Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) Reviews

Providing load balancing to our RDS infrastructure, publishing RDS applications and desktops.

Accelerates deployment of thin clients and remote desktop servers in the farm.

• Thin client management (Windows 10 client) provides an easy way to lock down client connection to the remote infrastructure.
• Policies are very helpful for preconfiguring client behavior.
• Client management is easy.

HALB is not stable in our environment. When running two HALBs we have stability problems, so we use an active one and a passive for backup.

Also, it would be nice to implement an upgrade of the environment without having to stop the servers. As it is, this must be done during off-hours.

There have been a few stability issues, mainly around configuration.

I use GPO preferences to push configuration of Windows 10 thin client parameters for Parallels. Each device can have status “managed” in Parallels, meaning that the client is managed by the administration console and policies are applied. But these thin clients were not able to be managed because we discovered that we had already installed the RAS client on the SysPrep-ed machine, and a registry setting was used by Parallels to know the client’s MAC address. This MAC address was the same for all clients and the SysPrep-ed machine, so communication between newly installed clients and the administration server was not possible.

I had to create a script to collect the client’s MAC address during login and replace the registry value with it.

No issues with scalability.

Technical support is an eight out of 10.

Native remote desktop.

The initial setup was of medium complexity. We initially purchased a RAS server to provide more advanced load balancing capabilities between our remote desktop servers. This configuration was quite simple. We added another gateway server later and that was straightforward too.

Pricing is good.

Read the manual.

It's our financial software. From the server side, we got it set up and, for the most part, it has been working. I haven't really changed the configuration in some three years.

It has allowed us to centralize the software location so we don't have to update the software client on 70 computers. It's just the one or two servers that we have, and when people connect to it, it goes from there. It allows for ease of scalability, ease of update, etc.

• Ease of use
• Ease of setup
• Stability

Those would be the three things I really like about it.

The main issue we have with all of our users is printing. Randomly, a printer will disconnect or someone won't connect to it and I will have to reset the print service and then nobody can print. That's the big headache we've had over the course of the five years, printing.

We have not generally encountered any issues with stability and, usually, it is more server-based than software-based. Generally, it's some hardware failing in the server which causes some instability. But we get that replaced and everything gets back to normal. I would say it's a stable product.

We have not noticed any issues with scalability. Generally, again, that goes back to servers. When we noticed that one server was not enough for us, we added another server. We were able to add it to the farm within the software, and it flowed pretty easily. It allowed us to scale up really easily.

The few times I have used tech support, they have been really good, quick response. They're really knowledgeable about the software and are able to find a solution and get it going for me.

We did not have a previous solution. The company I worked for before was taking over IT and we realized they were going to need this kind of solution. I don't know how the decision was made. I came into it after all the decisions had been made about the software. Because the companies were merging together, they were going to have more users. They needed a more centralized software system.

The setup was pretty straightforward. In this environment especially, it's just two or three programs that we have that a lot of people need to use, so it was just getting it set up, installed the right way, and making sure that everybody was able to get connected. We made sure everybody could get the right client software. Then, upgrading software versions, we made sure we got that taken care of on everybody's computers, and went from there.

With a different client that I had set it up for, it was a little bit more complicated but that was the nature of their environment, not so much the software.

I feel the product's pricing is of good value. We have reviewed pricing on other software products, Citrix and products like that, and we realized that for the same basic functionality, we're paying pennies on the dollar, so we do appreciate that pricing level.

In terms of licensing, I don't want to call it an "issue" but the one thing we've run into is, sometimes not having enough licenses. So you have to be on top of that, be ahead of that game. Don't wait until you've completely run out. Always stay five ahead.

We didn't really test out anything else that I know of. When I came in, the decision had already been made. We have reviewed other solutions in the past, like Citrix but, again, we felt that the functionality that we needed was in this solution. For the price point and for the service, we just want to stick with Parallels.

Make sure you have security groups set up for who's going to be using which applications. Other than that, it's stable, it's easy to set up. Once it's set up, you don't really change in a lot of things, unless you're adding to it. You don't have to worry too much. You can get alerts. You have real, in-depth control of everything, so it's a great solution.

I give this product an eight out of 10 and it just comes down to the printing. We've tried several things to get that resolved and nothing has really worked. It will work well for a little bit and then something will hiccup. We have had a lot of hassle for a while. Otherwise, it's a great product.

We use it for remote application installation in Terminal Servers.

Maintenance of software versions has been greatly simplified, ensuring that all users are using the same version of applications.

The ease with which you can publish applications to different groups of users, by integrating with Windows Active Directory.

All areas of the product could be improved especially for the IT department, facilitating the deployment of applications and their maintenance. They also need to offer more options, flexibility, and to keep the price as low as possible.

We have encountered stability issues at times, but they have been resolved with updates.

No issues with scalability.

Technical support is quite good. I would rate it at eight out of 10.

Straightforward. Our vendor did it.

We evaluated Microsoft RemoteApp, but it was more expensive and more difficult to configure.

Make sure the initial installation is done by a vendor.

It provides flexible access to Windows applications from many types of devices.

Students need to access many Windows applications. We provide hundreds of PCs across the campus for them to do so. Using Parallels means they can now use their own devices (Macs, tablets, etc.) from any location instead of having to go to a specific room or queue to use a PC.

• Ease of set up
• Transparent end user experience

Our main target for this product is the student body, who may not be using a Windows PC/laptop, and require access to applications which they are required to undertake during their studies or when they need to carry out research activities. Parallels allows us to provide easy access to applications on multiple devices from any location.

A web-based management interface for administration and reporting would be nice, instead of needing to log into a remote server.

We have not yet encountered any issues with stability.

We have not yet encountered any issues with scalability.

Their technical support is okay.

We did not previously use another solution.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It was performed by Parallels.

Everyone's circumstances are different. Therefore, I cannot provide advice.

We evaluated Citrix VMware.

Try it in a pilot first.

We have some systems in a secret zone of our network. With Parallels, it's easy to publish an app or a desktop to users.

We can publish apps and desktops on Terminal Servers and seamlessly share printers. We also combine Parallels with Deepnet Security to get two-factor authentication.

We use several gateways because access to our secret zone requires two-factor user authentication. It is a lot of hassle differentiating among users with or without two-factor. Of course, we could use two farms, but that would mean more management too.

We have encountered stability issues at times. Some updates are not good and are followed by a new update soon after.

We have had issues with scalability but we do not use a load balancer.

We have not used tech support often but it has been good in the cases where we had to use them.

It's easier to set up and use than Citrix. We also switched because Parallels was more cost-effective and supported our requirements better.

The initial setup is straightforward, but ours was more complex to meet all our needs.

I recommend testing Parallels and comparing it to your needs. Compare the prices against what you are able to do with the product and its alternatives. Parallels is not a cheap product.

Read the docs, do a test, and plan well.

Cloud-hosted desktop.

We use RAS for customer solutions.

We use RAS to publish cloud desktops to our clients. The ability to easily publish resources to a subset of users is what we find most valuable. 

The management capability from the RAS portal provides greater control than using pure MS inbuilt into RDS capabilities.

We have had significant, ongoing issues with printing. It would be great to have a best practice for dealing with printing that we can offer to our customers. 

It would be great if there were more sophisticated GPO templates/options.

From time to time, we have had issues with stability. However, this could be related to connectivity at client sites. 

We also have regular issues with printers disappearing from sessions.

We currently use Parallels side-by-side with an Azure cloud-hosted solution. This may be from a lack of product knowledge on my part, but we still need to work out the most effective way to shut down servers outside of hours, thereby reduce hosting costs. I am not entirely convinced Parallels does this well yet.

In my limited dealings with support, they have been responsive, respectful, and helpful.

We were previously using Citrix. We changed for a number of reasons: 

1. We acquired a cloud company which was already using Parallels. 
2. Cost.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Parallels is a cost effective alternative to Citrix.

We evaluated Citrix and Microsoft Remote Desktop Services (MS RDS).

Understand what you want to get out of the product.

We publish applications and our users are scattered across different geographical locations. So we install the client on the end-user's laptop and then we publish their applications.

The connection is compressed so we don't need a lot of resources to run it.

Also, the ease of use. Initially, before using Parallels, we had to manually install whatever applications we were using. So if I had, for example, five users, and three software programs, I had to install three install applications on each of the five laptops. That took more man-hours, and all my resources would get into it. But with Parallels, I just install it once into one location and the client does the work for me. So it provides ease of use and minimizes the man-hours that go into installation and the maintenance of IT.

The most valuable feature is our control. If I want to disable a user I just go to that particular user and disable them. And if I want to publish any application, if there is a new application that I want to publish, it is very easy.

They don't have any local support here. It's not that we need it much because for us it is very stable, the upgrades/updates are quite good, and they come at regular intervals. But all the other OEMs in this region have their own local support here, either through the vendor, or in-house. But Parallels, I have never found any local support here.

I think tech support needs to be improved because whatever support I get is through email, so it takes a very long time for them to reply.

Stability-wise it is quite good, if you give it enough resources to run the software. I have the RAS server and it never crashes, it never goes down by itself, so it is pretty stable. I would say it is quite good, it is doing great.

We haven't had any scalability problems. We initially started with a single server and then we went up to three servers. We upgraded to the latest version, but it did wonders for us. It has never given us any issues as such.

Initially, we were just using the traditional way of installing. We were not even aware that there was a solution in the market. When we did our research we came to know that there is something useful out there, and we went ahead with Parallels.

The initial set up was pretty straightforward. We knew what applications we needed and we knew the platform, so it was pretty straightforward.

It justifies the price.

In terms of licensing, initially when we got the product it was an unlimited licensing strategy. We knew would grow in the coming years. So initially, we took a plan which had no limit. After a year or so the strategy changed and we were being limited to 105 licenses, that was the minimum. So that affected us. If there was flexibility for increasing the number of licenses that would be great because you never know how much you are going to grow in the next year. 

To start, we took 20 or 30 licenses and then we went to 70 and now we are at 105. If there was flexibility, that I could grow as much as I need, so I could take 20 more tomorrow, and 30 the next month, that would help. But I don't think that it is the case right now.

When we thought of doing this we looked at other solutions as well but, cost-wise, Parallels was on the positive side, so that is the reason we went ahead with Parallels.

The implementation could be a bit complex because it is not a normal solution. It is not just a plug and play. But once it starts it is pretty easy to manage. The software is not that complicated, it is pretty easy to use.

I would rate this solution a nine out of 10. If I had a local support person to talk to I would definitely give it a 10.

We needed to access multiple programs, for multiple users, and it's like a virtual session that does that.

We would not be able to function without it.

It is robust. We have some 75 users using it and it doesn't lag. It's very speedy.

One area which I would say needs a lot of improvement: Since I've been here less than a year, I have had to upgrade the system three times. The first time was the major upgrade but they have upgraded twice since, and I think that's too many times in that time span. I'm the only one doing IT, so I have over 75 users that I actually have to touch every time they upgrade, which is a lot of work.

I would roll up the updates in a group, rather than as they come out.

I encountered an issue with stability once, with licensing. For some odd reason, after I upgraded to the current version, the 15.2, it lost its license, so I had to get a temporary license to get my users up and running. They had to figure out why I couldn't hold on to my current license that I had just bought.

When it's stable, it's stable. I would say 90 to close to 100 percent of the time it's stable, it's right on the mark. When it goes down, since my whole user community uses it, every user in my company is down. When it's working, it's working great and I don't get any phone calls. When it's down, everyone in the company, as I said, is down, they only have email. Every other software package goes through the Parallel, so it's a big impact.

Scalability is pretty good. There's a small delay, but that could be the server, the amount that we're pushing through it. But it's pretty good in scalability.

Tech support seems good, and they seem very accommodating in time. Whatever time I want to work on it, they are there.

Tech support helped me upgrade it to the current version. It was pretty much straightforward.

Pricing is a little steep, but I really couldn't go to anyone else because it is so integrated into our system.

Do your homework. Call, see if you can speak to three customers who use it and get their opinion. Also get three different quotes, or three similar products, and see how they work.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. As I said, when it's stable it's stable, it's very good. I find in the last year there were just too many upgrades. I still have an upgrade facing me now, and I haven't upgraded the main server because that means I have to go around to all the workstations.