Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

We primarily use the solution for remote desktop services. It can be used locally or on the cloud. It's on every single Windows machine. 

If you need a remote desktop for Windows 10, or Windows 2016, you use RDP, which is Remote Desktop Services.

The solution is great for remote into machines. 

It works fine, and it is largely issue-free.

The product is stable. 

If you are deploying it, as a VDI solution, then it is very limited.

The product is not very scalable. 

I've used the solution for 15 years.

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

The solution scales minimally. It's not meant for scaling. 

Everyone uses the product to some extent. We do not have plans to decrease usage at this time. 

I try not to contact technical support.

Neutral

We were using Citrix, which I found to be much better.

The solution comes with the Windows Server. You simply enable the feature and begin using it. 

The solution is bundled within Microsoft products. 

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the solution to others unless they had no other choices.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten. 

The product helps assess our system.

I like the way it can assess our system. 

The features it has already serves or needs.

The initial setup is very simple. 

It is quite stable. 

The product offers good pricing.

Technical support has been helpful. 

I don't need any other new features. It works well as it is. 

We'd like them to continue to improve on security. 

I've been using the solution for quite some time. It's been around ten years or so.

This is a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

I'd rate the stability seven out of ten. 

Our system is on Windows, and we need to scale very little. As far as we're concerned, it scales enough for us. We have about 20 users on the solution currently.

We use Microsoft 365, and if we have any issues, we contact support that covers that. We've been satisfied overall with the level of support we get. I have no complaints. 

Positive

We are also using TeamViewer. It targets different areas from Remote Desktop. For example, it allows others to access your system - not you. They each serve different purposes. 

The initial setup is great it's very simple and straightforward. I do not find it to be complex at all. 

The pricing is good. I'd rate it five out of five in terms of affordability.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I seldom use the product; however, for me, it works exactly as I need it to. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

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. 

The solution is primarily for remote desktop services. It's used to start up a desktop service, and we can use a password and a user name to work remotely on other servers.

The product is very easy to use. 

The solution's implementation process is simple. 

It's pretty stable. 

It can scale well.

I can't think of an area that is lacking currently.

We had some instability during the implementation process. This has since been resolved. 

We've used the product for two years now. It was implemented at the beginning of COVID.

The stability is okay in most cases. Sometimes, especially in the beginning, we had some problems. However, that was due to the implementation of this solution. At this moment it's very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability, as far as I know, is not an issue. We moved all employees to this solution. We started with a few, and now almost a thousand colleagues are using this solution. Therefore, for us, in our experience, the solution looks very good if you need to scale.

I've never been in contact with Microsoft technical support. 

Before this solution, we used Citrix.

The solution has a straightforward setup. It's not very complex at all. 

Its deployment took a few weeks. 

The organization, during the start of COVID, had a lot of colleagues started working from home, and it seemed that the Citrix solution was not capable of doing that, so the ICT offices switched to Remote Desktop Services to accommodate people working from home. Our strategy was to have that capability.

The deployment and maintenance are handled by a third party. They aren't necessarily dedicated, however, they are they if something needs to be done. 

We had a third-party integrator that assisted with the implementation. 

I haven't witnessed an ROI. 

We use the solution. We're customers.

We're using the latest version of the solution. 

We use Microsoft Authenticator to log on, which is straightforward. 

I would recommend the solution to others. I suggest they just go for it. It's a very good solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use it in our bank.

We have some servers, and more than two users go remotely with them. We prepare with the Microsoft engineer servers that take them and the license for the users when they need them.

It has generally improved how our organization functions.

The solution is now stable.

The initial setup is simple. It's quick to deploy.

It works well and does what we need it to do.

Sometimes the server stops working, and we don’t know why. Occasionally we’ll get a message to the effect of "There is no remote license."

I’ve been using the solution for about one year.

While we had a problem before, now everything is stable. It’s reliable now. We’ve dealt with our issues and no longer have troubles.

I can’t speak to the scalability. I’ve never attempted to scale. That’s handled by someone else in the company.

Right now, we have 50 licenses available to us. We use the solution quite extensively.

I’ve never dealt with technical support for issues related to the stability problem. I can’t speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. Other team members deal with them. We do have a support contract with Microsoft.

I have dealt with them on Teams on Active Directory and found them to be helpful. I found their help to be excellent.

We already had a license with Microsoft, and therefore, it was natural to use this product as well.

It’s not difficult to set up. It’s pretty straightforward.

The deployment is pretty fast. It only takes about an hour and a half. We only needed to have three people handle the deployment and maintenance.

An engineer worked with us to set up the servers. We have machines joining the domain, and we have workgroup machines.

We handled everything in-house. We didn’t need the help of consultants.

I’m not sure if we have seen an ROI.

I cannot speak to how much the solution costs. My understanding is that it is moderately priced in that it is not cheap or expensive. We ended up getting it when we renewed our license. It’s an extra feature with the broader Microsoft license.

I’m not sure which version of the solution we’re using.

I’d recommend the solution to others. It’s solved problems for us and worked well.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have a partnership with Microsoft.

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.