Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

The first use case was related to the development and testing environment. Before COVID, it was also for remote connections for work from home, to have access to a protected environment.

The solution has improved a lot.

It's simple to set up. 

It is stable. 

The solution can scale according to the hardware available. 

The solution isn't as good as the Citrix option.

I used the solution for ten years. 

It's a stable, reliable product. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

There are some limitations in terms of the the ability to expand. It's scalable according to the hardware limitation or the virtual environment limitation.

I've also used Citrix. I prefer Citrix to Remote Desktop connections. The management and flow are better.

Hyper-V is also challenging Citrix. However, Citrix has a strong reputation still.

The initial setup was not complex at all. It was very straightforward. 

The connection for the client is embedded in the system. You just need to configure the servers and credentials. 

We did not calculate an ROI, however, it does offer more features than we needed and therefore offers great value for money. 

I'm not sure about the licensing. The licensing policies are changing in the Microsoft environment, so I'm not sure how it's licensed at this time. 

My understanding is that it is expensive. Even if we negotiate, it depends on the business you have and the volumes you run an issue for.

With the rules changing, the licensing can be complex. 

I was a reseller and partner. 

I'm not sure which version of the solution I used. 

We started using the solution on-premises and then deployed it to the Azure cloud. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. It's simple to deploy. Users just need to negotiate a price and handle tasks around their server license. 

The most valuable aspect is it is handy. We just start up the servers, and we can call the remote desktop, and it's connected. And that's it.

The product is stable.

It is easy to set up.

The solution is highly scalable. 

The performance depends on connectivity. The refreshing screen rate is based on the internet and the bandwidth. It can therefore be unstable. 

It would be nice if they had a portable version. This would make it much better. Sometimes we cannot install it on some machines. We just want to use it once and don't need to actually install it anyway, yet we can't. 

I've been using the solution for 20 years. 

The stability depends on the connectivity. If there is terrible connectivity, it will be unstable. In general, if the connectivity is there, I would rate it four out of five in terms of stability.

The scalability has been very good. 

We have about 20 licensed users on the solution right now. 

I've never called technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

I'm familiar with TeamViewer and Desktop Anywhere. They are good, however, we are concerned they have issues surrounding security. That's why we prefer this product.

The initial setup is simple. It's not a complex process. 

The solution comes in a bundle, which offers a cost-savings to customers. 

I'm not sure of the exact price. I don't deal with that directly.

I'm just an end-user.

It's on-prem and we have a server or a cluster to form a group of servers to provide. We are our access from other countries as we have some colleagues working in Britain.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We use the solution as a remote desktop. It allows us to access Windows services.

The solution offers good access to desktops remotely. It makes work easier. 

The user interface is fine. 

It offers reasonable pricing. Microsoft is very reasonable in its approach to cost.

The solution is stable.

It can scale well.

The initial setup is simple. 

It offers good centralized security features. 

The solution offers many updates. Every week we get updates.

It offers very good functionality.

The solution is not missing any features. 

It could offer better security for enterprises. They are not always on top of security.

I've been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable If the network k is very stable, you won't have issues. I'd rate the stability eight out of ten. We haven't had any issues. 

The solution is scalable. It extends well. I'd rate it ten out of ten.

We have about five network and system administrators on the solution. If we increase resources, we may increase usage. It's very easy to increase users as necessary.

We have never used Microsoft technical support. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The deployment only takes ten minutes. 

We simply need the remote server parameters in order to make the connection and finalize the setup.

We only need one technical person to deploy and maintain the product. A system admin could easily manage it. 

As long as I have the remote server parameters, I can handle the setup myself. 

We do have to pay a licensing fee. The pricing is not too expensive. It's very reasonable. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd recommend the solution. Microsoft of very reliable, and its remote desktop is great. However, there needs to be more security.

We primarily use the solution as a remote desktop.

The solution's capabilities are great. I like the remote capabilities.

It has a lot of features. We have everything we would need in a remote desktop.

The solution is stable.

It is scalable.  

Technical support is helpful.

The solution offers good value for money.

For Microsoft, maybe bandwidth optimization is one of the areas that need improvement. They also need better support for video applications, like Teams.

I've been using the solution from the beginning. 

The stability is fine. If we have the right bandwidth, I would rate it nine or ten out of ten in terms of reliability. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

If you have enough bandwidth, yes, it's scalable. However, if the bandwidth is limited, there is a problem. There should be better optimization for bandwidth utilization.

About 50% to 60% of the company uses the solution. 

I've occasionally reached out to technical support. They are helpful and responsive. 

Positive

We used Splashtop solutions, not TeamViewer, and this is also quite a good solution and offers good quality. However, Microsoft's solution offers better support and a more convenient way to optimize support from one administrator to many users. Microsoft's processes are much smoother.

The initial setup's level of difficulty depends. For the administrator, it is simple. For the VDI solutions, it's quite complex.

While the solution is more expensive, it is worth the cost. I'd rate the value you get out of the solution a four or five out of five. 

Usually, at the moment, in Poland, the customers are implementing a hybrid solution. We are looking at this approach as well for our customers. The solution can be implemented on-premise and in the cloud. Certainly, most vendors try to position it as a cloud solution. However, sometimes it's quite challenging to convince the customer that the cloud isn't possible. That's why we are looking at vendors who offer broader implementation options.

We are an end-user and also a Microsoft partner. 

We have the solution on-premise; however, for the VDI solution, which is not a technical remote desktop. We can see the Remote Desktop for administrators or for end users. For the administrator, it certainly is on-premise; for the end user, the VDI solutions, in Poland, we have on-premise and also pure cloud solutions.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. I'd recommend the product to others. 

I primarily use the solution for online work.

The initial setup is simple. 

It is scalable.

The solution is stable.

I don't really like the solution in general. It's like Microsoft made me use it. I didn't have a choice per se.

The price is too high.

I can use a VPN and get the same results while using an actual desktop.

I'd like to have more courses or training available. 

I've been using the solution for a few years. I've used it since around 2019. It hasn't been an extremely long amount of time.

The solution is really stable. I'd rate it ten out of ten. I've had no issues with reliability. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability is good. You can basically keep adding licenses as needed when you have new users. We have four or five users at this time.

I've never had to use technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. 

I have used TeamViewer in the past, however, it's quite different from this product. I used the consumer version, not the enterprise version.

I found the initial setup to be quite simple and straightforward. You only have to add a Remote Desktop license. There's no need to call or involve anyone else. 

The solution comes at a high price. It was not cheap. 

I'm a reseller.

I could recommend the solution to others if they need it and it makes sense for their use case. 

I'd rate the solution six out of ten. It's too much of a cost.

I use RDS to connect our servers.

The most valuable part of RDS is that it allows you to work from any location and check the server through a VPN connection.

Users have to re-enter their ID and password every time they log on, which is tedious and repetitive. It would be better if the system could save users' passwords between sessions.

I've been using RDS for around ten years.

The cloud version's scalability is better than on-prem.

Microsoft's technical support is helpful, but its speed could be better.

The initial setup is very simple.

I would rate RDS eight out of ten.

We use Remote Desktop Services for a few things. My experience started with Microsoft Remote Desktop when I tried to reuse really low power desktop machines to turn them from these desktop machines into class remote desktop terminals. That is my initial experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop. My most current experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop is using a specific Microsoft product on the servers where you don't have any chance to administer them using the web browser. SCCM, active directory administration and other Wintel server roles are most handy and the most secure to administer from the Microsoft Management Console. Therefore, you need to do it at least from some instance of the Microsoft windows server.

I like that it works. In most cases, it's predictable. You know what you get.

Microsoft still has some really bad remote desktop appliances for Mac. This is really frustrating because if I'm on windows I can remove the Microsoft remote desktop applied for Windows, but I'm already using windows, I always have an option B. I can still plug directly with Microsoft management console from the windows station and still do something remotely. But on a Mac, I have to rely purely on the Microsoft Remote Desktop. 

If I need to pass second-factor authentication, not a one-time password thing, if I do a Microsoft remote desktop session, I have to reach the first server, which is my best one. From that server, you're actually going inside your protective network. Then on the second spot, you are not able to pass a YubiKey and go any farther. That creates the problem. We have had many support tickets.

With this new company, I have been using this solution for two and a half years, but overall I have 15 years of experience.

It is being used mainly on a Mac platform.

I would say it's stable.

In the last setup, we had 3,000 users. It wasn't the nicest experience.

My experience with support is varied. It really depends. It varies depending on which support line you get. If you say you're a particular engineer then they won't really bother to support you. But if you say you have an enterprise contract and that you're a big company and you have a contract then they offer better support.

We previously used Citrix. Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is a more developed version of Citrix.

I would recommend going for VMware.

Microsoft programs are never easy to install but the installation wasn't something we didn't expect.

We deployed it on our own.

We use enterprise orchestration so it doesn't take too long to deploy. Microsoft products do not really play along with the open-source orchestration platforms. Once you overcome this, it becomes easier.

I would not recommend going with this solution because I wouldn't recommend going for a big enterprise setup. 

I would rate it a four out of ten. 

In the next release, they should develop better support for remote desktops for alternative platforms. It's really lacking consistency. If I have to support terminal server clusters and I have to do change management on the big cluster, then I actually run into a lot of issues both on the Microsoft Remote Desktop as well as Citrix. They should provide a consistent user experience. It's a pain to roll out changes into a different mode of the cluster and to propagate them over multiple modes. I end up in a situation where a portion of my users get the changes and the other portion doesn't.

We have some of our client applications deployed onto the RDS platform, and we need to test those applications through RDS Web Access. We need to test how external users access these applications from different networks, like the cloud gateway or external locations. As a part of the QA team, I need to check if users can access the applications without any issues.

Basically, I also work with Citrix, and I think the most important thing is getting access to Citrix. Microsoft developed the RDS solution for this purpose, and we don't see any issues accessing applications from Microsoft RDS. It's a good solution.

Users have reported that sometimes when we try to initialize an application, the session disappears one out of ten times. So, maybe it can be one of the areas of improvement. We are still investigating the issue, but we believe it might be due to a network or server issue.

Because this was the only issue I experienced was with the initialization of the session, which affected the stability of the service.

It's a project-based thing for me, so I move into different technologies depending on the project. I worked on Microsoft in June, and now I am into RDS. Currently, I am working on a project for RDS, and once that's done, I may move on to another technology. So, I've been using RDS for around three to four months.

It is stable, but users have reported that sometimes when we try to initialize an application, the session disappears one out of ten times. So we have to download the session file again and re-initiate the session. This issue occurs occasionally, and we must click on the application to reinitialize the session.

We are actually trying to get some insights on the issue with the initial initialization of sessions from the architect, also.

Overall, I would rate the stability a seven out of ten because we still need clarity from the architect. Is it something in the world of technology, or do we have the same issue? Or is it something that we are getting this issue because we moved to a new enrollment? We are just awaiting that.

It is scalable. Currently, we have 19 host servers, and each host is serving around 20 sessions or so.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten, where ten is very scalable. I haven't compared it with other solutions, but as an end-user, I believe it is quite scalable.

We have around 600 people, but about 300 to 400 users use the solution concurrently. Nowadays, we are using it regularly due to people working from different locations, but previously it was mainly used when people were working remotely from home.

The customer service and support team is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is not that difficult. I have gone through the RDS initialization steps, which only seem easy.

I would rate the setup around eight because I haven't compared it with other tools yet. But overall, I'm comfortable with the solution.

For the deployment process, in the current scenario, we have this solution from one vendor, and we are migrating it to a new platform. So it's not a complete configuration but rather a lift-and-ship process from one platform to another. We've been working on it for a long time.

We have around four to five people for the deployment and about four to five people for testing the applications after migration. There are a couple of architects who are looking into all the configuration changes in the lift-and-ship process. And there are also a couple of managers and a few quality assurance people.

For maintenance, the client has a partnership with Microsoft for maintenance as part of this deployment.

I would recommend the solution to people, especially for its security aspects and device compatibility.

I would give it a nine, it's good overall.