvement. When you start, there are a large number of details that are quite client-specific, although they do share common themes. To get somebody up and running in a day is very difficult to do. They should streamline by use case.

There's always going to be an outlier that doesn't really fit neatly into any one use case, so that's going to have to be more customized. An accountancy firm has sensitive data. They are prime targets for identity thieves that are always looking for an easy target and low-hanging fruit. If they were to template a deployment for an accountancy firm with all the needful things that every accountancy firm is going to have to have, it should be that you can just radio button the Apps so that accountants can tell the backend that they're going to need certain things. Then you can say, "We have this number of users and they need this number of spare desktops - go." And it just built the Azure environment. That would be really great. I don't know that it's actually possible, but it would be really good. 

The other issue is the stocking orders and the monthly reports. They're difficult because we don't do it every day. We do the stocking order once a year and there's always confusion on the backend.

I've been using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for Azure for a little more than a year now. 

I would rate their support highly. They're very good and very responsive. We had an incident last year that dragged on and on but that was in the thick of having half the workforce that they were used to having and a radically increased call for service because of the pandemic. That's not really a true representation of what they could do. 

Most of the time, if there's an issue, I can fire it off to one of my account managers or through the Citrix portal and get a response back within, depending on the severity of the incident, a few minutes or up to the next business day. Depending on the severity of the problem, the next business day might be just fine. If it's just a little slow and it's irritating, but it's not causing anybody to not be able to work, the next business day is fine. If we're down and we need help right now, having 24-hour support would be excellent but that's kind of impossible.

I've had a client on board with me that was moving from another Citrix provider. They were working on hosting their own Citrix environment and they needed something that wasn't going to fall apart on them. Their customer service really flagged over the last year or so. They moved from a Citrix provider to me.

The deployment strategy widely varies between clients because, on one hand, I have an accountancy firm as well as another very similar solution for a defined benefits management firm. They have very similar needs but their business model is such that even though they've got the same needs, the way I have to meet those needs for each different client throws a monkey wrench into it. 

On the other hand, I have construction companies and engineering firms that could not be more different and customizing the solution for each of them and their needs is challenging. I can get the bones of the infrastructure up in two or three days. Then it takes another two or three days, at minimum, as much as maybe a week or two, to get everything dialed in just the way they like it before we start going into production.

The shortest amount of time I've seen it take to complete implementation is a week but it has taken a lot longer. 

I have seen ROI. It's opened me up as an outsourced IT department to seek and win much more lucrative contracts. Citrix has allowed me to pursue larger clients. Because when you are all on the same sheet of music with how this solution works, how it's supported, where you can deploy, and how onsite support really becomes almost a non-issue, you can seek clientele from every location, not just where you can drive to. It's allowed me to scale quite a lot.

My pricing advice would be to watch your Azure costs. If you're not used to it, like I wasn't last year, they can get very high very quickly and you can go upside down on your agreement very easily.

There is a steep learning curve. In the Cloud-hosted Virtual Apps and Desktops model, as a general rule, there's a high learning curve. If you're going from only providing local assets to your clients, a local server, local workstations, and you're going straight into Virtual Apps and Desktops for the Cloud in Azure, really do your homework. Really learn the tool, really understand how it's supported because you'll save yourself a lot of trouble down the line if you do. If you've got the resources available, throw one person at cost analysis for Azure. So that at least one person in your organization really understands how much something is going to cost to deploy and keep running so that you can size your agreements correctly.

If I could, I would rate Virtual Apps and Desktops an 11 out of 10. I will rate it a ten out of ten. 

We use application virtualization capabilities and on-premise desktop virtualization. In one of the companies, we are using remote PC access or remote access to physical desktops. We used cloud-hosted desktop virtualization for a PoC.

Our organization has over 15 companies all over the eastern region. We are in manufacturing, distribution, technology, and many more things.

It provides the flexibility of being used on any device. It is good in terms of user experience. Generally, if you want to run an application over the internet on your virtual desktop, you need to have many things working well to have the same experience that you will have if you were are working on your own laptop. It provides a good user experience in terms of working even with not-so-high bandwidth.

There is end-to-end security not only for the application itself but also for the users. We need to ensure that the applications are always protected and the connection between the user and the application is also protected. 

Integration with the cloud provides a seamless experience. You can publish applications over the cloud, and you can access the workspace and your application on your computer, your laptop, your tab or iPad, or on mobile devices. It works well with your Apple, Android, or Windows devices. It works with everything. There is also a system where you can remotely assist any person who is running any specific application.

There is good integration between Citrix and Microsoft applications. You can also optimize the user experience with certain configurations. Security plays a very important role in working with Citrix in terms of dealing with group policies, legal policies, and application policies. You can apply the required policies. For example, you can have a clipboard policy where people cannot copy or screenshot stuff.

It is very easy when it comes to the deployment and management of hybrid cloud apps and desktops. You are working only in one console, and it is straightforward. You can see everything there. You can see the policies, rules, profiles, and whether you want to have it on the cloud or on-prem.

When it comes to the security and protection of critical business applications and desktops, 
there are certain business applications that some companies prefer not to publish or not to have on virtual desktops in the cloud. However, when we're talking on-premises solution, it can integrate with any published application. If you're working on certain projects or certain versions, you will not have any issues in terms of the version because the configuration is based on the server and not on the client PC. For example, some Oracle application or ERP application needs certain plugins to be available, and users didn't have those on their laptops. In spite of not having them, they were able to work on these applications through a virtual desktop.

It simplifies adherence to industry regulations for data protection and compliance with all kinds of security policies. 

It benefits the overall business operation and reduces the total time of managing big applications. The applications are available at any time of the day. Previously, if anyone lost his computer or had his computer damaged or something like that, we had to take that computer and reinstall everything for a staff member to be able to access the application, whereas now, the staff member can access the application through his phone or another computer. His information is there on the service from any place. So, it impacts the availability of applications, and it saves a lot of time to replace a damaged PC. In certain cases, it also saves a lot of cost of buying new Windows or new hardware for the applications, so we can use old laptops to run these applications. It saves time and money.

It saves the cost of buying new PCs and the maintenance. It saves 50% to 60% of the total cost of a new device that needs to be bought for any new employee or for a specific service. It saves a lot of money and reduces wastage.

It provides security of our intellectual property and data when remote employees are using the solution. The main thing is that you can create your own policies and you can specify what applications users can run based on the locations. For example, if they are working in Dubai, they don't need to access all data in Lebanon. We can create profiles and policies for them. In the group configuration, you can just integrate it with Active Directory or another security platform so that the configuration can be applied to the region.

It is very efficient to work with a thin client. There are no problems with integration with various devices.

We're running it on-prem. We are working with Hyper-V and vSphere, and we don't have any problem with that. We can run any server and storage. It can work with any hypervisor. There are no restrictions.

First of all, the manageability of the applications for publishing is valuable. Second, it is about being able to run the applications on all main platforms. Third, its licensing is valuable. You can either switch to the cloud and keep on-prem. You can work with this hybrid scenario.

As an admin, for managing the devices, the interface is very user-friendly. There is no problem, and it is very good.

Licensing service installation and configuration was the biggest challenge for all Citrix solutions, but now they have fixed a lot of issues.

I have been using this solution since 2013.

We have companies that have around 500 users, 100 users, and 50 users. The biggest company has around 1,000 users. This company is all across the region.

We will increase its usage depending on the business and the requirements.

They were excellent from a project management standpoint. They helped us with issues related to licensing. 

If we need any online support, they are able to provide that. Their support is fine.

I used to work with VMware Horizon.

It didn't take a lot of time. Within a week of entering into an agreement with Citrix to use their service, I was able to administer and work with it.

We had everything that we need, and their support team in Lebanon was very helpful. In less than a week, we were able to administer and install applications. At the initial stage, we also had to develop our own profiles and policies, but it was very straightforward. There was no complexity. It took around two hours for installing the Citrix and the license service, and it took around two days to configure the profiles. We had three people for deployment.

You can buy an on-cloud or on-prem license. You can switch between on-cloud users and on-prem users.

Its licensing is cheap. It is from $8 to $15 per user. It is not that expensive when you compare the cost of buying new hardware with the cost of the license. For example, at $15 per user, it costs around $180 for a year, which is cheaper than buying a $600 PC that at a certain stage, you will again have to change because its hardware is not supported. It may also get damaged or stolen. So, you can compare the cost of the actual hardware that you have to buy and the time spent in supporting the clients with the cost of its license.

I evaluated other solutions such as VMware Horizon and Microsoft Remote Desktop Services. Citrix works seamlessly on different platforms, and its bandwidth consumption is very low. Desktop profiles, integrations, and remote assistance were also the main factors for going for Citrix.

To get the benefit of the return on investment, you need to plan well in advance when to change all of the laptops, and you also need to train the users to cope with the new environment or new structure.

I would rate this solution a nine 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.

LG Uplus is using Citrix for internal groupware. Every employee here uses Citrix to access the VDI to make some Word documents or PowerPoint presentations. We are not allowed to use our local PC resources at all. 

The second use for my team's project is that we are reviewing the potential for a virtualization solution for our customers, who are mainly video editors. We offer them a low-price alternative. Instead of buying our high-end desktops or workstations, they can save money by virtualizing some application solutions. 

This is deployed in LG CNS, which is a subsidiary of the LG group. Most LF subsidiary companies are a part of the LG CNS solution. LG CNS solution is combined with Citrix, which means that if you work with LG CNS, you have no choice but to use Citrix.

First, since we adopted the Citrix VDI, we are no longer dealing with the problem of leaking the customer's personal information. Second, we aren't investing a lot of money in buying new personal laptops. With the VDI, we aren't relying on a high-core CPU or memory in each employee's laptop. Because the functions that require a lot of memory and CPU are happening in the cloud, we can just give the employee a basic Pentium CPU laptop.

The Virtual Desktop Interface is very important because we have many departments for customer service. For example, we have operational storage and also we have a customer call center. Most of the customers are calling about a security problem. 

Before we adopted a VDI storage solution, our customers' personal information was leaked. This happened a lot. But since we adopted a VDI solution, these kinds of issues have happened rarely. Of course, we banned each user from installing or sharing software, like peer-to-peer sharing software. There is no chance that a single user could leak personal information by mistake through unauthorized access.

Virtualized solutions are very important. Because of the high-speed internet service here, I think the virtualization application solution can be adopted in a B2C market for customer service.

We've tested a lot of cases with the Citrix solution and found that it's okay when the Citrix virtualized solution is adopted over the laptop or desktop. But it has some latency issues—a lag between the input device and screen—when we test it with a smartphone or tablet. The reason that users use the virtualized desktop is they want to access a Windows 10 application, but they need their keyboard and mouse. Every employee complains about the performance or quality of their VDI. After we adopted the security solution, I think the performance is quite better. But employees are still complaining about the speed of the VDI.

Latency is also a major problem when adopting Citrix for video editing software or 3D editing software, especially editing 4K video or large file size. The Citrix virtualized solution becomes too slow, so we cannot use the VDI. For the streaming, Citrix needs to improve its screen resolution problems because this is a market trend. We produce and use a lot of high-density videos. If Citrix cannot improve these kinds of issues, then we might not be able to use VDI anymore two or three years from now.

Citrix doesn't offer any solutions for the virtualization of macOS, either. I think we could use that kind of service.

It's been around 10 years or so.

I would rate it very low actually. Because here in Korea, most of them are for sales, not technical assistance. For developing some applications, we have to choose or test virtualized applications. But call up Citrix agencies—sales agencies—they say they cannot solve the technical issues. We have to find some technical references through the internet or through developers who have some experience with Citrix.

Internally, the IT department uses Citrix. For developing customer service for my team's product, I use Hyper-V's client solution instead of Citrix, because the price of the Citrix virtualized application solution is too high. Citrix only provides the B2B license here, so they don't have any B2C license. I use Hyper-V-based applications and virtualized solutions because of the price issues.

I think it was very complex. It was difficult to install Citrix by ourselves, but we have an IT department and a PC maintenance department. The initial setup required around three people. But after the initial deployment, most employees don't have any trouble with installing Citrix solutions. For each user, it takes around half an hour. For example, I broke my laptop and had to get a new laptop. I personally asked the IT and PC maintenance departments to install the systems again. It took them around 30 minutes.

We have a dedicated IT department. They have a contract with Citrix and they're employed here. 

It's tough to say whether we've really seen any cost savings. Many people don't believe the Citrix solution lowered the total cost of the whole system. But I think if we adopt an application virtualizing service, then we can reduce costs a little bit more. 

Currently, everyone here is using the same public cloud server resources for every software. but if we adopt a virtualized application solution, then the IT department can choose which software needs a lot of resources and which can adopt lower-tier public cloud resources. That way, we can save a lot of infrastructure costs.

It's my understanding that the solution license fee for each user is around $300 US. If we buy a personal laptop for each employee every five years, then the total cost is five times $300 US, or $1,500 USD. So we could buy 100 personal laptops instead of the Citrix solution. If we compare the cost of a high-performance laptop and the price of the Citrix solution, the total cost savings is very small. But we can improve the security issue.

I think the speed and latency of Hyper-V are quite good, but one thing I worry about is the security issues. Our internally developed client for the Hyper-V solution doesn't have as many security solutions as Citrix does. As I recall, LG CNS has its own VDI solution. At this moment, there are some solutions that can replace Citrix, like FreeVDI, an open-source VDI, for example. We have tried using those kinds of service solutions in some departments, but they didn't quite meet our expectations.

I would rate Citrix seven out of 10.

The challenges we were looking to deal with by using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops were: How do we protect our data and how do we make sure that our data is not leaked out? We have deployed Citrix for most of our critical applications so that our users are using the Citrix VDI.

We have deployed it for a small number of users, between 1,500 and 2,000. To deploy it, we are using some Cisco hardware that we had available and some of the existing hardware within our data center. We have it on the web right now, but going forward, we are also moving some of their solution to the cloud.

We are using the application virtualization capabilities, on-premise desktop virtualization, cloud-hosted desktop virtualization, remote PC and physical desktop access.

The solution simplifies adherence to industry regulations for data protection and for compliance. Overall, from a cyber security point of view, in terms of data leakage as well as patches and upgrades that are required to be deployed to multiple endpoints, Citrix makes it very simple. That clearly helps in terms of mitigating risks at a very early stage.

The security of our intellectual property and data is enhanced because of the roles we have defined very precisely. People only have access to the data they are supposed to have access to.

The most valuable features of Citrix are the remote desktop advantages and the remote desktop environment for our remote users.

When it comes to the security and protection of critical business applications and desktops, it works very well. We were able to achieve what we were looking to do using the Citrix solution. It provides all of the features required for the protection of data. For example, we don't want to allow any copy/paste of data to an outside environment, and we are able to restrict the VDI to not allow any data transfer from the VDI to the local laptop's hard drives. That is one of the greatest advantages the solution provides. We also lock the USB.

We get complete control using the single, cloud control pane of Citrix. Using it, we can control the deployment of VDIs, which helps.

There is room for improvement because it has a lot of dependency on Active Directory and other things. If they could come up with something similar and native, a complete solution portfolio would help.

We have been using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for about one year.

As of now, we don't have any plans to increase our usage. Our consumption has been good during COVID, but we have been able to achieve what was required from our existing licenses.

There were some issues initially, in terms of the requirements, and there were some delays.

We did not have a previous solution.

Once we entered into an agreement to use the service, it took three to four months before we could start using it. The initial setup at our end to use the service took about a month to a month and a half. It was complex to some extent in our scenario, but as we worked on it and did a deep dive, we were able to do what was required for the deployment.

In general, they met our expectations for services delivered on time, on budget, and on spec.

We had our enterprise architect team and the project teams deploying the solution, as well as the respective business people who would be working very closely with their end-users. It was a team of 45 to 50 people. For maintenance, we have administrators as well as people who handle the required setup for the environment and who do troubleshooting.

We had help from a Citrix partner. From a project management standpoint, I would rate them at eight out of 10. The project management resources are not available from Citrix itself. They have to rely on partners and, sometimes, the partners also have to rely on the OEM.

The prices quoted initially were on the very high side, and there was room for negotiations, considering the competition and the options that are available directly from Microsoft now. The Microsoft options were not that mature at the time we were looking for a solution.

We looked at other solutions to some extent, but Citrix had already been in the market for a long time, so we started using Citrix. 

Citrix does not have its own hypervisor and VMware was very close competition. It would have also been a good, equivalent choice and there would not have been a problem using it. Then we looked at the financials and that aspect was left to the procurement department for negotiations. Overall, we gave a slightly higher rating to the VMware product, but senior management said that they would like to go with Citrix.

My advice would be to look at the options available and at your specific requirements. You need to find the best match for the overall integration of your ecosystem in terms of how it is with Office 365. And you may be using multiple SaaS solutions. The product you choose should be able to match all of those requirements.

The biggest lesson is that, during COVID, Citrix has come in handy for us for working remotely. It's a good solution.

The solution provides the flexibility of being used on most devices, but not on every device. It covers 80 to 85 percent of devices. In terms of the user experience, when we asked employees to work on the VDI, they were not entirely happy, considering the performance compared with a normal laptop or a desktop. But overall, the user experience is good, an eight or 8.5 out of 10.

The solution has enabled us, as an organization, to embrace thin-client computing, but I wouldn't say we have seen savings as a result. Citrix cannot function alone for organizations that have Office 365 deployed. Office 365 forces you to pay for a lot of other solutions and services that Citrix also has to rely on.

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.

The solution is primarily used for provisioning the desktop for the employees in the company, including different layers of employees. We have different groups using the PVS, the provisioning tool. We are provisioning different groups according to the level, according to the department, et cetera, to deliver a specific desktop for employees who are working at home.

The PVS technology itself, the provisioning, is great. It's very easy. It's very simple to alter the main image or the golden image. 

It's also very secure. 

I find Citrix is a stronger option in many other aspects since it's one of the most mature in the market. It's ancient and it's always developing itself to add new things. 

The initial setup is easy.

Scaling is straightforward. 

We have had issues with certain aspects, which is why we are looking for alternatives. For example, the firewall solution from Citrix is a bit complicated. Integration is hard. It needs a higher understanding of the network. It's not plug-and-play. When I deal with it, I always need assistance from the network team if I need to alter anything. It should be simpler to deal with. 

When I was doing comparison research, the thing that I found really interesting in Horizon is that the firewall setup is easy. It's like a wizard menu, and it's well-documented, so it's not hard to alter anything in the firewall. Maybe the feature that I want to be added to Citrix is well-written documentation and a wizard just to let me know what is going on in the firewall, how to edit things, and how to easily deploy something on the firewall. Do I initiate a rule or decline a rule? They just need to make it easier for me to troubleshoot firewall issues.

We're a company working for a certain customer and the customer has been working with the VDI since it started, so for a very long.

I've been working with it for a year.

The stability is pretty good and there are no real issues. The one concern is the firewall. If there's any error, U2 a firewall error, we were not able to easily modify it or easily solve it due to tissues with integration. You really need higher network knowledge. In the end, security issues or any issues on the firewall will affect the stability in the end. 

We are always adding new PVS machines. As an operator, we're always asked to add new PVS machines to batch them, update them, add new machines, and add new images. It has been very easy to scale and everything is a click away. There are no issues while scaling.

The organization is huge, so I cannot say exactly how many people are using the solution. The organization has around 750 servers. On each server, there may be hundreds of machines. There are lots of users. There are maybe tens of thousands of end users actually using the desktop as a service through Citrix.

We don't really deal with technical support. All errors that we face, we are able to detect ourselves as an operator. We don't open any tickets with Citrix support itself. We don't have any experience with the support that Citrix provides.

Since the start we were working on Citrix.

It is straightforward to set up and implement. 

I participated in editing something in the image itself or while provisioning. That said, the main deployment happened long ago, and we are operators, so we were not really in the middle of the actual process of the deployment. 

The errors that we had during maintenance are typically all due to the firewall and its networking of it. Other than that, things are smooth, and all the errors are detectable. If it's an error in configuration and any other aspects except, of course, the networking of the firewall, it may be difficult. Otherwise, for other aspects, everything is easy to maintain.

I'm the operator for a customer, so I'm not really aware of the licenses. They do the deal with Citrix and we just operate the infrastructure or the VDI. I don't really know how much it costs in reality.

I was comparing this product against Horizon. I wanted to compare both solutions in case we need to migrate from one solution to another.

The company wants to migrate to the cloud so that's why we are searching for an alternative - to see if we should replace Citrix or keep on working on Citrix.

We are working with Citrix VDI, and we are mainly working on the PTS for provisioning.

I'm a system integrator. I'm dealing with the latest version of the product.

It's a very well-known solution, and it's very efficient. However, you need to dig deep into the architecture of it just to understand it and grasp it well, especially how things are calling one another, how things are operating inside the APIs and all the networking inside, and how things are working in the architecture to be able to work with Citrix and actually understand everything that's going on it. 

If you face any error, you'll be able to know the cause and easily go to the root cause. However, you must first understand the architecture, understand how things are calling one another, and how the networks play. Then, start step-by-step working on it, on the application itself. If you have good knowledge, you'll find working with it very easy.

I'd rate the solution a seven out of ten based on the fact that we did rin into a lot of issues related to the firewall. Other than that, Citrix works fine. 

We were looking for a way to deliver the desktop to the end-user securely and within a short time. We leverage their cloud-hosted desktop virtualization.

We use Azure Cloud and, in terms of laptops, we give them to our employees but, because of the COVID situation, sometimes they work from home using their personal laptops to connect to the office environment. They use Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops as a medium.

Before we used the solution, when an employee would join our company it would take us between seven and 14 days to completely configure and give them a laptop. Now, within a maximum of one day they get their computer and can start working on that system. It has simplified things for us.

The solution also simplifies our adherence to industry regulations for data protection and for compliance. For data protection, we have watermarking enabled and the solution opens in full-screen mode so that end-users cannot toggle between VDA and their desktops. The solution also disables use of the clipboard to copy data from the VDA desktop to an endpoint device. Moreover, there is an option to disable even taking a screenshot of the virtual desktop. All of these features help with data protection.

For compliance, we have our own URL to access our desktop server. We can also create a tenant-based method for deploying the virtual desktop for each project, and we can group them. Also, the communication between the endpoint and the virtual desktop is encrypted end-to-end. All communication is over SSL and TLS connections.

The most valuable feature is the watermark because most of the time our employees connect from a remote location. In case they photograph the DDA or some data, the watermark will show which user did so and from which IP they connected. That makes it more secure.

The solution also provides us with flexibility so that it can be used on any device. We mostly have Mac and Windows machines.

In addition, Citrix uses its ICA (Independent Computing Architecture) protocol and for end-users with less bandwidth, the Citrix connectivity enables them to work.

They need to adapt more quickly to the latest additions to the Microsoft operating system. If Windows 10 comes out with a new version, there are compatibility issues and it takes them a lot of time to release an update.

Also, even though they support Linux, as with Windows, we are not able to use the latest version. They need to bring more simplicity to the Linux Virtual Desktop.

I've been using Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops for one year.

We don't have that many users, but the scalability is good. If required, there is no limit on the number of users. Currently, we have about 5,000 users on virtual desktops and about 1,000 are using Citrix.

In terms of support they are lagging. They take a lot of time to respond. Once they connect, they take a lot of time to resolve things, especially when moving things from L1 to L2 and L2 to L3. Their backend people keep on changing and it can be annoying for us. It is not that easy to get support. The support is not that great, although it has improved when compared to a year ago.

Neutral

Once we put it on a Cloud Connector, and if we are using a test cloud, it is very easy to deploy. If you want to deploy the ADC, then it takes some time to consider things, but otherwise deployment of Citrix consists of simple steps.

Because we are deployed in the cloud, it took us some time to configure the ADC. The rest of the components were deployed in a week's time, but the ADC took a lot of time, because there were a lot of compatibility issues. We followed the documentation, but it took some time for us to settle the configuration. The ADC is used to connect Citrix to the end-user system so it is a critical component. Deploying the ADC on the cloud is a complex process.

From the time we entered into an agreement to use Virtual Apps and Desktops, it took about six weeks to eight weeks until we could use it. On our end, there were two or three IT people involved.

The Citrix integrator we used was moderately helpful. They tried to help but they didn't have much experience with a cloud deployment. They were able to do on-prem fast, but GCP took them a lot of time.

Our deployment is in its initial stage so we cannot say there have been cost savings, but in terms of security, it is good. It has also improved the efficiency of our IT department by approximately 20 percent.

The pricing is a little bit high, but it's good value for the product's stability and efficiency.

You need to choose the right licensing, whether it is the Advanced or Premium Edition.

We have used Azure Virtual Desktop and some other solutions as well, but compared to all of them, in terms of the performance, the screen refresh, and security, Citrix is number-one.

Citrix is an enterprise leader for virtual desktops. We cannot compare Citrix options, usability, and simplicity with Azure Virtual Desktop. With Azure Virtual Desktop, there is a lot of slowness and audio will not work. When it comes to an enterprise-grade or first-class option, you need to look at Citrix.

You need to think about ADC. If you are planning a deployment in the cloud, you need to be well aware of what will work and what will not work with ADC. Otherwise, it will be difficult.