Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

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. 

We're using Microsoft Remote Desktop to remotely log into computers via terminal services.

Microsoft Desktop Services is stable but it takes up a lot of resources in the CPU. It's a bit heavier than some solutions.

About a year.

Installing Microsoft Desktop Services is straightforward. It was handled by the vendor. 

I rate Microsoft Desktop Services eight out of 10. At the moment, I wouldn't recommend it to others. 

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. 

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 have a group of users who work remotely for us, as well as others who connect to our computers from various locations.

The solution works on Microsoft servers. 

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services needs to improve its security. 

I have been using the product for 20 years. 

I rate Microsoft Remote Desktop Services' stability a nine out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has 80 users. 

We don't use technical support from Microsoft. We have outsourced it to another company. 

We chose Microsoft because it was cheaper. 

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services' deployment is easy. 

The tool's pricing is high in the Slovenian market. I rate it a nine out of ten. 

I rate Microsoft Remote Desktop Services a nine out of ten.