Azure Virtual Desktop Reviews

In Azure Virtual Desktop, we are designing infrastructure for the team. With my previous experience, I was managing Azure Virtual Desktop where I was handling all operations such as working on host pools and giving access to users.

It is mainly for giving access to users who are not part of the company, such as consultants or contractors who would be onboarded for a short period of time. We can design and develop a machine for them, and they can connect with Microsoft Authenticator from anywhere in the world. For example, if there are customers from India, we can easily assign a virtual desktop to them and they can login to the network and perform all activities. This really helps in remote working capabilities, and the data remains secure.

With Multi-session, we can have multiple users on the same machine. It's a non-persistent machine where if proper RAM and CPU are assigned for a workstation, up to 20 users can connect to the same session and access applications. This is useful when there are many users and the team is looking for a cost-effective solution. All users can login to the same workstation and applications can be deployed to them. It will be seamless and can be accessed from anywhere.

The best feature is scalability, as it can be used from anywhere.

For example, if a laptop needs to be shipped to users, it requires purchasing, procurement, adding it to the domain, and completing all tasks before handover, plus shipping costs. With Azure Virtual Desktop or any scalable solution, users only need a device, which can be their personal device. They can login to the cloud, use their authentication, and connect to the secure network. This reduces manual effort of procuring devices and shipping costs. When onboarding a team of 100 users for a project, we can assign virtual machines quickly, and resources can be allocated immediately for users to login and perform their tasks.

We can integrate anything with Azure Virtual Desktop from an application perspective. The App-V has evolved into MSIX. To deliver an application to Azure Virtual Desktop, MSIX can be used by expanding it as a virtual hard disk and attaching it to the virtual machine. When this is done, users who need the application will have immediate access through Active Directory group assignment.

One challenge with Virtual Desktop infrastructure is application delivery. From an infrastructure perspective, it's beneficial as we can have a fallback point - if one machine is down, we can have a disaster recovery site for redirection. The delivery of applications is a tedious process. Microsoft is working on building new products for efficient application installation. This feature might be included in upcoming releases. Currently, it's burdensome for IT administrators to create applications compatible with Virtual Desktop infrastructure, unlike traditional machines where direct installation is possible.

I have been using this solution for 5 years.

Regarding deployment processes, most companies using Microsoft utilize either Microsoft Intune or Microsoft SCCM. SCCM is primarily for on-premise computers while Intune is for cloud-based devices. For Azure Virtual Desktop and non-persistent machines, an additional step is required to create applications compatible for deployments. SCCM capability cannot be used to deploy applications on a non-persistent machine. IT administrators must create an App-V or MSIX and deploy that application to Azure resources for user access. This additional step impacts the time required for application deployment to end users.

Since these are cloud-related services for Azure Virtual Desktop, different licenses are available. When a company manages it themselves, it's simpler than existing solutions. You can identify errors in the environment through Azure, which clearly indicates if services aren't working. You can investigate the service and initiate troubleshooting. If issues aren't dependent on your environment, they require Microsoft's intervention. Once setup is complete, it's easy to manage with regular operations. The initial setup is complex, but maintenance is straightforward.

With a persistent machine, assigning workstations to 100 users costs approximately $30,000. In a non-persistent machine with multi-session operating system, users can login to workstations on demand. Sometimes 50 users might login simultaneously, other times only 10. Resource allocation is based on active users. This saves costs as maintenance mode can be set for machines during weekends, allowing them to enter sleep mode and restart automatically on Monday at 7:00 a.m. When resources aren't utilized, there's no payment in Azure as it follows a pay-as-you-go model.

Microsoft support is efficient. For priority incidents affecting 400-500 users, the turnaround time is quick with responses within 3 hours. They help identify root causes and implement fixes. The support agents are capable of narrowing down issues, providing temporary solutions when needed, and working with vendors or engineering teams to implement permanent solutions.

Positive

I worked with Citrix and VMware. Citrix was the first solution with a multi-session operating system supporting 20 users. Citrix can easily integrate with Microsoft App-V, which is advantageous, whereas VMware ThinApp lacks this integration capability.

Each solution has its advantages. With Citrix and VMware, monthly imaging work is required as OS images cannot be updated automatically. They must be taken to a centralized location and deployed for everyone in the image. With Azure Virtual Desktop, since applications are attached, the process is simpler and images can be delivered faster compared to Citrix and VMware.

The initial setup complexity varies based on the environment. For financial institutions, there are numerous restrictions, whereas utilities companies might have limited restrictions due to different data sensitivity levels. The setup depends on requirements and industry type. For secure connections, requests should first reach Active Directory before returning to users. Financial industries typically have more complex setups compared to other industries.

The cost depends on user numbers. For Azure Virtual Desktop with 100 VMs with vCPU for four, supporting 800 machines simultaneously, the cost is approximately $30,000. Costs vary based on user requirements. Developers might need machines with higher specifications and 16 GB RAM, while call center staff require less powerful machines. By classifying users into multiple groups, significant cost savings can be achieved.

Configuration is simple since all components are in the same product family. Office 365 configurations connect to Active Directory and AD tenants, enabling immediate application access upon user verification. This applies to Teams as well.

Some organizations use different tools for data management, such as Forcepoint data loss protection (DLP). These applications allow policy configuration to prevent data from leaving the company. Microsoft Defender can also be used to classify documents as private, confidential, restricted, or public, with corresponding rules. When Azure Virtual Desktop and Defender are applied, data is highly secured.

The latest release includes all necessary features. Previous challenges with host pool management, such as renaming and removing devices, have been resolved, making the process much simpler.

It's advantageous to purchase from Microsoft rather than AWS because application compatibility and integration are simpler with Microsoft.

I would rate this solution 8.5 out of 10.

We use RDP with Azure and have some virtual desktops. A major use case for Azure Virtual Desktop is that we give access to external consultants so they can access our information and interact with us in our environment. It is one of the major use cases; we used to use Citrix and moved away from it, and we were using Terminal Services, but now we are moving to virtual desktops for consultants and internal users for certain applications. We experience Azure Virtual Desktop integrated with Microsoft 365, as the contractors get access to Office 365, Outlook, and their email boxes in the virtual desktop.

This integration enhances productivity 100%, as it makes it much easier for us to give access to external third parties to work with us for collaboration.

Multi-session helps with resource usage because previously we would have our own hardware on-premises, and there would be limitations. If we had too many users, we would have scaling problems, but now with virtual desktops, we do not have to worry about that as Microsoft provides the necessary hardware. We can scale without worrying about hardware restrictions.

From a security perspective, Azure Virtual Desktop is suitable as it works really well; we can collaborate with external parties without worrying about giving them access to things we do not want them to have.

I interact with customer support from Microsoft primarily through account representatives and technicians, rather than calling day-to-day customer support.

I see areas for improvement in Azure Virtual Desktop, specifically regarding cost, as it is a little bit expensive. However, when you account for replacing dedicated hardware and the maintenance it requires, Azure Virtual Desktop becomes a very good proposition because Microsoft handles all the background tasks.

We have been pretty active with Azure for five years.

I assess the performance of Azure Global Infrastructure as great; we do not notice any issues, and it does what we need it to do.

I work for an insurance company, so we use Azure to help us do our work.

I interact with customer support from Microsoft primarily through account representatives and technicians, rather than calling day-to-day customer support. I would rate my satisfaction with Microsoft support at an eight or nine; it is good.

Positive

We switched from Citrix to Azure Virtual Desktop after moving from Citrix to Microsoft Terminal Server. The main reason for changing from Citrix to Azure Virtual Desktop was ease, as Microsoft has improved the product such that there is no big advantage to Citrix anymore.

In terms of installation and deployment of Azure, it is straightforward; we have it all down pat.

We purchased Azure Virtual Desktop directly from Microsoft, as I work for Canada Life, which has worldwide agreements with Microsoft.

We do not track any metrics to assess ROI, but we calculate that moving to Azure will be cheaper than maintaining our own hardware in our data center as we scale back our hardware.

Not Dynamics; we use Azure, but my role is I am an architect, a solution architect. I am not into the nitty-gritty, but I work with people who are experts in Azure and do DevOps. We have automation, and Automation Anywhere is one of the tools we use; I do not work a lot with it, but I use Power Automate more. We have automated processes because that is our corporate solution, but I use Power Automate more because I find it easier.

For others looking to use Azure Virtual Desktop, my advice is that it helps us move more resources to the cloud without worrying about complicated issues related to on-premises hardware and upgrades. I would rate this review an eight overall.

I'm using Azure Virtual Desktop for publishing services to other clients by installing apps on virtual machines and publishing these apps to our users locally in Egypt.

Azure Virtual Desktop is a very useful function that we're using to connect users to virtual machines. Users can utilize this machine to access apps locally or through the cloud, using applications and the Windows desktop to connect remotely from anywhere using Azure Virtual Desktop.

We used it to connect multiple users through Azure Virtual Desktop. Our users can connect remotely to help them with support or use their apps through the cloud from anywhere to finalize their work through Azure Virtual Desktop.

Azure Virtual Desktop enables anyone connecting to Microsoft to use MFA (multi-factor authentication). It's totally secured to connect and has end-to-end encryption through tunnel encryption. We are also using the Defender that's installed on Azure Virtual Desktop through Microsoft, making it very useful and secure.

I have not tried to integrate Microsoft 365 with Azure Virtual Desktop. We integrate 365 with the local PCs and local Outlook or use it through browsers.

I have been using Azure Virtual Desktop since the beginning of this year. I haven't tried to integrate other functions, as it's primarily used for helping our users connect through the cloud and use their products or applications.

Since I've only been using Azure Virtual Desktop for a short time, I haven't explored everything about it. I cannot provide comprehensive feedback as I haven't fully tried all features in Azure Virtual Desktop.

Though I am a beginner, in my case, it has very good stability. I would rate it 10 out of 10.

Scalability deserves a rating of 10 out of 10.

I tried Amazon once, and it was very complicated for registration compared to Azure. Azure Virtual Desktop is not complicated but straightforward.

The installation and initial setup are very simple because we are using pay-as-you-go. It's straightforward with a simple next-next process, selecting processing and hardware requirements. It's very simple and easy.

It's very expensive here in Egypt because of the exchange rate. When we translate the currency from dollars to Egyptian pounds, it becomes very costly.

Azure Virtual Desktop can be compared with products from other vendors and competing solutions.

I am still using Azure and all Microsoft products. Microsoft is a famous company with multiple documentation and videos about every aspect of their products. I haven't finished studying this documentation, so I cannot comment on any shortcomings.

The main issue is the response time, which needs improvement to be faster.

Overall rating: 5 out of 10 for certain aspects, but 10 out of 10 for my specific use case.

Overall review rating: 5/10

The usual use cases for Azure Virtual Desktop are for developers trying to have a development environment, and there are a couple of kinds of environments. One is dedicated instances and one is the shared instances where multiple users log into the same shared pool instances and use it for their development work.

A few features of Azure Virtual Desktop that I have found the most valuable are that it is very handy for companies to not have physical infrastructure, and it is very scalable, highly scalable. For example, if the demand comes from 50 users to 100 users, it can scale up very quickly, scale up or scale down.

The integration of Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Teams within Azure Virtual Desktop helps customers enhance collaboration because it works seamlessly. Microsoft provides Office 365 applications image out of the box, which can be used on the AVD session, as a session host. All the Microsoft applications work seamlessly on the AVD hosts.

The built-in security measures of Azure Virtual Desktop are very secure because it gets integrated with Azure Active Directory, so identities are used there. It provides both options, such as fully cloud-only identities for Entra ID joined, or it also supports the hybrid AD joined environments. Security-wise, the accessibility part can be controlled privately as well as publicly. The whole customer access remains on the web using the web channel HTTPS only, which is a secure way to access it. It also provides companies with the ability to secure their data inside the AVD environment by controlling the security settings. For example, users will not be able to copy the data in and out. There are many security settings available for companies to secure their data.

The comprehensive integration with other Azure services impacts customers' cloud strategy and application deployment as it is very handy because customers can utilize their own licenses which they might have bought. They can utilize their licenses on Windows 11 running on the AVD. The integration works seamlessly if a customer is using many Azure cloud services, allowing them to access and manage PaaS services, IaaS services, and many other services. It works for both remote users as well as office users.

Areas of Azure Virtual Desktop that could be improved or enhanced include the cost part and the auto-scaling part. There is a new dynamic auto-scaling feature which is in preview as of now, and with regards to resource runtime, its load, and utilization part, further cost optimizations can be done, so the auto-scaling part can be improved.

I have been working with this solution for five years.

The initial setup of Azure Virtual Desktop overall is complex. The complexities I've noticed are with application optimizations, and it can get complex by meeting customers' security requirements. But it can meet those requirements. Configuring and doing pilots can be a little complex. AVD as a solution needs to run the pilot to optimize the usage of the users because the end-user is involved here. The stabilization phase can take some time.

Overall, Azure Virtual Desktop is quite stable, scalable, and flexible.

It is absolutely very critical for my customers to stay stable within Azure Virtual Desktop. For example, in the banking sector, it becomes quite critical for them if they are not able to log in or if it is behaving slowly. Keeping up the performance and availability is critical for this service to the customers.

The customer service and technical support for Azure Virtual Desktop is quite good. We have done quite a number of complex cases, but usually, these take time.

Positive

The usual amount customers pay for this tool varies. I have seen large deployments catering to 500 or 700 users. Enterprises do use it, and they pay quite a bit for this.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate the cost of Azure Virtual Desktop as 8.5, where ten indicates the highest price. Overall, I would rate Azure Virtual Desktop as a solution at 9.5 out of 10.

I provide users with a desktop using Azure Virtual Desktop. We are using it internally.

The biggest advantages are the price and flexibility. On a technical side, a useful feature is that Azure is a single control plane globally for all regions, making it straightforward. 

For us, it's scalable, yet not fully scalable by default for my area. We automate the deployment by building a framework around it, which requires minimal hands-on involvement. In addition, for flexibility, we use tools like Nerdio as an add-on for Azure.

The primary area for improvement is around the scalability of Azure, specifically on the desktop side. We address this by using third-party tools like Nerdio and automation. Also, Azure could improve its uptime and the scaling aspect, as it lacks intelligent scaling.

I have been using Azure Virtual Desktop for three years.

In most cases, Azure Virtual Desktop is fully stable.

Azure is not naturally scalable for my area. We enhance it with tools like Nerdio and automation to improve scaling capabilities.

I have dealt with Microsoft's technical support, and my experience is satisfactory though there are a lot of shifts in technicians. I would rate it as eight out of ten.

Positive

We used Citrix on Azure before fully implementing native Azure. We shifted to native Azure last year.

The initial setup of Azure Virtual Desktop is quite straightforward.

Globally, a team of six people is involved in the deployment, although minimal hands are needed due to automation.

The environment has been online since Christmas last year, so we have not observed significant ROI yet.

Azure pricing is quite cheap due to licensing benefits with Microsoft. Compared to other cloud providers, it offers cost savings.

We previously used Citrix on Azure.

For Azure Virtual Desktop, my overall rating is nine out of ten. 

We use Nerdio as an add-on for better scaling and cost saving.

The use cases include providing application access to users through Azure Virtual Desktop using MSIX App Attach or remote app, enabling remote users like BPO or contact center resources to connect and work on applications, and allowing vendors to access specific applications securely without a device, using their own devices.

The auto-scaling option allows provisioning additional virtual desktops based on user demand, making it scalable and flexible. The hybrid work feature provides secure connectivity and productivity with Microsoft 365 integration, allowing access from any device and location. Utilizing existing licenses like E3 or E5 avoids additional licensing costs.

Access from Entra ID should be implemented to provide only tenant access to users connecting to the Azure Virtual Desktop environment, eliminating the need for on-premises requirements.

I am not using it personally, but I am part of a service provider team offering solutions to customers.

If the environment is thoroughly planned and designed, there are no major stability issues faced during operations.

The solution is flexible and scalable, allowing additional provisioning of virtual desktops based on demand.

The support is satisfactory. We haven't faced major issues, and as a Microsoft preferred partner with AVD specialization, we receive good support.

Positive

We work with Microsoft for Azure Virtual Desktop. Microsoft solutions are proposed but we are not resellers.

The initial setup is straightforward, facilitated by Microsoft's documentation and available Terraform scripts. Automation tools like Nerdio Enterprise Manager further streamline the process.

The team size depends on the environment scale, with a maximum of one architect and one SME or engineer being sufficient for deploying larger environments.

The pricing is competitive. A monthly subscription, one-year, or three-year reserved instance options are available, with the best benefits realized in three-year reserved instances with auto scaling.

I rate the overall solution nine out of ten. 

Access from Entra ID could be added as an improvement.

Neutral

Originally, I used Azure Virtual Desktop for disaster recovery, and then I also used it for remote working options. Those are the main aspects of it.

The ability to spin up virtual machines quickly and speedily in Azure has been really valuable. I could make value with using the virtual desktop instead of giving out laptops to everyone. It was good from that aspect of it.

One of the issues I had was the ability to add an internet proxy. I would like to see built-in proxy and internet filtering.

I have been using Azure Virtual Desktop for about four years.

I've always found Azure Virtual Desktop to work for me without issues. It's stable, and I would rate its stability as ten out of ten.

Azure Virtual Desktop is scalable to any company size, whether small, mid, or enterprise level. I would rate the scalability as nine out of ten.

The initial setup was fairly simple for me.

I go into businesses, make recommendations, and help the companies set them up.

I haven't been heavily involved in the pricing side of things, however, it seemed to offer good value. It allowed us to use virtual desktops instead of distributing laptops, which was beneficial.

AWS is a main competitor with its virtual workstation services.

I would rate Azure Virtual Desktop an eight out of ten overall. I recommend the product to other users. I am more than happy to use my business name.

I use it for accessing resources from different machines.

The scalability is probably the most valuable feature since I can quickly add or remove machines or increase or decrease the size depending on resources to manage the cost better. 

It is a useful way of accessing my more complicated applications without having to install them on every device, especially when I have people working from home.

There is nothing off the top of my head that they are not already working on. The costs are a bit difficult to predict upfront. When I am trying to sell it to a customer as a consultant, it is hard to give them a fixed price. Many companies like to know the expected costs, and it is very difficult to predict.

I have used the solution probably for about five years.

As long as I set it up properly and set it across regions, there are no issues.

I have not contacted support recently.

Neutral

I have not used other solutions for a long time.

I have done the initial setup so many times, so I find it pretty straightforward now. It is all from within Microsoft Azure portal. I set up my host pools and my work groups, then I assign my session hosts to it, and then install the apps on top of the session hosts. It is all very GUI-driven and straightforward. 

For someone who has never done it before, it might take a few days. For someone experienced, it is two or three hours.

It is not the kind of thing where I would get a return on. It is more of an ongoing running cost.

There is not much licensing. The price is just the usage, which is the same as anything else on Azure. As long as I am careful, it's reasonable.

The only thing to consider is Windows 365, which is also from Microsoft, easier to set up but has a fixed monthly subscription rather than usage costs. I would just compare the two and see which one is best for my situation.

Absolutely, this solution is probably the leader in its field. If I need remote access to software, it is the best option. The benefits are that I can use lower-spec computers and have my more heavily used applications hosted elsewhere. 

The overall product rating is eight out of ten.

Clients may use Azure Virtual Desktop for replacing some of their remote desktops and admin jump hosts.

Azure Virtual Desktop provides users the ability to do remote work in a secure environment that is easy to manage.

As a service provider, the advantages of the product are the ease of integration.

The integration with Microsoft 365 is particularly noteworthy.

The multi-session Windows 10 feature is used and helpful.

Management aspects could still be enhanced.

Regarding pricing, the solution is affordable.

I have been dealing with Azure Virtual Desktop for about five years.

Installation and setup for Azure are pretty straightforward.

They had glitches in the past, but everything is fixed now, and I don't see any issues currently.

Azure is better concerning scalability and flexibility.

It takes too long to get a return call.

The quality overall is good, with the only concern being response time.

Neutral

I have worked with Citrix and Horizon as solutions before.

When drawing a brief comparison between these tools, some require an on-premise environment, while some don't. Having a cloud-only solution is a benefit.

I am a service provider, and we work with various vendors, including Microsoft and AWS.

We primarily work with Microsoft as our flagship product, and we have another team for AWS. I build solutions around Microsoft.

I work on security, endpoint security, and endpoint management.

I primarily work with Microsoft solutions, including Windows Defender.

The team itself is very diverse.

I work with Microsoft Azure, dealing with infrastructure, Azure Virtual Desktops, and infrastructure solutions. On a scale of 1 to 10, I would rate this solution as an eight.