Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

We use it to connect to the legacy system.

It is still in the early stages, and the features are purely for connectivity.

There is a limitation on the number of concurrent users. The limitation is 20, and you have to spin up more than one server, which is not needed at this stage because of customers. So they reduced it to 12 active users. So if you want to deploy more than 12, you should assess other solutions.

We have been using this solution for three months, and it is the latest version. It is deployed on cloud.

We had issues with stability in the beginning, but it is good now. The stability depends on connectivity in terms of the latency of the internet link.

We have not tried to scale it. We have 40 users using this solution.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten. It took them a while to understand the technology.

We chose this solution because it's a Microsoft Cloud and end-to-end all solution, Cloud 365. In addition, it's all Microsoft, so it made sense to stay with the same VDI solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment was done with BCX, and it took one week.

The licensing came with the product, and the solution had no additional costs.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, it depends on the requirements and what you need. In this case, it's just for one legacy system. So if you assess more functionality and scalability, we would look at different products because the customers would be prepared to pay for those products.

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.

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.

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. 

We use Microsoft Remote Desktop if we want, for example, to help a user that has a problem. We can also use it to take the control of a computer on a remote location.

The simplicity of the product has been most valuable to me. This is especially true if you use a Microsoft product to connect to Microsoft Remote Desktop. There is no broker in between. Microsoft Remote Desktop is something that comes with Windows at no cost unless you use a Microsoft server.

For me, it boils down to simplicity. There is no cost and the setup is easy. 

From the perspective of an IT professional, Microsoft Remote Desktop is very easy to use. However, it could be made easier to use for the end user, especially when it comes to activating it.

Microsoft could also improve the sustainability of this product, especially in terms of account redundancy. They could also add something like a log to make more easy to use so that they can easily prevent some of the failures. I think Microsoft can do better.

I have been using Microsoft servers for more than 20 years. My first Microsoft server was NT 3.5.

Microsoft Remote Desktop is quite stable product now, particularly if you compare it to previous version.

Microsoft Remote Desktop is scalable. 

The technical support is good. I have had some issues with them, but most of time the technical support is good. Phone support is difficult for me to use but the Microsoft Knowledge Base has been helpful. It is easy to find solutions to problems in the knowledge base. You can also get email support, which is useful. 

I'm a technical manager and we are customers of Microsoft.

The solution has very smooth connectivity and is a very user friendly product. An additional advantage is that it works with very low bandwidth. 

We've had a few occasions when the application has crashed suddenly, possibly due to updates. Microsoft updates should not directly impact the application and rather than releasing post hotfixes, it would be better to carry out testing before releasing it to the environment. It's a challenge for us; the new application is upgraded, but there's an incompatibility. It should be the other way around - testing in the lab environment and then commercially released.

An additional feature we'd like to see would be cross-platform support. With more OSs in the market whether Microsoft, iMac or Android applications, it would be good to have a smooth transition between cross-platform support both in terms of operating system and in terms of devices. Moving from tabs to mobiles to desktops to laptops to notebooks - the transition between multiple OSs and multiple hardwares.

I've been using this solution for the last five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The product is scalable, we have over 500 users. 

The quality of the technical support is quite good although it's often dependent on the quality of the Microsoft partner. If the partner is good, then support is good but if not, there can be issues. 

The pricing in comparison to similar products is quite good.

I would suggest a UAT test on a smaller group or pilot deployment. Once you do a test run on the pilot deployment, then it should be rolled out for a larger base of users.

In terms of overall experience, I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

Our use case is two-fold. We use it for securing workplaces in our on-premise environment for remote users. We also use it for management. We manage most of our environments from a secure remote desktop in our data center. We connect through a remote desktop gateway with a two-factor application installed there.

The most valuable feature of this solution at the moment is the HTML5 web client. You get a browser experience, not just the terminal sort of client, and the integration with Azure multi-factor application.

Its look and feel could be updated.

In Azure Remote Desktop Services (RDS), which is a VDI solution, we would like to see linked clones. It is a Hyper-V solution, and it doesn't support linked clones and uses a lot of storage. That's why we don't use it. VMware has a similar solution that supports linked clones for the master image.

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is very reliable.

It is very scalable. At the moment, we have around 2,000 users.

We have a Premier support contract, and it works great.

Its initial setup was straightforward. Because of COVID-19, we had to deploy workspaces for our users. It was fairly simple to deploy our RDS farm so that our users could work safely from home.

Its licensing is on a yearly basis. We're on the educational or academic license, and our terms are good. We're very happy with the pricing.

I would recommend this solution. I would rate Microsoft Remote Desktop Services an eight out of ten.

When I'm in the office I use the solution to connect to another server to look at files or services that are running, things like that. When working from home I use it to connect to our VPN and then to my work computer and pretty much do everything that way. I'm a senior software analyst at an educational institution and I believe we have a partnership with Microsoft. 

Because of Covid, the solution has given those stuck at home the ability to continue working.

I think the price of this product is great. The solution allows me the option of using two monitors. I like the screen draw in Remote Desktop, it's better than GoToMyPC, which I've used previously although the improvement could also be related to a better internet connection over the past six months. 

It would be helpful if there was a feature that notifies you when the internet is down so you're not working for nothing, it should be something that pops right up where you can see it. The internet is always going to go down and the product seems to notice that it's down before my VPN notifies me that it's gone down. You're working and nothing's happening and it takes time to get the notification. 

For an additional feature, I'd like to see Remote Desktop specify which computer Zoom meetings will run on. I've joined a couple of sessions from home, and when I turn on my video, all you see is my empty desk chair at the office.

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. 

Scalability is not really relevant but the solution is used by a fair number of the IT staff. 

I've never needed to use technical support. 

I previously used GoToMyPC because I used to do upgrades from home at night. We were paying for that solution which wasn't necessary with the free Microsoft option. I used both of them for a short time and realized Remote Desktop really seemed to draw the screen better and also everybody else was using it. 

The initial setup is straightforward. You've got to have the IP address of the computer you're connecting to - in our organization it's managed by our network manager.

I would recommend this solution. 

I rate this product an eight out of 10.