Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

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.

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. 

We have deployed Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for logistics, CNC, and machine shop areas. I think that is very flexible in order to provide the correct maintenance and deploy the services.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services could improve by allowing the sharing of the office application. For example, the ability to replace a PC when something is wrong.

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

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is stable. However, the first stage was a bit unstable because you need to spend time in order to set up all the settings in a proper way based on the organization. The system is stable and functional when set up the correct way.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is scalable.

You have to set up an additional remote desktop server in order to leverage the resource in terms of elaboration RAM et cetera.

We have approximately 40 people using this solution in my company.

We work with a partner for our support.

We have used Citrix previously and it is more stable but it's a more expensive platform. 

The initial setup of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is easy.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is less expensive than some other solutions on the market.

I rate the price of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services a three out of five.

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

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.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is used to connect to other systems.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services has helped our organization because it provides easier access to desktops without having to be physically on-site.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is the ability to remote into a system that is not on-premises.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services could improve by having a better application for managing multiple sessions. There used to be one but they stopped supporting it.

I have used Microsoft Remote Desktop Services within the last 12 months.

The stability of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is very good.

The scalability could improve by having a multi-session manager.

Our IT department uses Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The initial setup of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is simple, it is not complex.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services comes free as part of Microsoft Windows.

I rate Microsoft Remote Desktop Services a nine out of ten.

It allows me to remotely take control of a desktop if my wife or son has a problem.

I have been using the solution for one or two years. 

The solution is stable.

It doesn't need to be scalable in my case as I only implement the solution on a few desktops at home. 

I've had good experiences with Microsoft customer support. 

It was easy for me, but I have experience working in this field.

I would say it's expensive as there similar products available for free. 

I rate this solution a seven 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. 

We predominantly use RDS to connect up to a computer and a LAN. We are non-profit and help other non-profits with their technology. We are customers of Microsoft. 

This is a user-friendly solution and I'm very pleased that RDS now includes multi-screen. If you're remotely controlling a system that has two monitors, you can split and have your own, it's a nice feature. I like the ubiquity of the product, the fact that it's around as a protocol, and that it can be utilized at the admin level to look at any console that one might need. You don't need to think about it very much. Of course, the fact that it uses an active directory for security and authentication is pretty nice. It helps secure a network to a large extent because you can really restrict the number of users and accessibility if needed. Those are all good things.

I've sometimes had trouble setting up an RDS connection if I want a specific user to be able to log in with their credentials and have the RDS element retain those settings so that the password isn't required each time. There can be issues with that. 

I've been using this solution for many, many years. 

I've got no issues with the stability of RDS. 

I don't have much to offer regarding scalability. We use RDS predominantly for admin connection to other servers in a network. I might log into one computer in a remote network and then use RDS to get from that server to a different server but that's as far as it goes.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward, especially if you're familiar with the solution. Most organizations we deal with have a technician, or at least a network administrator who deals with any day-to-day issues. We generally maintain the operating system for these organizations and we run updates on them all the time.

There's nothing to be afraid of with this solution. I don't have any problems with it, it's great for me. 

I rate this solution 10 out of 10.