Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

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 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. 

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services could improve by having graphical acceleration.

I have been using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for approximately two years.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is stable and reliable.

The scalability of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is good.

I have not needed to call the support from Microsoft Remote Desktop Services because the solution is easy to use.

I have previously used other solutions, such as Citrix and VMware. Citrix is the best choice of the ones I have tried.

The initial setup of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is very easy.

The price of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is reasonable.

I rate Microsoft Remote Desktop Services an eight out of ten.

• Resilience: Has alllowed our 24/7 acute hospital to run electronic prescribing on the wards with limited downtime or post-setup configuration.
• Thin provisioning: Our core applications mean that our WiFi connected devices can drop-off the network without causing patient record locks.

It has enabled our clinical staff to get real-time medicine prescribing information at the patients' bedside with a near 100% service uptime.

I think that the Single Sign-On (SSO) could be improved.

At release time, there was not a lot of information around. We invested some long hours researching. The documentation from Microsoft was difficult to find. Now there are plenty of step-by-step guides around.

I have used it for four years.

Initially, the configuration I setup used DNS round-robin. This was changed to a NLB setup on our session hosts.

This has improved the stability of the clients' Remote Desktop Protocol (RDP) connectivity. It has given us granular control over stopping connections for downtime/maintenance windows.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

We actioned this with a limited budget. We completed it all in-house with no external technical support other than searching on the internet and testing.

We run Citrix alongside this solution for our internet connected clients. Microsoft Remote Desktop Services (RDS) was used primarily over our LAN/WAN.

The initial setup was a little complex. Like any thin client setup, some applications are trickier than others.

I could not see the benefits of using Citrix as you require RDS CALs regardless. We see this solution as a very good value.

We evaluated Citrix.

• We have found this to be very stable with a quite straightforward setup. However, Single Sign-On (SSO) certificates are a little fiddly.
• Ensure that the underlying infrastructure is fully tested, robust, and scalable.
• Our early problems stemmed from our hypervisor issues. Because clients only heard it was the RDS farm, I took a lot of heat on issues that were out of my control.

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.

As an internal Microsoft product, we find it very trustworthy. It's quite secure. It connects easily to Windows operating systems on devices. 

The performance meets our requirements and the stability is good.

The solution scales well.

The setup process is easy.

The solution is under the Microsoft infrastructure and therefore does not allow for service under other operating systems. We'd like, in the future, if it would work with Linux or Unix-based operating systems or even Mac.

Although I don't use it consistently, I have used it for ten to 15 years. It's a pretty old solution. 

The solution is stable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is okay. Sometimes we deploy a server-client scenario, so many clients can connect to the same server and they can log in at the same time simultaneously. There's no issue with scalability in that sense.

We have 50 users on the product currently.

We've never had any real issues. I haven't dealt with technical support.

In terms of the initial setup, the implementation process is simple and straightforward. It's not difficult. 

Since it is not a new solution, most of the engineers know how to deploy and how to operate it; we are not waiting for further technical documents for assistance.

Since it was quite easy to deploy, we did not need any outside assistance from integrators or consultants. 

While it's connected to the cloud, it's a solution that is currently on-premises. 

I'm not sure if we are using a specific version. Whatever options that come with Microsoft, we use that. Since they upgraded Microsoft (for example, earlier it was Microsoft XP, and Windows 7, 8, 9, 10, et cetera), the options come up throughout those operating systems. We use whatever they offer.

I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten. We've had a good experience with it over a number of years. 

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.