Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

The users connect to a central server and share the physical or visual server resources. They use the remote desktop environment for office documents, operations, and company-specific programs.

The solution works perfectly. The tool shares computer resources perfectly. It provides the necessary security options.

When we update the environment, we face problems sometimes, and the users cannot use the system.

I have been using the solution for about 10 years.

The tool is stable. Sometimes, the updates break the system.

The tool is very scalable. We can add and delete objects from the environment easily. We have approximately 500 users.

The setup is straightforward. It is easy to deploy. Microsoft provides the necessary documentation, including detailed steps to install and configure the servers. The deployment process can be improved. It can be made more easier.

The tool must be cheaper. It should provide an option to pay the license fee once in a year or once in two years.

We don't use any support because we can easily find online documents to solve our issues. I recommend that everybody use the product. If any company wants to share one computer’s resources with many users, they can choose Microsoft Remote Desktop Services. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

I use the tool to switch to my company’s Windows desktop from my personal system.

The product saves time. It is convenient to use. It is a smart solution. The security is good.

The stability must be improved.

I rate the product’s stability a six out of ten.

We have a bunch of users.

The installation is easy. It took five to seven minutes. The solution is cloud-based.

We can do the deployment ourselves. We install an application and connect to the server. We must provide our credentials to connect to the tool.

People who want to use the product must do a bit of research before making a decision. We faced compatibility issues since some users were using different operating systems. So, our organization asked us to use Microsoft Remote Desktop Services. Windows is a very common operating system used all over the world. Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

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.

We use the solution for accessing services in our infrastructure, and also, since it's a remote service solution, the desktop infrastructure.

I use the solution as a necessity in order to connect to some servers or to some desktop infrastructure.

The availability is very good. 

It's easy to use. New users especially find it very simple. You just connect and go.

The solution is stable and reliable.   

You can combine the Remote Desktop Services with Citrix in some form, however, not with all of the features of both. It depends on the situation.

We'd like to see more integration with other vendors. 

The solution could offer better, easier scalability. 

Technical support response times could be better. 

We've been using the solution for more than ten years. 

The solution is stable and the performance is good. It's reliable. I haven't had issues with it. There are no bugs or glitches. 

Scalability maybe should be improved. I'm not sure, with the latest version, how scalable it is. We had issues a few years ago and I worked closely with the guys that implemented them. I know that there were better products in the market on the side of scalability. It could scale a lot easier or faster.

Right now, we have about 100 people on-premises using the solution. We are a small firm. 

I don't have much experience with Microsoft services or support.

As far as I've seen, they are there. However, they are kind of slow. That said, it's not something we can generalize and say, "Well, this is Microsoft." In our experience, they are okay. 

Neutral

We use Vendor Desktop Infrastructure. We still use Citrix and we used VMware Horizon as well. 

I wasn't a part of the initial setup and, therefore, can't speak to the process. 

That said, I do not recall the team having any major issues. 

We have a team of two engineers that can handle deployment and maintenance tasks. It's good to have a few people available in case someone goes on holidays or has a day off, et cetera. 

Our team handled the implementation in-house. 

I'm not aware of the exact costs of licensing. You might have to budget a bit for maintenance, however, it's very minimal. 

We test a lot of solutions as we use a lot of different products with clients. We must remain sharp, so we spend some time looking into many options to see what would work best for each customer. 

If it's something new appears in the market, we will install it in order to see if it's okay to recommend to our customers.

We are a Microsft partner. Microsoft product is used in over 90% of the corporate environment here.

This solution is a technology implemented in our company. My position is in the IT department; I also sometimes help troubleshoot.

We tend to use the latest version. We are using both cloud and on-premises deployments.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

The main feature for us is the ability to block a copy to the clipboard, which we can provide for our users. Sometimes we have to provide only remote desktop features without the ability to copy the content of the remote desktop. The clipboard provides the ability to connect desktops to our users. It's a secure way to work remotely.

It's pretty easy to set up once you are used to the process.

The solution is scalable.

It's pretty stable. 

It's not as reliable a protocol as, for example, Citrix.

The training profiles could be better.

I'd like to have more granular remote profiles.

We'd like to see on-site multi-fact authentification.

We've been using the solution for around ten years.

The solution is stable. I haven't had any issues whatsoever. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product is very scalable. 

We have about 8,000 users. 

Technical support is okay, however, it could be better.

The problem is sometimes I cannot find the right professional. Maybe later I will subscribe to a dedicated professional for me, as sometimes it's difficult to describe my landscape. We lose little time dealing with this. That said, when I work with my dedicated professionals from the Microsoft team, everything becomes much better.

Positive

We also use Citrix. We've been using both for about the same amount of time. 

It's easy when you work together with those technologies, however, the biggest advantage of Citrix is it is a more reliable protocol. Secondly, it's easier to connect devices. Citrix training profiles are also much better.

When we moved to Citrix, we found that the technology needs much lower bandwidth for our internal network. We need fewer people to support our users. It's much easier to scale when we talk about Citrix.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward. Maybe it's a little bit difficult the first time, however, in our case, we have about three or five solutions professionals who are using these technologies day by day. It's not difficult for them.

We have five people who basically maintain the solution. They are enough for a company that has 8,000 people on the product.

We are a Microsoft client.

I'd rate the solution a six out of ten.

My company uses Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for our company's accounting software, which doesn't have a cloud solution. In our company, we deployed a server with the help of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The solution's most valuable feature is that it's a technology that we are familiar with in our company. Microsoft Remote Desktop Services has been around since Windows NT 4 domain, making it a very familiar solution. It was easy to find a lot of clients familiar with the idea of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services since it was not a new concept to them. In general, the solution tends to work well. It is an easy-to-use solution.

The biggest reason we don't use the solution for our company's clients is the solution's prices. In our company, we do our own hosting through a hosting partner since this method offers a much cheaper price. Finding entry-level servers that are limited in the IOPS is frustrating. In our company, we feel quite restricted on the speed that we can get out of the entry-level type of service that we use, making it difficult to sell the solution, especially when clients compare the cloud solution to an on-premises solution.

I have been using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for five to six years. I work at an IT support company that resells, implements, and offers support for Microsoft products.

My company is happy with the stability of the solution.

I think it's a very scalable product. The product's scalability depends on how big our company's clients are, so it is not an area we need to worry about since you can use its gateway server for different servers.

My company works with small and medium-sized businesses using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The solution's technical support doesn't get covered under Office 365.

My experience with other Microsoft support, apart from Office 365, has not been that fantastic since I remember being quite shocked using the solution.

I haven't used support for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The installation of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services was easy.

The installation of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services takes around four hours.

The solution is deployed on the cloud and on-premises.

A single technician is involved with the deployment part of the product in our company.

In our company, we consider Microsoft Remote Desktop Services as more of an added service than something that generates income for us. We do make a little bit of income with the help of the solution, but most of all, it's just a value-added service that the product provides for our company. Our company won't get rich by selling Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The solution is expensive. My company pays toward the monthly licensing costs of the solution, though we also have the option to opt for perpetual licensing offered by Microsoft. Microsoft licensing models are quite complex, so we tend to use a monthly subscription-based model in our company.

The additional cost, apart from the solution's licensing cost, is related to the technical support a user wants.

Though not a lot, some maintenance is required for the solution. One person can do the maintenance of the solution.

I would tell those planning to use the solution not to underspec the server, especially with IOPS, while keeping in mind that the amount of RAM can be more than expected. I would say that the need for a VPN, owing to security reasons, is important.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten.

We use it on the customer side. We use the product as remote desktop services. 

We've been satisfied with the product overall. 

The remote desktop features are great. It allows users to work remotely. We can take a remote session on the server.

It's largely stable.

The solution is easy to implement. 

We'd like more granular security control of the desktop services. Right now, we have a third-party solution that does this. 

We need to control via group policies. We need to be able to implement these policies in a simpler way in order to control users in a more granular way.

I've used the solution since 2010. I've used it for over ten years. 

The solution is mostly stable. I'd rate the stability five out of ten. We are not able to control or protect without group policies. With a better ability to make policies, it will become stable.

I have not attempted to scale the solution. We're using it for on-premises reasons only. All the customers are here. 

We do not contact technical support directly. We simply rely on Google and seek out our own answers if needed.

We have used different solutions in the past. We found it was easier to centralize control and maintain better security with it. 

For the most part, it is easy to implement. However, the management is dependent on group policies. 

How many people you need to deploy the solution depends on the size of the environment required. 

I'm not aware of the exact pricing. I work on the implementation side. 

We had been working as a partner for Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

Microsoft needs one centralized console to manage all of its components. That would make it better. 

I primarily use the solution as a remote desktop. I'm using it over a VPN and SSH too.

I like how it shows the user how you can do things as a help desk service. 

It's part of the Microsoft Operating system and is free. If comes with the larger Microsoft licensing.

It's so insecure, and it's so limited. It became more limited since we cannot use the administration tools. Nothing is really working at this moment. I'm using it over a VPN and SSH too.

I've tried Microsoft's user assistance, and it's limited. 

The administrative functionality is not enough for me. I don't want the user to see what I am doing. I don't want to reveal any authorization keys or passwords. I want to be in the background, managing the desktop and using the Remote Desktop Viewer while handling best practices.

I'd like a chat function so we can talk right there in the app. It would be better than picking up the phone and guiding the users.

I'd like stronger security. 

I'd like to lock the session and take over a session so the user can just watch what I am doing and not interfere.

While the setup looks simple, in the end, it is pretty complex. 

A big upgrade would be if they stepped back from the TCP RDP port they are using and design it after an SSH tunneling and use that port since a tunnel is between two devices, and it is a very secure way to connect. The added benefit is you would also have the possibility to share local and remote resources. 

I've used the solution for a long time. I've used the product for more than seven years. I've likely used it since Windows 7.

The stability is okay, depending on the internet connection. I'd rate it seven out of ten for its general level of stability. 

Basic remote services are not very scalable. I'm trying to use InTune instead, which seems to have more of the functionality I need. 

Right now, usage is limited, and we only have ten people on the solution. It's used mainly by people who are not always in the same location. 

User support is limited. They lack documentation. However, there is a learning center at Microsoft.com, which is pretty good. 

Positive

I've used Log Meln previously. It's a lot better, yet it is quite expensive. There's also TeamViewer, which is well known, and we've used it before. Once again, with the things I do, it is expensive. As a company, you need to pay a big fee. It's not ideal for small teams. 

The solution starts off simple in terms of deployment. However, it gets complex. You have to open locked ports, and that can make your network insecure. 

The pricing is great as it's free in the larger Microsoft system. It's integrated with the operating system. For me, the licensing is a five out of five in terms of useability and affordability.

I'm an end-user. 

The solution is used on-prem with VPN tunneling and SSH. With an Azure AD connection, we can use it on the cloud. 

It's not the best, as the users can always see what you are doing, which is not always ideal. I'd rate it six out of ten.