Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

It's helped with cutting costs and making access easier. People can work remotely using this product. For remote billing, it's working well. 

The ability to access the computer from a remote location is great. With the Windows Server as a client, we can use more than one computer at a time.

The initial setup is simple. 

It's a stable solution.

You can scale the product.

We've had issues with security breaches. The main problem is that if we are using this with the individual computer and using a remote desktop, there are some loopholes there. When I implemented this on an individual computer within two or three days it got captured.

There is a problem with the printing and sharing of this program. There is a lot of customized software leaving the market due to this. If somebody wants to run a specific program with the specific settings, they don't want full access to the computer. Then there are some problems that have to be resolved.

We'd like to have an additional control panel available in order o more easily give resources to the computers. There are a lot of restrictions and having a program panel would make things easier. It would help us set up the right access and permissions.  

We've been using the solution for 20 years. It's been a long time. 

The solution is stable. If it is configured properly, then it'll not create any problems in between. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The scalability depends on the server size. It does not scale on a personal computer, however. 

The solution can be configured in such a way that you are able to maintain it yourself. We've never had to reach out to technical support for assistance. 

For printer redirection, we are using third-party software.

We've used Citrix and VMware in the past.

The implementation is very straightforward. If there are some problems or if clients have installation issues, that can be solved by the technician and it's very easy.

I'd rate the implementation a three out of five in terms of the ease of the process. 

It does not take too much time due to the remote desktop. You just have to do some settings on the server or computer. We only need about three people to handle deployment tasks. 

I'm a consultant and an integrator. I never call up a third party to help with implementation. 

The solution is not too expensive. It's moderately priced. I'd rate it a three out of five in terms of affordability. 

We are using this and Windows Server and Windows 10 or Windows 9, whatever is available.

Normally this is a private cloud, however, right now, a lot of our customers are on AWS and they're using it from the cloud, also.

I'd advise new users to first gather good knowledge and do some planning before the implementation. 

I'd rate the solution six 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 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 was exploring a different feature, particularly trying to deploy active directory domain services. Hence, as an IT administrator, I needed to enable a Remote Desktop Service feature that allows me to connect remotely to the server in just a matter of seconds, so that was my use case for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I was trying to install Microsoft Office on the computer remotely, which means connecting to the server through Microsoft Remote Desktop Services to see if the server has access to the internet or whenever an update needs to be installed.

What I found most valuable in Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is accessibility because the solution lets you take control of your computer remotely, and that's a good feature.

What needs improvement in Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is the connection when I'm outside the network. It should be more accessible. For example, if I use a public network, I want to connect remotely more effortlessly, from my internal network, without much requirement.

I want to connect easily from an external network even when I'm not in my enterprise or company. It should be easy to connect or integrate Microsoft Teams, for example, with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I've used Microsoft Remote Desktop Services twice, and if it's an emergency, I can use it immediately. From time to time, I use the solution.

I found Microsoft Remote Desktop Services stable.

For me, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services doesn't require scaling compared to other services. It works fine, so you won't need to scale it.

I have yet to contact Microsoft Remote Desktop Services technical support.

I found it easy to set up Microsoft Remote Desktop Services. It takes a few seconds to enable your options on your computer, particularly for on-premise deployment. However, it takes about two minutes to deploy if you'd like to deploy the solution for a managed server in the cloud.

I deployed Microsoft Remote Desktop Services with the help of a consultant because when I was trying to deploy on the cloud, there was a pop-up telling me to wait ten minutes to complete the setup. Then I could get assistance if I had a question, which I did.

I recall that you don't need to pay for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services because that's included in Windows.

The version of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services that I use depends on the environment I'm in. For example, if it's Windows 10, I'll have a different version than Windows Server 2022 or Windows 11. It depends on the system version I want to run the solution on.

Most of the time, the deployment model for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is on-premises. Still, you can also do a hybrid deployment if you want to connect to a server in another region.

The IT team uses Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I recommend the service to others.

My rating for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is eight out of ten.

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. 

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.