I would highlight the challenges related to integrating with Microsoft Azure services. Specifically, there are issues with MDM-managed devices and the necessity for MDM-managed compliant devices. In the non-persistent horizon model, there's a delay before each new desktop becomes compliant. Users can access these desktops before fully onboard into the MDM solution.

Addressing the technical aspect, one potential area for improvement lies in the lock-on times. With the introduction of instant clone technology, which is a cost-effective and resource-efficient solution, there has been a slight increase in log-on times, now reaching up to fifteen seconds. While this shift prioritizes security, it's worth considering if there are any adjustments that could further optimize performance without compromising security. A significant concern in Belgium, particularly with its stringent privacy regulations, is the adherence to the global standards for data protection. It would be beneficial if VMware invested in developing a robust reporting engine, providing insights into user activities, locations, and more. This becomes crucial, especially in the context of remote work, where customers often seek detailed reporting to understand how and where their teams are working.

Speaking from my perspective, I think they could work on reducing the cost. There is room for improvement in the pricing model. 

I would like to see improvement in the license cost and the availability of perpetual licensing for Horizon. The solution offers a Term and subscription license.

VMware Horizon 7 could improve by supporting the active-active data center. At this time we are only deploying it in the production environment. Our customer is considered to deploy the VMware Horizon 7 to a secondary data center, but we found out that it cannot fully support the user in the deployment in the active-active data center. Any improvement on this would be beneficial.

What I would like to see improved is not so much about the product. It's more about how to get information about products. It's always too much sales pitching and fancy works and stuff. This helps you improve this and that but doesn't tell me how. 

It's just hard to find information when you want to set up a system or find what can be good for a specific customer. You want to find something. That's where the documentation comes in, and explains how it will improve. So that's my biggest problem with everybody who makes a product. 

It says this will make your life so much better. Yes, but how would it make it better? That's the hard part to find. That kind of information is hard to find, really. So it makes it hard to find products. 

Therefore, I always have to call the vendor and ask for a meeting, and they have to make a demonstration. The process becomes so lengthy and exhausting sometimes because you have to make notes for everything. "Okay, this works like this," and "You can use it for that." And then you have to talk to the next one, compare. So I would like that to be my opinion. If they could think from the perspective of a technician, he doesn't want to hear all this fancy talk. That's my opinion. 

The most important feature that is missing is the ability to do some remote support on the client itself. For example, if somebody has a Horizon client installed on his machine, there should be a way to support his local machine as well. That's because most of the problems can't be solved very often due to the computer or the setup that someone is using on his personal machine. Because a Horizon client is already installed on the machine to access the environment, it would be nice if the client itself possessed some sort of remote control tool in it so that if needed, we could support both the virtual setup and the actual setup of the machine. It pretty much does everything well. It is mostly the support aspect that can be improved. You have perfect control over your in-house environment. You have a solution that can pretty much be used anywhere, but you have no control over the machine that's being used to access your environment. Definitely, that's where most of the features are lacking. There should be an option for remote control and maybe some options for conformity. For example, if somebody installed the Horizon client on their shared computer, there could be some safety features or safety checks that were implemented in the client itself to make sure that the person using it is not using a compromised machine or something like that.

Its integration with third parties can be improved. Sometimes, there is a lack of integration with third parties. For example, we had issues at some point with Adobe products running in virtualization. I know they have a very hard time running in a virtualized environment and performing correctly. They work, but they're very slow, and they're hard to support.

The multimedia playback is not very good and they could improve it by increasing the quality.

In an upcoming release, there could be more integration support for Linux and better Linux user profile management. This is a feature we use in the universities but most other normal businesses will not be interested in Linux. 

I don't know what needs improvement in the product since it is a standard system, and that is okay.

The product fails to support Mac or Apple workstations. The product should be able to support Mac or Apple workstations, like how it supports Windows and Linux.

The UI of the solution needs improvement, and there is a need to upgrade some of the systems in our environment to ensure better IOPS on our systems. Presently, the IOPS rate is lower than usual for our systems, which might be because of the hardware we use in our company.

They could incorporate an application library for application learning and licensing. This feature could centralize all software applications within a licensed manager, allowing for efficient categorization and accessibility based on categories. They should improve similar functionality in VDI. It would enable users to access applications directly from their local machines without navigating to the VDI machine.

The product integration on local client machines running Linux needs improvement.

It is a little bit complex. You need a little bit of experience with ESXi installation and VMware before using this solution. You cannot directly jump to this solution. It also requires training. After you get trained, you can do anything with Horizon 7.

In terms of features, it has been sufficient for my needs, but it can always have more features. They can maybe merge the servers. They can give the Horizon 7 server in one package with ESXi.

The primary concern lies with licensing. There’s confusion regarding licensing terms following the new management’s takeover. Consequently, our resellers and distributors are confused. The SKUs have been altered. We had planned to include budgetary prices in our upcoming budget, which ends in June. However, during the budget repricing process, the resellers faced difficulties due to their inability to obtain responses regarding the budgetary code. The SKUs have changed due to the transition from one principal to another. 

VMware Horizon needs to integrate with Azure, Teams, and Zoom. 

There is room for a more cost-effective pricing structure, as it could be more affordable.

A simple way to load-balance components has been missing for several years. Because VMware Horizon lacks a load-balancing component, you must always use a third-party solution. VMware recommends that since you have VMware vSphere underneath, you run NSX to get your load balancer from there. However, not every customer can afford to run NSX.

A simple way, particularly for smaller environments, would be to have load balance connection servers and unified access gateways would be extremely beneficial.

The backlog of the development team is extensive. We know the load-balancing is in the roadmap somewhere but it's unknown when it will get addressed.

I would like to see simple load-balancing for smaller environments that lack large solutions like F5, or NSX; it should be redundant or unavailable but in a simple way.

Perhaps limited to only two components; if more are required, a paid load balancing solution can be used.

Load balancing for simple environments, or simple redundancy, is sorely lacking.

The solution has a lot of issues and bugs. 

There is room for improvement in the integration with other parts of the suite. For example, you currently need separate windows to manage app volumes and the dynamic environment manager (DEM). So, it's important to integrate all these infrastructure elements into one window.

The majority of things in VMware Horizon can be done only in Windows and not in Linux. There are Linux customers who would like to use VMware Horizon's features. 

VMware Horizon's initial setup is fairly complex.

Horizon 7's performance could be improved. For instance, when I launch the VDI, it takes a very long time to boot.

The support team's technicalities and the pricing of the solution need improvement. 

In the next release, I would like to have more support when optimizing the master templates for PDI. There are tools that are available to be used but they are not supported at the moment and are more, "use at your own risk."

I would love to see so they can actually allow the use of Linux, from a hosting environment as well as from a VDI client environment. If I can actually host Linux instances as VDIs with the same features as what I get on Windows and have all the key components, like the Composer, database, or the connection services, that would be ideal. Often, ransomware and attacks usually target Windows, therefore, if I'm on Linux, at least I'll have some level of comfort or a buffer against danger.

It's difficult to recall any areas that need improvement. 

They are growing now, in particular with this VDI domain. VMware is now introducing new products and features, and they are onboarding new customers.

There are many competitors in the market. All of the Media in Apple products delivery is seamless. 

They need to advertise the product well and focus on their core features. 

They need to market accordingly and they will have a good future and a good experience for the end customers.

I would like to see seamless integration with the cloud because right now, the dependency is on the cloud providers. I would like to see them have their own cloud environment on any public cloud. Right now, it is split between the public cloud and the VMware cloud environment. If they could deliver a solution that integrated all of the components then it would be great. They would not have to manage two different consoles but rather, a single implementation and a single console.

The remote application features have some room for improvement.

The remote connection, bandwidth usage, and error connection can be improved. Working with the load balancer sites should also be improved. For example, with Horizon, we can use two clients with a one megabit connection, but with Citrix, we can use four or five clients with the same bandwidth through ICA protocol. VMware must improve remote connection, connection stability, and load balancing.

VMware Horizon could be improved with more integration. It is also very costly for Enterprise Plus, which is a drawback. The renewal costs for the license are very, very high. 

We are not satisfied with the storage vendor.

I would like to see the VDP or other features for backing up the VMs.

Areas for improvement in VMware Horizon 7 would be the logging and the troubleshooting, e.g. they could be made clearer.

There are some issues with RAM in the system. There are also some issues with Windows 10, which is running the platform.

Windows 10 has several applications that are available from the Windows Store, and these applications may not work correctly.

We would like to see some of the features that are offered in the highest edition also included in the Standard Edition.

The higher edition has some tools or functions that are called Horizon Smart Policy. It is a very good function that should be included with the standard edition.