Horizon 8 Reviews

We use the solution for the virtual desktop environment. Our customers are mostly from the financial sector. 

The solution's most valuable feature is low bandwidth consumption. It helps to improve user experience.  

VMware Horizon View needs to improve orchestration and integrate additional images. I would also like to see its statistics.

I have been working with the solution for eight years. 

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

I rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten. My company has four financial enterprise customers using it. 

The technical team assigned someone promptly whenever we encountered any issues, and the issues were resolved. 

Positive

I rate VMware Horizon View's deployment a five out of ten. You must install different components to get it working, which is cumbersome. We completed the deployment in three to four days. Once the hardware is in place, you proceed to provision your password and select the components you want to use.

I rate the product's pricing a seven out of ten. Pricing can be an obstacle for smaller businesses. Pricing is fixed, and there are no additional costs. 

I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten. 

I work in a public school where some teachers and staff work from home. We use the product in the home office. 

I like the tool's security. It is also easier to roll out the software updates. 

I like VMware Horizon's ability and performance. 

VMware Horizon needs to integrate with Azure, Teams, and Zoom. 

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate VMware Horizon's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has over 150 users. 

We contact our partner for first-level support. 

I rate the tool's deployment a nine out of ten. It can be completed in a few hours. 

VMware Horizon is expensive. It should provide a special price for more user licenses. 

I rate VMware Horizon a nine out of ten. 

The solution's most valuable features are its ease of deployment and ease of distribution of the desktops and the applications. It is quite an easy product since the end user does not have to go through much of a learning curve.

I have not come across many of the product's weaknesses. Considering the tool's weaknesses, the product probably has scope for some improvement in the context of how the applications or Linux operating systems are delivered using VMware Horizon View. In general, I want VMware Horizon View's compatibility with Linux to improve.

I have experience with VMware Horizon View. I am a technical trainer who teaches others VMware technologies. My company has a partnership with VMware.

I find the product to be quite stable.

It is a scalable solution.

I have used Citrix VDI in the past.

I have lost track of Citrix VDI since I have not used it for a few years.

Some detailed and in-depth documentation on the protocols, like Blast and PCoIP, would be good.

The time taken for deployments completely depends on the customer's call.

I have seen a lot of improvement in VMware Horizon View over the years because I have been teaching it to others for quite a few years now.

I don't find any issues with the product's interface since it is easy to use and does not pose any issues.

The documentation of VMware Horizon View is quite good.

Most of the environments have many implementations going forward, and then our company regularly comes across the need for VMware Horizon View training. My company is not into advisory roles. We just get or receive and deliver the training.

The product is easy to use.

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

The use cases mainly depend on our client's needs and requirements. One of the reasons is the high cost of hardware and associated maintenance and time it requires. When you have 300-600 systems, managing maintenance tickets and replacements becomes a significant challenge.

With a stable VDI in place, clients/end users experience fewer issues. A large number of users can easily have required changes in configurations across the entire stack on the back end without disruption to their work. VMware Horizon offers additional features in VDI that are not possible with localized systems or laptops. We are currently utilizing it partly with labs involving DNA analysis and with various forensic tools. However, its primary use case is for office environments.

It gives you better control and management options for adjusting performance requirements and securing the environment.

The use of VMware Workspace ONE with Horizon is quite impressive. VMware Horizon availability on both the cloud and on-prem and its flexible licensing options are worth noting. 

In addition, combined with ThinApp it offers efficiency and stability for the system, which is not always available in alternate solutions.

Speaking from my perspective, I think they could work on reducing the cost. There is room for improvement in the pricing model. 

I would like to see improvement in the license cost and the availability of perpetual licensing for Horizon. The solution offers a Term and subscription license.

We started setting up VMware VDI solutions many years ago, but the most recent deployment was completed in March 2023. The latest installation is of Horizon 8 and it's been a month since it was deployed.

It is stable. However, when shifting from a laptop or desktop environment, there are certain expectations that need to be set correctly. For example, users in some lab environments or universities have a habit of shutting down systems at day's end. It can be inconvenient and it either needs to be disabled or the VMs need to be restarted. These challenges can be addressed within a couple of weeks, and then everything becomes stable. So, stability improves over time with proper configuration and SOPs and as users grow accustomed to new environments.

I would rate the stability a nine out of ten. 

It is highly scalable. The architecture allows POD architecture/design, accommodating anywhere from 300 to 20,000 end devices/sessions. The scalability depends on the specific needs and the capabilities of the network infrastructure.

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten.

From a technical standpoint, VMware Horizon is quite reliable and stable when compared to other products. It certainly has an edge in terms of stability.

The installation can be either simple or complex, depending on your desired configuration and the type of integrations you need with active directories and shares. There are plenty of options available. 

If you want a basic setup, it can be easily configured. However, you should have a good understanding of how the product needs to be set up. It's not overly simple, but it's not overly difficult either. The documentation is very comprehensive and helpful. As long as you have knowledge of the product and its components, such as the Connection Server and the licensing features, you can successfully configure it. Some training and support may be required.

If you have the necessary training, it will be easier to handle the deployment process.

The deployment time depends on factors such as the number of applications, templates, clients, and desired features. Generally, you can deploy it within two to three days and start working. We have two engineers for the deployment.

The same two engineers handle the maintenance as well.

VMware Horizon has subscription-based TERM licenses with many flexible options. I would really consider it to be of great value if VMware starts to offer perpetual licensing which used to be available.

We work with Several Virtualization Technologies and HCI systems including VMware vSphere, Oracle OVM, IBM PowerVM, Sangfor, Huawei FusionSphere, Microsoft Hyper-V, and H3C Workspace/VirtualDesktop. Nevertheless for VDI, our primary choice has been VMware Horizon to date.

If you have large contact center users or significant office users, and you are looking for a long-term ROI over a period of ten years or more, VMware VDI would be a suitable choice.

We are using VMware Horizon View for R&D. We use it like a machine that we need 24/7 at any cost. It should be accessible from anywhere, whether on an office premise or over the internet. But there are a few locations such as in the case of contractors, where we are not allowed to provide our machine. Here, we provide VDI infrastructure to them. They then connect the VDI and work. We integrate their system with Microsoft's Remote Desktop Service. Further, we tag the RDS with the solution. It acts as a connecting bridge between Microsoft hardware and the remote server.

VMware's most helpful feature is its ability to work like a centralized management system. When I say centralized management, it includes everything from vulnerability to application management, and much more. Regarding an R&D environment, we can quickly roll out VDI on their customized operating system. VMware is beneficial for customized platforms that offer auto-promotion and auto-deprovision. 

Initially, they had a VMware security server, which they replaced with a UAE server. The reason was to include more security features. They also included a load balancer feature on customers' demand. But, the paging server should have security enhancement features, which we can rely on and configure for small-scale businesses. They should provide high-end security at the initial stage. They are coming up with a hybrid cloud as well. There should be a function where one can connect and work; whenever not required, one can deprovision it. They should add things like voice interfaces. Whenever you need VDI, it should be a seamless experience. So those are the features I would like them to improve.

If I want to do any upgrade, in case of a zero-day vulnerability, I have to log out of every system. Then, it could be CCM, or it could be patching, or some other solution. We need to wait for the user to come online. To tackle this issue, they should include a feature like Golden Image management. So that we can build multiple VMs.

We used to work with VMware 3.2 and were the first to implement it back then. We used it for over two to three years. Recently, during the COVID time, we again implemented VMware for the remote management of VDIs. So, we have been using the solution for nearly twelve months now. We were testing and using it.

We need to understand every component, from the first tool to the last, and make a call accordingly. We must implement all the best practices and have a backend storage connection transfer. We need to specify how many VDIs and storage are required. If you calculate everything perfectly, it is a stable product. I don't see any issues in our environment other than a slight issue regarding an agent. Because when the VM agent starts to run from and talk to the different VMware servers, there could be a network interruption. We need to make the changes according to the review of the five users. It's a stable product.

It is a scalable product. We have around 50-80 people in our company using the solution.

I contacted them for a query about one of the zero-day vulnerabilities. They provided some assistance but it didn't help with the security scanner. Again, we interacted with the level two team; they immediately released a fix for that. They are doing it well. They have a proper installation matrix in place. They will do it easily if you ask them to escalate to the next level. You just need to instruct about the engineering level for assistance.

Positive

I had experience working with Citrix. But, I needed more confidence in the product because it depends on the active directory. Its value of profile and image management depends on Microsoft group policy. You cannot use the Citrix hypervisor because it is not stable. Comparatively, VMware is a good product. You get a bundle of features with VMware. With it, you don't have to depend on any other vendor for authentication.

The setup depends on the requirement. Implementing VMware 3.2 was a critical setup, as we were the first to deploy it. With the current setup, the site for deployment, even if it's a dedicated VDI, an automated VDI, or some golden image-based VDI, has no redundancies. The only thing is we need to have some networking knowledge. We need to know which port must be open from where to where and see the proxy and direct model. Also, we need to have a basic understanding of firewalls and networking. It helps us do an implementation faster.

Then it comes to redundant CR architecture, which includes the UA layer, the other view, and different standpoints. If we don't understand the account, we can implement it from an infrastructure standpoint. When it comes to a VDI, we get multiple ways out. Sometimes, auto-provisioning becomes complicated. When you need more automation to meet the requirements, it becomes redundant. We need an end-to-end understanding of the security networks, AD architecture, profiling, group policy, etc. We need to know how the authentication standpoint works. The port must be kept open from one authentication server to capture all the details and complete implementation.

I have been working with Microsoft products for twenty years. I advise others to be clear about their requirements, the use cases, and the kind of VDIs they need. They should know whether they want a centralized management system, out of provisioning, or if they want to build a VIN. They should also decide which purchasing programs to opt for. VMware is the best fix for the organization because they are prevalent in the hypervisor.

I would rate it as a nine. The reason is the number of tickets we have raised to VMware compared to the Microsoft product.

Our primary use case for the solution is to give end users clone desktops, and they can use their applications. So instead of providing a desktop, we give them a computer with just a client, and everything is loaded in that VDI session and not directly on that workstation. We deploy the solution on-premises.

The solution has provided flexibility by allowing an end user to remote in, log in, and get their VM. VDI session and have all the icons and applications they need to use and retain the same booking view regardless of location.

We have found the link loans for desktops most valuable.

The customer service and support team could be better.

We have been using the solution for approximately six years and are currently using version 7.0.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 800 users are utilizing the solution in our organization.

I rate customer service and support a six out of ten.

Neutral

We did not previously use other solutions.

The initial setup was straightforward, and two people were required for deployment and maintenance.

We have seen a return on investments.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but the technical support team can be improved. My advice to new users considering the solution is that it is a good option. It is easy to set up and not that difficult to implement.

We use it in our call center, in the warehouse where we prepare products for stores, and in the warehouse.

We have 1,000 users in my organization. It's deployed on-premises. We stopped updating it in 2013 and 2017 because we used Windows 7. 

When COVID-19 started, we organized our call center remotely. The solution allowed our users to work from home.

I like that it updates quickly and allows users to have virtual desktops.

I would like to see more useful monitoring within users and a more useful help desk. 

I have used this solution for about six years.

We haven't had any problems with the infrastructure. There haven't been any bugs, but there have been glitches in the newer versions.

We haven't had any problems with scalability. It works quickly and we can scale up our infrastructure within about 10 minutes.

For technical problems, support has been fast. They were critical for implementation and installation.

I have also used Citrix.

When we started using Horizon, Citrix was more user-friendly and integrate-able. But we've found that the new version of Horizon is more useful and user-friendly with each new feature.

For Horizon and all other VMware products, setup isn't easy, but it isn't hard. Maybe the problem is with the documentation and consultation. After consultation with my colleagues in other companies, they gave me answers to all my questions.

In previous years, the documentation was not a problem. With the latest version,  there's too much documentation compared to their last available version.

It took about two or three weeks to set up. We worked to prepare images and tools for our several user groups, which was used as a test to prepare for switching.

There were two people involved in deployment: me and a network administrator.

There haven't been any maintenance requirements.

I would rate this solution nine out of ten. 

My advice is that users are interested in relevancy, and the version is not important to integration.

We are using it to provide our users with a personalized desktop experience when they're working remotely, especially during the pandemic.

We are using its latest version. We usually deploy it on-prem, but I know that there is a possibility to put it on the cloud.

It is simpler and faster to deploy new versions and updates. It is also easier to make sure that everybody is using a standard image or a standard setup.

One of the most interesting features in the enterprise version is the ability to do some support. There is a feature for remote control and debugging, which is something we didn't have before having Horizon 7 and the enterprise version.

It is safer in terms of viruses and other types of attacks. If a machine ever becomes compromised, you can just destroy it immediately by logging off and having it recomposed.

The most important feature that is missing is the ability to do some remote support on the client itself. For example, if somebody has a Horizon client installed on his machine, there should be a way to support his local machine as well. That's because most of the problems can't be solved very often due to the computer or the setup that someone is using on his personal machine. Because a Horizon client is already installed on the machine to access the environment, it would be nice if the client itself possessed some sort of remote control tool in it so that if needed, we could support both the virtual setup and the actual setup of the machine. It pretty much does everything well. It is mostly the support aspect that can be improved. You have perfect control over your in-house environment. You have a solution that can pretty much be used anywhere, but you have no control over the machine that's being used to access your environment. Definitely, that's where most of the features are lacking. There should be an option for remote control and maybe some options for conformity. For example, if somebody installed the Horizon client on their shared computer, there could be some safety features or safety checks that were implemented in the client itself to make sure that the person using it is not using a compromised machine or something like that.

Its integration with third parties can be improved. Sometimes, there is a lack of integration with third parties. For example, we had issues at some point with Adobe products running in virtualization. I know they have a very hard time running in a virtualized environment and performing correctly. They work, but they're very slow, and they're hard to support.

I have been using this solution for probably close to two years.

The solution is very stable. It is very robust. The most fragile factor is the actual VM or the OS that you run on it. You might have a good virtual desktop solution, but if your VM that is running has an actual bug in it, such as a faulty patch or a problem that has to do more with software, then you're stuck with it anyway. 

Its scalability is very good based on what I have seen so far. It is easy to scale it up or down, and I haven't seen any constraints of any kind.

Usually, at any given time, there are close to a hundred users who are using it. It is used by all departments. We use it everywhere, and it is used extensively. We don't really plan to extend it because it is already fulfilling all of our needs, so we don't need to upscale or downscale it. It is just perfect right now for our needs.

It often depends on who you end up with. I've seen some people who go the extra mile and solve your problems really easily and quickly. If they don't have a solution, they'll make sure that somebody is able to help you. I've also seen the complete opposite at times where you have trouble trying to get follow-ups. It really depends on who's handling your case, and the fact that their support center is in India doesn't always help. I don't know if it's a language barrier or a social barrier or something else, but it's not easy. They are on the better side than the worst, but there is definitely room for improvement.

We were using Horizon 5. Before that, I've used different technologies but not in this environment. I've used a Citrix Metaframe in a different environment and not at this job.

It was very straightforward. It was a lot simpler than previous versions.

It was an in-house job. We were using Horizon 5, so we already had some experience with the product.

For its maintenance, one or two people are enough.

We have definitely got an ROI.

It is hard to know for sure. It is definitely in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. It is quite expensive, but you do save money on desktop power, desktop upgrades, etc. You're able to extend the useful life of your previous desktops. Previously, we used to change desktops regularly, and now we just change them when they break.

If you're currently looking for a solution that's in-house, it's a great solution. If you're looking into something that's more cloud-based, then you should definitely try a successor, which is a Horizon 8 or Horizon Air.

I would rate Horizon 7 an eight out of 10.