Horizon 8 Reviews

Our current use of the solution involves the two specific projects in Arreaspace Kiasat, which involves catering to both the needs of the client and the server's functionalities with a Linux based approach.

The most valuable feature in this solution which really helped for my use case was the stand out three dimensional acceleration. It was really important for enhancing the performance for certain clients based on their scenarios.

We have used VMware Horizon since 2021.

The stability is also reliable and the solution gives a very constant performance with a rating of 8 out of 10.

In our case, the scalability is average as it serves its purpose effectively but only caters to the needs of 100 clients only, so I will rate it 5 out of 10. Horizon is best suited for enterprise level companies especially considering the benefits in terms of pricing as VMware is now under Broadcom's ownership.

I am incapable of providing direct feedback on the tech support of VMware as we have channelized our support to the first line through Fujitsu, our OEM.

Compared to competitors, Horizon outperforms Citrix in recent years due to Citrix facing security issues. As an alternative, when cost is a concern, we occasionally turn to the open-source solution Waccamola, although it lacks the extensive functionalities of Horizon.

Pricing for Horizon is relatively high, earning a rating of one out of ten.

Overall, the solution itself deserves a solid seven to eight rating out of 10.

I use VMware Horizon as a VDI software since I use a workstation where access is needed for the virtual desktop.

The benefits of the product stem from the fact that it is cheaper for a company when a user accesses the workstation with the help of Linux. It is possible to set up a workstation with the help of a Linux system, after which its users can only access Linux within their Windows system.

The most valuable features of the solution stem from the fact that it is easy to set it up, and the user experience it provides is just like a normal desktop.

I don't know what needs improvement in the product since it is a standard system, and that is okay.

The product fails to support Mac or Apple workstations. The product should be able to support Mac or Apple workstations, like how it supports Windows and Linux.

The UI of the solution needs improvement, and there is a need to upgrade some of the systems in our environment to ensure better IOPS on our systems. Presently, the IOPS rate is lower than usual for our systems, which might be because of the hardware we use in our company.

I have been using VMware Horizon for more than three years. I work with the old version of the product.

Most of the tool's users are not really satisfied with the product, and I guess that the solution was mostly used for development purposes.

It is a scalable solution. If users want more memory, they can add memory automatically or add more disk space if required.

Our company only has 10 or 20 users of the solution. Earlier, we had hundreds of users of the product in our company.

Proxmox is an open-source solution that I use. Compared to VMware Horizon, Proxmox is a free and open-source solution for which there is no need to pay anything toward the licensing charges. Compared to Proxmox, VMware Horizon is a more stable tool.

The product's onboarding process consisted of a simple installation process.

The solution provider took care of the product setup phase.

There is no maintenance required for VMware Horizon, and all a user has to do is upgrade the solution whenever required. The product notifies its users of the upgrades that it provides.

Google Workspace is a good alternative to VMware Horizon Horizon. Google Workspace functions as a cloud-based product. Users who want a solution deployed on an on-premises model can opt for VMware Horizon.

I rate the overall tool an eight out of ten.

The VDI access in my private cloud involves encapsulation in VMware Horizon. It also reduces the network traffic bandwidth if you're accessing Linux virtual machines using the native clients since it uses a lot of bandwidth.

VMware Horizon is beneficial because it reduces bandwidth consumption when accessing VDI or the virtual infrastructure. It's more secure compared to accessing a Windows desktop using RDP. It enhances security, provides better app utilization, and improves performance using graphic-intensive tools like Photoshop or 3ds Max. Using the Horizon Client makes it easy to work on those tools.

Along with the high pricing, the profile synchronization mechanism also needs improvement. Citrix has a feature that allows profiles to be stored in a network location and synchronized across multiple desktops, but Horizon doesn't have this. Also, Horizon lacks support for ARM clients and native clients for Windows 11. Adding these features would enhance its functionality.

I have been working with VMware Horizon for the past two years.

The stability of the product is also high, and I would rate it a nine. There are no significant issues.

For scalability, I would rate it a nine.

I haven't contacted VMware technical support directly because most resources are available online. I assume it might be challenging to reach vendor support.

I believe the main competitors for VMware Horizon are Microsoft and Citrix. According to Gartner, Citrix is the top solution and has been in this space for more than ten years. Horizon is still evolving and has issues like a lack of support for Windows 11 and ARM clients.

Setting up VMware Horizon is straightforward. I have experience with deployment through VMware Horizon, and it is satisfactory. VMware Horizon offers features like clone technology, including instant clones, and I’ve used them successfully in my deployment process.

The license cost has increased significantly, so we’re helping some customers with Azure VMware desktop solutions to save on licensing.

VMware Horizon integrates well with other products, including Azure and different vendors, especially within the VMware suite.

It should evolve and support all kinds of client environments. The current pricing structure might not be a favourable investment for clients. I recommend Horizon because it improves security and performance and reduces bandwidth consumption.

Overall, I'll rate VMware Horizon an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for VMware Horizon is facilitating remote access to our compute clusters for our developers. VMs predominantly run on Linux systems, specifically utilizing RHEL 8. The developers connect from various locations in Europe.

The product integration on local client machines running Linux needs improvement.

We have been using VMware Horizon for four months.

We have approximately 100 VMware Horizon users in our organization. We never encounter any challenges for scalability.

We have escalated the issues related to backup during the USB tunnel integration process for virtual machines.

Positive

The initial setup was easy, including the onboarding process. It took us two and a half months to complete, which was longer than expected due to the vacation season. We have to update the triggers for maintenance.

We took help from a third-party vendor for implementation.

At present, they provide decent pricing in terms of bundled licenses. However, they might increase the price after the acquisition.

VMware Horizon has proven to be the only best product for enabling individuals across Europe to efficiently run jobs on our compute cluster while accessing the graphical user interface of their Linux machines. The main benefit lies in robust security features.

From the point of view of virtual desktop deployment, it gives standardized access to our users. Its most valuable feature is the rapid and versatile access from clients operating on various Windows, Linux, and MacOS systems. It has benefited users in terms of speed and reliability of the connection, including security aspects. We never encountered any issues related to the reliability and uptime of the platform.

One area for enhancement in VMware Horizon that would greatly benefit our use cases involves improved support for USB connectivity, allowing seamless tunneling of USB devices from laptops to the virtual machines running in the VDI. Additionally, addressing a bug related to integrating Active Directory and Linux environments is crucial for reliability.

We have designed an independent IT infrastructure for Horizon. Thus, the scalability creates no disturbance to our overall infrastructure.

We have compared a few features of other open-source products. VMware Horizon is better in terms of graphical user interface for Linux users.

I advise others to consider infrastructure, virtualization, network, and storage requirements before making a purchase decision.

I rate VMware Horizon an eight out of ten.

We implement VMware Horizon View for clients who want to replace physical site clients with a virtual desktop infrastructure solution, either to enhance geographical performance and reduce site clients or to add a security layer to their desktop environment.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the clone variant. We have been using the linked clone for the past five years, but I am willing to support and take on the function of the instant cloud. 

The clone variant enhances the solution's functionality, making it more beneficial.

In the latest versions, the deployment of certificates on the console has been implemented. Although it is functional, it is not working as well as I would like. I hope this feature can be improved in the future.

To enhance the user experience, it would be beneficial to have the Unified Access Gateway (UAG) integrated within the console. This would eliminate the need to switch to a different VLAN or access the DMZ separately. With a direct link from the connection server to DMZ, users could easily access the UAG website without leaving the console.

I am working with the latest version of VMware Horizon View.

It can be challenging to assess the stability of Horizon because it relies heavily on the underlying infrastructure, including vCenter, network, and storage performance. 

It is important to pay attention to these factors when evaluating the stability of the system.

We rely on vCenter, network, and storage performance, and any weakness in these areas will affect the performance of Horizon. When discussing this with customers, I always emphasize the importance of these factors.

If the foundation is solid, Horizon should not experience any performance issues.

If the fundamentals are weak, we will encounter issues with Horizon on a regular basis. However, the product itself, VMware Horizon, is highly stable.

While the Horizon product itself is very stable, it is important to be well-informed about any potential side effects from using other related products.

I would rate the scalability a nine out of ten.

There are adjustments that can be made, potentially resulting in a score of ten.

I have good experience with it, and I find it suitable for all sizes of companies. The POC is starting with 10 or 20.

In all three environments, we haven't had many large-scale deployments. Typically, they range from around a thousand to two thousand desktops. I haven't had any projects in my years of experience where the initial deployment started with a thousand or two thousand desktops. The deployments usually start small and then grow over time. The customer typically wants to test if it fits their needs, so we conduct several POCs before moving to production.

As someone who has been using this solution for a while, I find it to be quite complex. Initially, it was very good and remained so until around 2015-2016. However, in 2018, I noticed that the response time had increased, and I had to escalate the issue to the supervisor. 

There seemed to be a gap in communication that had not existed before, and it was difficult to understand the next steps.

Previously, I had direct communication with a technician until 2018. However, now I am talking to someone who is a classifier and perhaps several tiers away from the actual technicians. 

Therefore, sometimes I don't feel the same level of dependency on a consultant or technician as I used to.

We have a lot of VMware products in our company also converting other companies.

We use Workspace ONE.

Based on my background with Citrix, I have found that Horizon is often a more straightforward solution in many cases.  It's less complex than Citrix.

It's beneficial when the customer has the mindset that the implementation process might take a month or two or three. However, that is not the case with VMware Horizon View POC. We can finish it in just a matter of days.

We implement VMware Horizon View for customers who require application access within their virtual desktop image. When external services are involved, we typically use tools such as ASH for management and integration.

The ASH tool is a standard in the Citrix world, and when we talk about Horizon, we tell customers they don't need LDSH or terminal services. We don't have a license for those and it could cost a lot of traffic. Instead, we can implement the application on the image, which is something the customer should be aware of.

The initial setup is straightforward, and it follows a logical structure both in the cloud and on-premises. I wouldn't want to change anything about it.

Currently, we only have on-premises solutions in-house. However, we have many clients who use hybrid and cloud-only solutions.

It depends. For me, the choice between on-premises and cloud deployment depends on the specific use case. However, I personally grew up using on-premises solutions.

I am primarily focused on on-premises deployments. I am also excited about cloud deployments and their capabilities, I tend to prefer on-premises solutions. When given the choice between cloud or on-premises deployment, I typically choose on-premises.

I would rate the pricing of VMware Horizon View a five out of ten. The price is average.

I would rate VMware Horizon View a nine out of ten.

Nothing is 100%.

I am selling and consulting the product every day. I am behind the product. 

I use the solution for application delivery and data security for external people.

The most valuable feature of VMware Horizon is the VDI service, which helps externals use their own devices while keeping the data inside our data center.

The solution should provide easy configuration.

I have been using VMware Horizon for around one and a half years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Since the solution is on-premises and we are moving to the cloud, scaling down is very easy. On the other hand, if we would deploy a lot of new VIs, it would be very easy to just add them. VMware Horizon is very flexible when scaling up and scaling down. Around 2,200 users in our organization use VMware Horizon to deploy the main applications.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution's technical support is very good. When we face issues with VMware Horizon, the support team creates patches in less than three weeks. If there are issues, the support team is very involved in finding out what's happening and solving the issue.

Positive

We previously used Citrix. We switched to VMware Horizon because Citrix was not as flexible as VMware Horizon was for us. The supplier that won the contract was in favor of using VMware. So, VMware Horizon came with the supplier we selected.

Delivering legacy applications and overall stability was challenging while setting up the solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a five out of ten.

The solution's actual deployment before we got into the pilot phase took about six months. The solution's deployment process included design, implementation, testing, and distribution to the end user. We had five people, including two from the supplier and about three internal people, to deploy the solution.

We needed to keep our legacy applications running because the business is reliant on them. If the applications stop, the business stops. In that case, we had no choice but to choose a technology like VMware Horizon.

We paid a lot of money for software that is not really fully operational out of the box. We had to have patches from VMware to get it into production. Hence, we lost a lot of time implementing the solution. We have a three-year contract, for which we pay about ten euros per user per month.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

I am using the latest version of VMware Horizon. I think one person from the supplier does the maintenance for VMware Horizon. We can implement our zero-trust strategy using VMware Horizon. It's a big part of our zero-trust solution. So, external people only have access to Horizon instead of having direct access to our company data with their devices.

Users should make a good comparison between cloud solutions Azure VDI and VMware Horizon, especially now that the company has been sold to a private investor.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven out of ten.

VMware Horizon View is easily scalable. Its onboarding is easy and comes with flash provisioning features. 

We would like to see better performance with the product. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate VMware Horizon View's salability a nine out of ten. My company has more than 3000 users. We continue to onboard around 20-30 percent of new users. 

I rate the tool's initial deployment an eight out of ten. Deployment takes two to three hours to complete. It is a simple OEM SOP. You need around two resources to complete the deployment. 

We did VMware Horizon View's deployment in-house. 

VMware Horizon View pricing is high compared to other solutions. I rate it two out of ten. Its licensing costs are monthly. 

It is better to go for AVD on a private cloud than a public one since private clouds are expensive. I rate the solution a five out of ten. 

In my previous project, we used Horizon to connect three remote offices with the main headquarters for centralized business applications.

It's centralized and secure, making it great for business.

There is room for improvement in support. The response time could be faster.

Configuration and driver support could be simplified. Integrating profiles with Active Directory [AD] is still complex.

I have experience with this product for five to six years. I have worked with v5, v6, v7 and v8.

It is a very stable product.

We can upgrade it and even add new features. So, it is a scalable product.

There are delays. When you're stuck, they answer the call and find someone, but resolving the issue might take one or two days.

Neutral

We used Citrix in non-production environments. But for production, we prefer VMware.

As a technical expert, it was easy to implement. I have a technical background spanning over 17 years. 

But for someone less experienced, it could be trickier, especially setting up client-side agents and drivers and integrating with AD services. But those issues can be fixed. So, deployment is easy.

The pricing depends on the use cases. It depends on the company's needs and budget. For us, it was okay, not too expensive.

Our company is a vendor for over 200 clients. We specialize in migrating infrastructure, on-prem data centers, Hyper-V, VMware, Boxmark, Citrix, any platform, any server, any application database, Oracle, Postgres, SQL Server, EDS, and anything. We move it all to Azure for replication, backup, and high availability.

Just find the right vendor. Check for local experts and certified vendors. You might need their technical help later.

Local vendors usually have technical guys and certified experts who can help with any scenario. I've dealt with upgrades and daily issues for over six years now.

Overall, I would rate the solution a nine out of ten.