Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

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.

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.

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. 

The solution helps users to access desktops remotely.

The solution performs well and is easy to use.

Microsoft's desktop versions have a limit of only one concurrent session. It needs to be improved. Also, they should enhance the solution's user interface. It could be more intuitive compared to TeamViewer and AnyDesk. 

I rate the solution's stability as a nine.

We have used VNC Viewer, UltraVNC, and TeamViewer before.

The solution is easy to install.

The solution's license is affordable.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it as a nine.

We predominantly use Microsoft Remote Desktop Services to access our server. Our team works remotely and needs to log in to perform tasks such as billing. We had two options: either use our existing internal infrastructure or move to the cloud. However, we also required remote printing services so that team members could print from their local desktops. To achieve this, we implemented terminal printing services, VPN, and remote desktop. The purpose was to enable both on-site and remote team members to perform billing tasks, invoicing, and tracking truck movement.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services meets all our requirements.

We encounter challenges with portability, especially for users of iOS devices. It becomes particularly difficult for us to manage if both ends have iOS devices, whereas having the same infrastructure with Microsoft Windows environments on both ends works seamlessly. The licensing of iOS presents problems for third-party integration and has room for improvement.

I have been using the solution for eight months.

I give the stability a nine out of ten.

I give the scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward. We activated the solution smoothly and completed the deployment within a day. Beforehand, the distributor's tech team came to discuss our network and gain an understanding of everything. It took them a day to configure the solution. Although everything went smoothly thereafter, we encountered some initial challenges. Specifically, we faced issues connecting to the local and remote printers, as printing services were not functioning properly. To address this, we worked on it for a day and met our requirements within two to three days. It's worth noting that the solution isn't entirely plug-and-play, and there are challenges that require mitigation.

The implementation was completed in-house with the help of the distributor techs.

The cost is fair.

I give the solution a ten out of ten.

We have around 70 people using the solution within our Accounting, Billing, and Sales departments.

I recommend Microsoft Remote Desktop Services to others.

I use Remote Desktop to do a credential swap where it goes from being the explicit user accessing the endpoint to a privileged credential.

What I do is, in the connection process with RDP, the user logs into the PAM tool as first name.last name, which is his normal domain account. However, BeyondTrust, with the remote desktop connection, substitutes the user's first name.last name with a privileged credential that looks like his name. It would be like A-first.last. This is so that we can also perform session recording and keystroke logging, as well as keep a detailed log of who is connected to which desktop and which account.

The most valuable suite feature for us is that it's light. It's built into the operating system and has a command line interface capability to insert credentials, IDs, a password, et cetera.

If anybody who's going to be using this, I’d warn that some of the dependencies that are very helpful when the window servers are running it would be best if they have network-level access enabled. It can speed up authentication. However, it really it also works well with TLS security as well as others on the certificate level. That said, I really don't know if I would start swinging in the dark after that.

Usually, during a privileged session, you don't want the privileged credential password being visible, nor maybe would you want keystrokes or screen scrapes to take place.

One of our first problems was the only time RDP ever gave me a problem was when an organization would build a new server. They would automatically build it. They would name it. They would put the connection settings on it. And then they would also put a certificate on it. Then the engineering team that ordered the server would then rename the server, which would nullify the certificate. That's the only time that RDP or remote desktop ever gave me a problem. And that was not the remote desktop's problem. It was a process flaw.

The only problems that you're going to have with the remote desktop are going to be firewall ports, security, and NLA, which is a net network level access control, or TLS transfer layer security or some other SSL-type of security. Those are the only times you get into any issues. And that's only due to the fact that the originating site is not compatible with the target site. However, that's rare. That said, even then, that's more on the rare side. I'm a PAM architect, a privileged access management architect. I usually knock down those problems before we get to them since I ran it all a hundred times.

I’ve used the solution for 20 to 25 years.

The solution is rock solid. It’s stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn’t crash or freeze.

The sky is the limit in terms of scalability. It’s not a problem at all if you need to expand. The only limiting factor is the budget. Obviously, the more you grow, the more you pay.

Tens of thousands of people use the solution. The primary use is to segregate a user from a direct login to a desktop.

The solution is actually built into the larger product. We pretty much just have to secure the connection.

It's actually maintained as part of the standard windows update tools and also could be updated manually with specific patches that might be something more specific to your organization. I've only experienced that once and that was years ago.

I’m implementing the remote desktop for customers.

It’s built-in. It’s free. It doesn’t cost extra.

We are Microsoft partners.

The deployment is both on-prem and cloud. If I was working with an organization that is a monster and they're distributed or maybe even a multinational or multi-state, I would use Azure Cloud and do use the Azure remote desktop solution.

There are so many different types of uses. In my use case, it is so painfully specific for connection brokering. We use it as part of the built-in connection process with our PAM tool. You can actually just sit down at your desktop and then do a start run, and then run MSTSC, which means micro soft terminal services client, which is a remote desktop. You can connect to one of your own computers at home, or you could connect to a server. However, you have to know the ID and password to connect. I circumvent that by doing a command line connection where I insert the credentials and the users connect, not even knowing what ID or password they're using to connect with.

I’d rate the solution ten out of ten. It’s a meat and potatoes product.