Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

We primarily use the solution for remote desktop services. It can be used locally or on the cloud. It's on every single Windows machine. 

If you need a remote desktop for Windows 10, or Windows 2016, you use RDP, which is Remote Desktop Services.

The solution is great for remote into machines. 

It works fine, and it is largely issue-free.

The product is stable. 

If you are deploying it, as a VDI solution, then it is very limited.

The product is not very scalable. 

I've used the solution for 15 years.

It's quite stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales minimally. It's not meant for scaling. 

Everyone uses the product to some extent. We do not have plans to decrease usage at this time. 

I try not to contact technical support.

Neutral

We were using Citrix, which I found to be much better.

The solution comes with the Windows Server. You simply enable the feature and begin using it. 

The solution is bundled within Microsoft products. 

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the solution to others unless they had no other choices.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten. 

The product helps assess our system.

I like the way it can assess our system. 

The features it has already serves or needs.

The initial setup is very simple. 

It is quite stable. 

The product offers good pricing.

Technical support has been helpful. 

I don't need any other new features. It works well as it is. 

We'd like them to continue to improve on security. 

I've been using the solution for quite some time. It's been around ten years or so.

This is a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

I'd rate the stability seven out of ten. 

Our system is on Windows, and we need to scale very little. As far as we're concerned, it scales enough for us. We have about 20 users on the solution currently.

We use Microsoft 365, and if we have any issues, we contact support that covers that. We've been satisfied overall with the level of support we get. I have no complaints. 

Positive

We are also using TeamViewer. It targets different areas from Remote Desktop. For example, it allows others to access your system - not you. They each serve different purposes. 

The initial setup is great it's very simple and straightforward. I do not find it to be complex at all. 

The pricing is good. I'd rate it five out of five in terms of affordability.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I seldom use the product; however, for me, it works exactly as I need it to. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Remote Desktop Services for a few things. My experience started with Microsoft Remote Desktop when I tried to reuse really low power desktop machines to turn them from these desktop machines into class remote desktop terminals. That is my initial experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop. My most current experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop is using a specific Microsoft product on the servers where you don't have any chance to administer them using the web browser. SCCM, active directory administration and other Wintel server roles are most handy and the most secure to administer from the Microsoft Management Console. Therefore, you need to do it at least from some instance of the Microsoft windows server.

I like that it works. In most cases, it's predictable. You know what you get.

Microsoft still has some really bad remote desktop appliances for Mac. This is really frustrating because if I'm on windows I can remove the Microsoft remote desktop applied for Windows, but I'm already using windows, I always have an option B. I can still plug directly with Microsoft management console from the windows station and still do something remotely. But on a Mac, I have to rely purely on the Microsoft Remote Desktop. 

If I need to pass second-factor authentication, not a one-time password thing, if I do a Microsoft remote desktop session, I have to reach the first server, which is my best one. From that server, you're actually going inside your protective network. Then on the second spot, you are not able to pass a YubiKey and go any farther. That creates the problem. We have had many support tickets.

With this new company, I have been using this solution for two and a half years, but overall I have 15 years of experience.

It is being used mainly on a Mac platform.

I would say it's stable.

In the last setup, we had 3,000 users. It wasn't the nicest experience.

My experience with support is varied. It really depends. It varies depending on which support line you get. If you say you're a particular engineer then they won't really bother to support you. But if you say you have an enterprise contract and that you're a big company and you have a contract then they offer better support.

We previously used Citrix. Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is a more developed version of Citrix.

I would recommend going for VMware.

Microsoft programs are never easy to install but the installation wasn't something we didn't expect.

We deployed it on our own.

We use enterprise orchestration so it doesn't take too long to deploy. Microsoft products do not really play along with the open-source orchestration platforms. Once you overcome this, it becomes easier.

I would not recommend going with this solution because I wouldn't recommend going for a big enterprise setup. 

I would rate it a four out of ten. 

In the next release, they should develop better support for remote desktops for alternative platforms. It's really lacking consistency. If I have to support terminal server clusters and I have to do change management on the big cluster, then I actually run into a lot of issues both on the Microsoft Remote Desktop as well as Citrix. They should provide a consistent user experience. It's a pain to roll out changes into a different mode of the cluster and to propagate them over multiple modes. I end up in a situation where a portion of my users get the changes and the other portion doesn't.

We use it in our bank.

We have some servers, and more than two users go remotely with them. We prepare with the Microsoft engineer servers that take them and the license for the users when they need them.

It has generally improved how our organization functions.

The solution is now stable.

The initial setup is simple. It's quick to deploy.

It works well and does what we need it to do.

Sometimes the server stops working, and we don’t know why. Occasionally we’ll get a message to the effect of "There is no remote license."

I’ve been using the solution for about one year.

While we had a problem before, now everything is stable. It’s reliable now. We’ve dealt with our issues and no longer have troubles.

I can’t speak to the scalability. I’ve never attempted to scale. That’s handled by someone else in the company.

Right now, we have 50 licenses available to us. We use the solution quite extensively.

I’ve never dealt with technical support for issues related to the stability problem. I can’t speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. Other team members deal with them. We do have a support contract with Microsoft.

I have dealt with them on Teams on Active Directory and found them to be helpful. I found their help to be excellent.

We already had a license with Microsoft, and therefore, it was natural to use this product as well.

It’s not difficult to set up. It’s pretty straightforward.

The deployment is pretty fast. It only takes about an hour and a half. We only needed to have three people handle the deployment and maintenance.

An engineer worked with us to set up the servers. We have machines joining the domain, and we have workgroup machines.

We handled everything in-house. We didn’t need the help of consultants.

I’m not sure if we have seen an ROI.

I cannot speak to how much the solution costs. My understanding is that it is moderately priced in that it is not cheap or expensive. We ended up getting it when we renewed our license. It’s an extra feature with the broader Microsoft license.

I’m not sure which version of the solution we’re using.

I’d recommend the solution to others. It’s solved problems for us and worked well.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have a partnership with Microsoft.

We have some of our client applications deployed onto the RDS platform, and we need to test those applications through RDS Web Access. We need to test how external users access these applications from different networks, like the cloud gateway or external locations. As a part of the QA team, I need to check if users can access the applications without any issues.

Basically, I also work with Citrix, and I think the most important thing is getting access to Citrix. Microsoft developed the RDS solution for this purpose, and we don't see any issues accessing applications from Microsoft RDS. It's a good solution.

Users have reported that sometimes when we try to initialize an application, the session disappears one out of ten times. So, maybe it can be one of the areas of improvement. We are still investigating the issue, but we believe it might be due to a network or server issue.

Because this was the only issue I experienced was with the initialization of the session, which affected the stability of the service.

It's a project-based thing for me, so I move into different technologies depending on the project. I worked on Microsoft in June, and now I am into RDS. Currently, I am working on a project for RDS, and once that's done, I may move on to another technology. So, I've been using RDS for around three to four months.

It is stable, but users have reported that sometimes when we try to initialize an application, the session disappears one out of ten times. So we have to download the session file again and re-initiate the session. This issue occurs occasionally, and we must click on the application to reinitialize the session.

We are actually trying to get some insights on the issue with the initial initialization of sessions from the architect, also.

Overall, I would rate the stability a seven out of ten because we still need clarity from the architect. Is it something in the world of technology, or do we have the same issue? Or is it something that we are getting this issue because we moved to a new enrollment? We are just awaiting that.

It is scalable. Currently, we have 19 host servers, and each host is serving around 20 sessions or so.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten, where ten is very scalable. I haven't compared it with other solutions, but as an end-user, I believe it is quite scalable.

We have around 600 people, but about 300 to 400 users use the solution concurrently. Nowadays, we are using it regularly due to people working from different locations, but previously it was mainly used when people were working remotely from home.

The customer service and support team is good. 

Positive

The initial setup is not that difficult. I have gone through the RDS initialization steps, which only seem easy.

I would rate the setup around eight because I haven't compared it with other tools yet. But overall, I'm comfortable with the solution.

For the deployment process, in the current scenario, we have this solution from one vendor, and we are migrating it to a new platform. So it's not a complete configuration but rather a lift-and-ship process from one platform to another. We've been working on it for a long time.

We have around four to five people for the deployment and about four to five people for testing the applications after migration. There are a couple of architects who are looking into all the configuration changes in the lift-and-ship process. And there are also a couple of managers and a few quality assurance people.

For maintenance, the client has a partnership with Microsoft for maintenance as part of this deployment.

I would recommend the solution to people, especially for its security aspects and device compatibility.

I would give it a nine, it's good overall.

We use it on the customer side. We use the product as remote desktop services. 

We've been satisfied with the product overall. 

The remote desktop features are great. It allows users to work remotely. We can take a remote session on the server.

It's largely stable.

The solution is easy to implement. 

We'd like more granular security control of the desktop services. Right now, we have a third-party solution that does this. 

We need to control via group policies. We need to be able to implement these policies in a simpler way in order to control users in a more granular way.

I've used the solution since 2010. I've used it for over ten years. 

The solution is mostly stable. I'd rate the stability five out of ten. We are not able to control or protect without group policies. With a better ability to make policies, it will become stable.

I have not attempted to scale the solution. We're using it for on-premises reasons only. All the customers are here. 

We do not contact technical support directly. We simply rely on Google and seek out our own answers if needed.

We have used different solutions in the past. We found it was easier to centralize control and maintain better security with it. 

For the most part, it is easy to implement. However, the management is dependent on group policies. 

How many people you need to deploy the solution depends on the size of the environment required. 

I'm not aware of the exact pricing. I work on the implementation side. 

We had been working as a partner for Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.

Microsoft needs one centralized console to manage all of its components. That would make it better. 

We have many customers that are using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for publishing internal applications through the services. The process involves virtualizing applications for internal and external users and making them accessible through Microsoft Remote Desktop Services and reverse proxy services. By doing so, users can indirectly access the applications without logging into the server directly. The solution is used mostly for external company users.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services has helped the security posture of the organization by not exposing its internal applications. instead of giving internal direct access to their internal apps. They give access to only a secondary server with limited access to internal applications.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is its security and simple configuration.

The solution can improve the policies of the solution.

I have been using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for approximately 15 years.

The stability of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is good.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is scalable, we are able to have more licenses or increase the load if needed.

The solution is straightforward and we have not had any problems needing to contact support.

I have not used a similar solution to Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The initial setup of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is simple. It only takes a few clicks of the mouse to complete.

The price of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is reasonable. The solution can come for free for some clients with certain agreements.

For customers who already have the Microsoft EA framework, the license for enhancing internal security when publishing web and internal applications to both internal and external users is readily available. By using this feature, customers can ensure that their applications remain secure without compromising access to their users. This eliminates the need for direct access, thereby enhancing the overall security of their systems.

I would recommend this solution to others.

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

The most valuable aspect is it is handy. We just start up the servers, and we can call the remote desktop, and it's connected. And that's it.

The product is stable.

It is easy to set up.

The solution is highly scalable. 

The performance depends on connectivity. The refreshing screen rate is based on the internet and the bandwidth. It can therefore be unstable. 

It would be nice if they had a portable version. This would make it much better. Sometimes we cannot install it on some machines. We just want to use it once and don't need to actually install it anyway, yet we can't. 

I've been using the solution for 20 years. 

The stability depends on the connectivity. If there is terrible connectivity, it will be unstable. In general, if the connectivity is there, I would rate it four out of five in terms of stability.

The scalability has been very good. 

We have about 20 licensed users on the solution right now. 

I've never called technical support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

I'm familiar with TeamViewer and Desktop Anywhere. They are good, however, we are concerned they have issues surrounding security. That's why we prefer this product.

The initial setup is simple. It's not a complex process. 

The solution comes in a bundle, which offers a cost-savings to customers. 

I'm not sure of the exact price. I don't deal with that directly.

I'm just an end-user.

It's on-prem and we have a server or a cluster to form a group of servers to provide. We are our access from other countries as we have some colleagues working in Britain.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.