Horizon 8 Reviews

We are using VMware Horizon View for R&D. We use it like a machine that we need 24/7 at any cost. It should be accessible from anywhere, whether on an office premise or over the internet. But there are a few locations such as in the case of contractors, where we are not allowed to provide our machine. Here, we provide VDI infrastructure to them. They then connect the VDI and work. We integrate their system with Microsoft's Remote Desktop Service. Further, we tag the RDS with the solution. It acts as a connecting bridge between Microsoft hardware and the remote server.

VMware's most helpful feature is its ability to work like a centralized management system. When I say centralized management, it includes everything from vulnerability to application management, and much more. Regarding an R&D environment, we can quickly roll out VDI on their customized operating system. VMware is beneficial for customized platforms that offer auto-promotion and auto-deprovision. 

Initially, they had a VMware security server, which they replaced with a UAE server. The reason was to include more security features. They also included a load balancer feature on customers' demand. But, the paging server should have security enhancement features, which we can rely on and configure for small-scale businesses. They should provide high-end security at the initial stage. They are coming up with a hybrid cloud as well. There should be a function where one can connect and work; whenever not required, one can deprovision it. They should add things like voice interfaces. Whenever you need VDI, it should be a seamless experience. So those are the features I would like them to improve.

If I want to do any upgrade, in case of a zero-day vulnerability, I have to log out of every system. Then, it could be CCM, or it could be patching, or some other solution. We need to wait for the user to come online. To tackle this issue, they should include a feature like Golden Image management. So that we can build multiple VMs.

We used to work with VMware 3.2 and were the first to implement it back then. We used it for over two to three years. Recently, during the COVID time, we again implemented VMware for the remote management of VDIs. So, we have been using the solution for nearly twelve months now. We were testing and using it.

We need to understand every component, from the first tool to the last, and make a call accordingly. We must implement all the best practices and have a backend storage connection transfer. We need to specify how many VDIs and storage are required. If you calculate everything perfectly, it is a stable product. I don't see any issues in our environment other than a slight issue regarding an agent. Because when the VM agent starts to run from and talk to the different VMware servers, there could be a network interruption. We need to make the changes according to the review of the five users. It's a stable product.

It is a scalable product. We have around 50-80 people in our company using the solution.

I contacted them for a query about one of the zero-day vulnerabilities. They provided some assistance but it didn't help with the security scanner. Again, we interacted with the level two team; they immediately released a fix for that. They are doing it well. They have a proper installation matrix in place. They will do it easily if you ask them to escalate to the next level. You just need to instruct about the engineering level for assistance.

Positive

I had experience working with Citrix. But, I needed more confidence in the product because it depends on the active directory. Its value of profile and image management depends on Microsoft group policy. You cannot use the Citrix hypervisor because it is not stable. Comparatively, VMware is a good product. You get a bundle of features with VMware. With it, you don't have to depend on any other vendor for authentication.

The setup depends on the requirement. Implementing VMware 3.2 was a critical setup, as we were the first to deploy it. With the current setup, the site for deployment, even if it's a dedicated VDI, an automated VDI, or some golden image-based VDI, has no redundancies. The only thing is we need to have some networking knowledge. We need to know which port must be open from where to where and see the proxy and direct model. Also, we need to have a basic understanding of firewalls and networking. It helps us do an implementation faster.

Then it comes to redundant CR architecture, which includes the UA layer, the other view, and different standpoints. If we don't understand the account, we can implement it from an infrastructure standpoint. When it comes to a VDI, we get multiple ways out. Sometimes, auto-provisioning becomes complicated. When you need more automation to meet the requirements, it becomes redundant. We need an end-to-end understanding of the security networks, AD architecture, profiling, group policy, etc. We need to know how the authentication standpoint works. The port must be kept open from one authentication server to capture all the details and complete implementation.

I have been working with Microsoft products for twenty years. I advise others to be clear about their requirements, the use cases, and the kind of VDIs they need. They should know whether they want a centralized management system, out of provisioning, or if they want to build a VIN. They should also decide which purchasing programs to opt for. VMware is the best fix for the organization because they are prevalent in the hypervisor.

I would rate it as a nine. The reason is the number of tickets we have raised to VMware compared to the Microsoft product.

Our primary use case for the solution is to give end users clone desktops, and they can use their applications. So instead of providing a desktop, we give them a computer with just a client, and everything is loaded in that VDI session and not directly on that workstation. We deploy the solution on-premises.

The solution has provided flexibility by allowing an end user to remote in, log in, and get their VM. VDI session and have all the icons and applications they need to use and retain the same booking view regardless of location.

We have found the link loans for desktops most valuable.

The customer service and support team could be better.

We have been using the solution for approximately six years and are currently using version 7.0.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Approximately 800 users are utilizing the solution in our organization.

I rate customer service and support a six out of ten.

Neutral

We did not previously use other solutions.

The initial setup was straightforward, and two people were required for deployment and maintenance.

We have seen a return on investments.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. The solution is good, but the technical support team can be improved. My advice to new users considering the solution is that it is a good option. It is easy to set up and not that difficult to implement.

It is a method of providing a user with access to centralized resources in the form of either a full desktop session or a hosted application, whether it is Windows or Linux.

Horizon is known for its simplicity, security and flexibility in its deployment. It allows for simplified management, advanced user configuration and application deployment, all at speed and at scale. Horizon 8 improves on all of these, as most things can be automated by using either Powershell or REST api, and instant cloning is still the fastest way of creating virtual desktops, especially at scale.

Users can now access resources in a safe and simple way, using the same form of authentication as our other resources. They now have access to high performance desktops in the data centre or public cloud, by using hardware graphics acceleration in the servers hosting the VDI desktop solution. Data now stays securily in the data centre and users have incredibly fast access to it, since the desktops now live right next to that data.

The user can now use any endpoint they have available, since all they need is an HTML5 compatible browser or Horizon Client for their specific OS to be able to access the solution.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the ability to provide secure remote access to resources.

A simple way to load-balance components like the Connection Servers, Unified Access Gateways, App Volumes managers and Recording servers.

Since Omnissa Horizon lacks a load-balancing component, you must always use a third-party solution to be able to provide high availability for these components.

I would like to see simple load-balancing for smaller environments that do not have access to large enterprise solutions like F5 or AVI; components should be able to be made redundant or high available in a simple way.

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

I have been working with Omnissa Horizon for approximately fifteen years.

The first one I built was version four.

We are working with version eight, and our customers run version seven and some are already on version eight. 

Version seven is already out of support.

The most recent version is 8.16, but they no longer use that numbering; it is now 2506. The new numbering reflects the month and year of release.

The stability of Omnissa Horizon is incredible for both Horizon version seven and version eight.

The only reason the basic component connection server failed was that there was something broken underneath, either storage, compute or antimalware solutions. Horizon itself rarely has any issues.

At present, Omnissa Horizon scales up to 250,000 concurrent sessions.

In my opinion, Omnissa Horizon is a very scalable product. The most prominent companies in the world use it. Some require it to scale to that level, which is why the product is capable of doing so.

I would rate the technical support a four out of five. Since the breakup with Broadcom, support staff has ofcourse decreased, but the focus has increased. There are now only a few products that support actually has to know, which helps in the focus. Responses have been fast and escalating things to the right level seems to be a lot speedier than before.

At this moment, the level of support is mature and still growing.

Positive

I have had experience with Microsoft and Citrix. The switch was made due to the integration capabilities of Horizon with VMware vSphere. This combination is still unique, although they now come from seperate companies. Agreements exist for the next 10 years, so this combination will remain strong for the time being.

It can be deployed in your private cloud, a public cloud, or a hybrid of the two. 

Omnissa Horizon only has one license, which is a license to run desktops. They don't care if you run them on Azure, Google Cloud, Alibaba, your own data center, or a combination of those.

There is a cloud platform included to be able to govern it, the Horizon Cloud Console.

The initial setup is dependent on what you compare it to. 

When referring to an on-premises installation, the infrastructure isn't that complex; otherwise, it's just the cloud, which is a service that you use, and that is not necessarily complex.

On-premises you have some components, and there is some designing involved, especially if the environment is medium to large.

The complexity is in your data and your applications, not in Omnissa Horizon.

A PoC is set up in a couple of days.

The basic environment depends on the organization; for example, a complete infrastructure for a large company can take two weeks to set up. You are dealing with a lot of integration with other components, and setting up load balancers and certificates.

It is worth the investment. We have numerous customer success stories about how great Omnissa Horizon is as a product and how it has solved problems for them.

It lowers endpoint costs, reduces IT management overhead, enhances security and compliance, it can help workers gain productivity and provide business continuity and disaster recovery, provides scalability and is cloud flexible.

Simply put:

I am aware of the license models, but not the prices. There are multiple licensing options, please refer to https://www.omnissa.com/horizo... for more information.

I have had experience with Microsoft and Citrix, which are both either lacking in funtionality or now way too expensive.

Do a proof of concept. Set out your requirements and compare them to what the solution can provide.

It is a complete product.

It is fully mature, easy to manage, and it is easy to design if you know what you are doing. 

It is stable and there are new features that come from the new release twice a year.

Our organization is a national cybersecurity agency in Qatar, and we need virtual machines that automatically erase once the user logs out. The solution also enables access to our organization's secured environment through the Internet. For instance, you can be anywhere in the world and still access the on-premises infrastructure securely. 

Once our organization upgraded to the latest version of VMware Horizon, we eliminated the delayed login times we had faced in the prior version. The USB redirection is one of the valuable features of VMware Horizon.

Using the aforementioned feature, I have allowed access to certain types of USB models, and only these authorized models by the employer are accessible in the VDI environment, therefore any USB outside the whitelisted manufacturers won't function in our organization's environment. 

I also find the solution's Unified Access Gateway (UAG) feature useful as it makes administration tasks easier. For instance, if I want to enable a particular network device to access VMware Horizon, UAG makes such processes quick and easy.

At our organization, we are also using VMware Workspace ONE for endpoint management, which facilitates the employees' ability to bring their own devices, which can be used to access the on-premise infrastructure and the applications present on it. 

There are some licensing issues in VMware Horizon, but I believe that the vendor will be able to resolve them soon. Our agency is used to traditional licenses, and when Broadcom acquired the product, they made some changes in the licensing. In the long term, the latest product licensing model might be more beneficial. 

I have been using VMware Horizon since 2018. 

I would rate the stability a ten out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. The solution can be effortlessly scaled unless and until there are issues with the on-premise infrastructure. Presently, our organization has 2,500 VMware Horizon users. 

Our agency has production support from VMware, but there have been very few instances where we needed to reach out to customer support, which were some rare issues that our team couldn't troubleshoot on their own. Only in instances similar to zero-day vulnerabilities did our agency contact customer support. I would rate the customer support a ten out of ten. 

Positive

Previously in our agency we were using SCCM from Microsoft but VMware Horizon is easier to manage. But both aforementioned vendors have some interdependence when deploying either of their products. For instance, when you want to deploy VMware Horizon you need to use some Microsoft products such as Active Directory and DNS. For end users in our agency, we use Microsoft products and for applications, Linux servers are used. 

The initial setup process is extremely simple, you just need to run the domain controller and active directory and the rest of the setup is related to network communication. The clear and concise documentation from VMware Horizon further assists in the seamless setup process. Any professional with a couple of years of experience in system administration can effortlessly deploy the product. 

VMware Horizon and other products from the vendor are not aimed at small businesses; it's rather ideal for mid-scale and enterprise businesses. VMware Horizon can be considered to be slightly expensive. 

The solution's instant clone technology is used in our organization, which facilitates the auto-deletion of machines once the user logs out. Upon logging in again, a new machine with a new hostname is assigned. 

VMware Horizon can be easily integrated with other tools due to the presence of effective documentation that is easy to access and comprehend. The employees and the end-users of our agency are highly satisfied with the product. 

VMware Horizon supports both on-prem and VDI cloud-based deployment models. I would rate the product a ten out of ten. I would definitely recommend the solution to others, especially for every VDI use case. 

The use case is remote access to VMs. It allows us to remote access the VMs and our servers.

It's centralized management, and you have access gateway to enter the VMs from outside.

The issue now with VMware is that we don't know the future of the solution. Because if you follow the news, it was acquired by another company, and they are changing the old product line. 

I have been using VMware Horizon View for 34 years. 

The solution is highly stable. I rate the stability eight out of ten. 

The initial setup is easy. The deployment took a few weeks time. I would rate the setup an eight out of ten. 

The deployment was done in house with two people. One person is required for maintenance.

The solution is expensive. 

Overall I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

My company uses VMware Horizon View for educational institutions and for the student lists maintained. My company also uses the solution in the healthcare industry.

VMware Horizon View offers something called a security gateway, which allows users to get access to VDI without a VPN. The user experience provided by VMware Blast Extreme is also good. The USB redirection from the client to VDI is another good feature of VMware Horizon View.

In VMware Horizon View, app volume is an area of concern where improvements are required. For certain applications, a lot of tremendous effort from my company's end had to be put in to configure the app volume, making it one of the most difficult parts of the product. In VMware Horizon View, for a stateless VDI, the configuration part of app volume is straightforward, as it can be done in a. When a user needs some type of persistent VDI, some more configurations need to be done.

There are some shortcomings in VMware's support team, where improvements are required. My company can only use emails and not directly contact VMware's support engineer. Even if some issues suddenly crop up in the solution, my company is not in a position to contact VMware's support team.

I have been using VMware Horizon View for five years. My company operates as an integrator of the solution.

It is a very stable solution.

It is a very scalable solution.

Owing to the VDI part in VMware Horizon View, my company caters to the requirements of enterprise-sized companies.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have past experience with Citrix. I feel that VMware is better than Citrix. Citrix requires its users to have a bit of technical skill to carry out the deployment process.

The product's deployment phase is difficult as it contains a lot of components, which requires a technician to have a technical understanding of integrations.

The solution can be deployed in a week, but it may vary depending on the requirements of a customer.

One architect and two engineers are required to take care of the deployment part of VMware Horizon View.

VMware Horizon View is an expensive product. My company needs to opt for a subscription-based pricing model when it comes to the licensing costs attached to the product.

The maintenance phase of VMware Horizon View is easy.

Two people are required to take care of the maintenance phase of VMware Horizon View as there are more than 100 VDIs.

I think that VMware Horizon View presently has a SaaS offering, an option with which the maintenance part can be made much easier. VMware and Azure have a partnership to offer a SaaS-based solution. If you are open to a product deployed on the cloud model, you can choose VMware Horizon View.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We use it to gain access to our organization's applications.

One of the most valuable aspects is that I can connect from home, and the system operates seamlessly. It offers great flexibility, allowing us to access it as a complete virtual machine or even just as individual applications.

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

I have been using it for approximately four years.

I would rate the stability capabilities eight out of ten.

I would rates its scalability abilities eight out of ten.

Whenever we submit a ticket, there is a productive exchange of information, and more often than not, they manage to address our needs effectively. While there may be occasional challenges, the support is generally quite reliable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

We use a combination of Citrix, Horizon, and Microsoft for virtual apps and desktops based on specific requirements and customer needs.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment was managed by our team, and I handled the installation. The client only had to perform the minimal configuration, such as setting the server's IP. It was highly adaptable and user-friendly, and it took approximately a couple of days.

We observed a return on investment in data protection, resulting in a time savings of around twenty five percent.

It falls on the more expensive end in terms of cost.

You can consider using Microsoft Remote Desktop sessions, which provide a more basic set of features if you don't require all the advanced features offered by Horizon, such as speed optimization, visual enhancements, desktop printing, image resolution, and a seamless user experience. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

In our case, it's for our own internal use. Let's say I am at home, and there's an issue with our customer. Something has happened. I can connect using Secureline and log on to this virtual desktop, accessing the system from there. So it's only for internal use.

From my standpoint, the desktop is the most valuable feature. 

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. 

I have been using this solution for over half a year. 

I've only used it a few times, and it was very stable. The performance was good.

About 15 of us in our organization are using the solution. Our current size is sufficient.

The initial setup is easy. It's a remote desktop, not that fancy. It's easy to manage with just one guy.

I have used Citrix. 

Overall, I would rate the solution a ten out of ten.