What needs improvement with VMware User Environment Manager?

I see more simplification on the Instant Clone side as an area for improvement for Horizon 8. The integration with Workspace ONE to make it more simple and easy for customers to adopt is another aspect.I would like to see more comprehensive monitoring in the future for Horizon 8, and making the Instant Clone part easier and simplified, even from a documentation perspective, is another improvement area. There is considerable scope for improvement in these areas.

For Horizon 8, it would be beneficial to integrate more monitoring capabilities in advanced editions. I understand help desk is integrated, but it's only available in enterprise versions. This could be an area for improvement. The support team needs improvement as cases are sometimes solved very slowly.

From the analytical aspects, we used Horizon 8 Advanced Analytics and most companies switched to another product to gain insights because the insight is not as helpful as other products that are built for it. What was missing in Horizon 8 to make it a better tool was in analytics, specifically getting the right information and the drill-down process to find out where the problem is. If a user has an issue, it is crucial to determine what the issue is that the user is having and since when they have the issue. For example, if a user reports back that they had an issue yesterday evening, getting that information and ensuring that you have it was hard to find, especially to pinpoint if the issue lies with the network or the Horizon 8 platform. We utilized the multi-factor authentication, conditional access in Horizon 8, but we are not satisfied with that. It lacks some integration options that make it easy to run with Microsoft Entra, for example, and authenticate using your regular authenticator besides just getting a pop-up that says, 'I'm the one that's trying to log on.' Nowadays, there are many more complex authentication methods, but even a basic confirmation with a number to verify that you are the person connecting is not supported. I would like to see improvements in Horizon 8, specifically integration with NVIDIA for graphical performance upgrades because it creates many issues such as crashing and black screen systems, causing users to lose access to their current desktop and work. This is a real issue at the moment for many customers worldwide.

We have limited capabilities since we are not using a multi-instance solution, just single instances. The solution underutilizes its capabilities.

It would be beneficial to see improvements in client-side functionalities, especially for some Linux clients. A better in-built multi-factor authentication solution would also be advantageous. While there are ways to achieve this through Microsoft Azure and Google, a more integrated approach within Horizon would be ideal.

The solution should provide easy configuration.

Though VMware is supposed to be software as a service, the actual infrastructure sits in the client's data center rather than VMware Cloud. It doesn't really make sense. We should have the front-end services sitting in Azure and not on-premise or the private cloud. The vendor must move the infrastructure into the public cloud.

Along with the high pricing, the profile synchronization mechanism also needs improvement. Citrix has a feature that allows profiles to be stored in a network location and synchronized across multiple desktops, but Horizon doesn't have this. Also, Horizon lacks support for ARM clients and native clients for Windows 11. Adding these features would enhance its functionality.

VMware Horizon is best in class product, but they should the improve its connectivity of the agents deployed. They should create their own virtualization infrastructure to host their horizon moving forward.

We should be able to use the tool on different platforms.

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.

The solution must be faster and smoother.

The tool is not future-proof anymore.

They could incorporate an application library for application learning and licensing. This feature could centralize all software applications within a licensed manager, allowing for efficient categorization and accessibility based on categories. They should improve similar functionality in VDI. It would enable users to access applications directly from their local machines without navigating to the VDI machine.

The product integration on local client machines running Linux needs improvement.

The storage expansion in the product is a bit difficult to manage, especially when I have to modify a storage requirement of a particular area since it comes across as a complex job. I would like the tool to improve the licensing and cost model. The tool does not offer much support if, in a factory, there are other terminal clients or third-party clients. If we have to integrate it with such plants, it is difficult because there is no interoperability feature in the product.

The primary concern lies with licensing. There’s confusion regarding licensing terms following the new management’s takeover. Consequently, our resellers and distributors are confused. The SKUs have been altered. We had planned to include budgetary prices in our upcoming budget, which ends in June. However, during the budget repricing process, the resellers faced difficulties due to their inability to obtain responses regarding the budgetary code. The SKUs have changed due to the transition from one principal to another.

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 don't know what needs improvement in the product since it is a standard system, and that is okay. The product fails to support Mac or Apple workstations. The product should be able to support Mac or Apple workstations, like how it supports Windows and Linux. The UI of the solution needs improvement, and there is a need to upgrade some of the systems in our environment to ensure better IOPS on our systems. Presently, the IOPS rate is lower than usual for our systems, which might be because of the hardware we use in our company.

We have seen and face notable challenges in the configuration aspect specifically while creating and assigning groups which have proven to be a very cumbersome and tiring process. Apart from this the Reliance on the Active Directory as the only directory has its own limitation, which include the requirement to purchase a windows server for an environment outside the standard set up.

The solution’s stability and pricing could be improved.

VMware Horizon View needs to improve orchestration and integrate additional images. I would also like to see its statistics.

We would like to see better performance with the product.

There is room for improvement in support. The response time could be faster. Configuration and driver support could be simplified. Integrating profiles with Active Directory [AD] is still complex.

I would highlight the challenges related to integrating with Microsoft Azure services. Specifically, there are issues with MDM-managed devices and the necessity for MDM-managed compliant devices. In the non-persistent horizon model, there's a delay before each new desktop becomes compliant. Users can access these desktops before fully onboard into the MDM solution.

VMware Horizon needs to integrate with Azure, Teams, and Zoom.

With VMware Horizon View, we could deliver it without any issues and meet the current requirements of our company's customers. The integration part and other such areas are present in the solution. If it can manage or if a user can integrate VMware Horizon View with thin clients or zero clients, then a user can have a single pane of glass for managing both the physical and the virtual environment then it could be a good addition since it is one of the only areas where the product lacks. The technical support offered by VMware is an area with certain shortcomings where improvements are required.

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

Addressing the technical aspect, one potential area for improvement lies in the lock-on times. With the introduction of instant clone technology, which is a cost-effective and resource-efficient solution, there has been a slight increase in log-on times, now reaching up to fifteen seconds. While this shift prioritizes security, it's worth considering if there are any adjustments that could further optimize performance without compromising security. A significant concern in Belgium, particularly with its stringent privacy regulations, is the adherence to the global standards for data protection. It would be beneficial if VMware invested in developing a robust reporting engine, providing insights into user activities, locations, and more. This becomes crucial, especially in the context of remote work, where customers often seek detailed reporting to understand how and where their teams are working.

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.

VMware Horizon's initial setup is fairly complex.

The solution’s stability and initial setup could be improved.

There is room for improvement in the integration with other parts of the suite. For example, you currently need separate windows to manage app volumes and the dynamic environment manager (DEM). So, it's important to integrate all these infrastructure elements into one window.

The solution has a lot of issues and bugs.

The majority of things in VMware Horizon can be done only in Windows and not in Linux. There are Linux customers who would like to use VMware Horizon's features.

I have not come across many of the product's weaknesses. Considering the tool's weaknesses, the product probably has scope for some improvement in the context of how the applications or Linux operating systems are delivered using VMware Horizon View. In general, I want VMware Horizon View's compatibility with Linux to improve.

The product's initial setup process could be easier.

The support can be improved because at present, there is some delay in responses even though they improved some Microsoft Team support. The system integration also needs some improvement.

The support team's technicalities and the pricing of the solution need improvement.

The product has to improve its performance and connectivity. The product should add security features.

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.

Speaking from my perspective, I think they could work on reducing the cost. There is room for improvement in the pricing model. I would like to see improvement in the license cost and the availability of perpetual licensing for Horizon. The solution offers a Term and subscription license.

In the latest versions, the deployment of certificates on the console has been implemented. Although it is functional, it is not working as well as I would like. I hope this feature can be improved in the future. To enhance the user experience, it would be beneficial to have the Unified Access Gateway (UAG) integrated within the console. This would eliminate the need to switch to a different VLAN or access the DMZ separately. With a direct link from the connection server to DMZ, users could easily access the UAG website without leaving the console.

There is room for improvement in security features. In the next release, perhaps they could add some 3D features to Horizon View, especially considering the concerns around ransomware and security.

The integration could be improved. For example, there could be more integration and easier integration with products such as Okta and Duo. VMware Horizon View could be a multifactor authentication and authorization product, with more options for workflows, user assignments, and group assignments. Currently, it is complicated to configure a demo, so more integration would be beneficial.

There are certain areas that require improvement, and in my opinion, the most important factor is with some instances where I have experienced limitations, particularly with the printing service. Using a printer with the VDI is not a straightforward process. Overall, in my opinion, the solution works perfectly.

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.

The customer service and support team could be better.

The standard license does not include certain features. Customers do not understand the requirements for VGA solutions so education and marketing are needed.

Horizon View could be more stable.

A simple way to load-balance components has been missing for several years. Because VMware Horizon lacks a load-balancing component, you must always use a third-party solution. VMware recommends that since you have VMware vSphere underneath, you run NSX to get your load balancer from there. However, not every customer can afford to run NSX. A simple way, particularly for smaller environments, would be to have load balance connection servers and unified access gateways would be extremely beneficial. The backlog of the development team is extensive. We know the load-balancing is in the roadmap somewhere but it's unknown when it will get addressed. I would like to see simple load-balancing for smaller environments that lack large solutions like F5, or NSX; it should be redundant or unavailable but in a simple way. Perhaps limited to only two components; if more are required, a paid load balancing solution can be used. Load balancing for simple environments, or simple redundancy, is sorely lacking.

The product could be improved by correcting how information is provided because we have issues with the client and the backend. The system is not designed to allow the client to log in easily and multiple passwords are required. This could be improved by requiring the client to input only the active directory username and password. The primary problem we are facing is logging in locally on the SIEM client as a local, then click on the Horizon Seven and then call or connect to the server connection, then use the administrative username and password to log in, which is difficult for the students when we are dealing with the student. This is the most challenging stage because the rest of the backend is okay. We would like to see improvements to this problem and understand why there is no compatibility between the SIEM client and the backend.

I would like to see more useful monitoring within users and a more useful help desk.

The initial setup is a little complicated.

Many improvements to this product are needed. More ready-to-deploy templates should be available. Because they are not included, a lot of configuration is required.

They need to improve the stabilization process of major releases.