Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service) Reviews

We're a community interest company. We store all of our data about our clients and the work that we do on Citrix Workspace.

Within our company, there are five people using Citrix Workspace.

The ease of access and the confidentiality and security that it provides is what we like best.

There is no recycle bin, which is a problem. When there are technical issues, sometimes we can't get on the cloud. Obviously, when that happens we are completely lost because we can't access any of our data, but I guess that's a problem that all clouds have.

I have been using Citrix Workspace since April 2012.

We've been using Citrix Workspace for eight years and we've never experienced any serious issues regarding the stability. We're very happy with it.

We've been on the same package since we first started, so I can't really comment on that, but as of yet, we haven't had any issues regarding the scalability.

We've just changed our technical support and they seem to be really good. Our technical support has been good so far.

The initial setup was very straightforward.

We don't have a lot to compare it to, but we certainly think whatever we pay is worthwhile at this point in time. It's very reasonable.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Citrix Workspace a rating of nine.

I would recommend Citrix Workspace. I would particularly recommend it for a small company like ours. It is exactly what it said it was. From the word go, we've got out of it what we expected. In this day and age, to have that security of knowing that your data is protected is worth its weight in gold. I would happily recommend this solution to somebody, and indeed, I have recommended it in the past to other businesses that I've come in contact with.

We use this solution to solve issues related to bandwidth when Oracle forms are used remotely. Also, upgrading or adding any other user application is extremely easy. Oracle E-business Suite is a resource intensive application and database system, which is customized in order to fulfill the government's needs.

This solution has improved user productivity all over Egypt serving the Government financial system. The bandwidth used by the applications was dramatically reduced from 60K to 8K per user. This reduction in bandwidth had reduced the connection cost for the whole project.

The most valuable feature is that users can work remotely from any location. The shadow feature is extraordinary and helps a lot when supporting remote users. The business support team uses this feature to connect to the user session when they are working and can provide instruction on performing complicated tasks.

Direct connection of USB devices on the terminals to be used by streamed applications is very important for printing and the usage of token authentication, but the current version does not support this one hundred percent. It is necessary to support this transparently so that any USB device can be used.

This solution is extremely stable.

Scalability is easy and straightforward.

I did not use another solution prior to this one.

The setup is straightforward, although trimming the application streaming is crucial to make the best use of bandwidth.

We used a vendor team and they were excellent.

I suggest using the concurrent user licensing scheme.

Remote Terminal was evaluated in addition to this solution.

My advice is to use Citrix XenApp on Windows VMs, based on VMware Hypervisor.

We use the solution for general purposes.

Citrix’s performance is good.

The solution is expensive.

I have been using Citrix Workspace as a partner for five years.

The product is stable.

20 users are using this solution.

The initial setup is very easy.

I recommend the solution.

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

My use case for this product is to connect to secure environments. I'm the owner of the company and a user of Workspace. 

This is a simple solution and I like that I can connect remotely. 

I think there could be better integration with other vendors. If you install it on  a Mac, you get a message to say it's not working properly. I'm not sure why they'd develop a product not supported by Mac. 

I believe the solution is stable. 

The solution works as expected and I rate it 10 out of 10.

Our installation is currently on-premises, but we have already decided that we will move to the cloud. In general, we are using XenApp to make a virtual protected environment in order to link our other applications through Citrix. We want to link data or applications, it depends on the case. Sometimes we don't want to have links from application to application but just for the applications to share the data which they are using. This product provides us some flexibility in the architecture.  

I'm not the end-user of the application. My position is very high in the organization. I know that the users who are using this product like it, but I don't know what exactly they like or what might make it separate from similar solutions. From my point of view, the reason they like it is this flexibility that they have. They can connect one application to another application or just to use the data. They have applications locally and use the data in the cloud in a very secure way. They have more flexibility using this solution.  

The place where this application can most probably be improved is in the integration with other environments. Right now we have it on-premises, but our plan is to have it on cloud and we have already taken steps with Microsoft to implement this goal. After we move it to the cloud, we will want to add other applications and other data sources to what is already available in order to more easily move the data from one place to another and to use it from different applications. Broader integration would give the user more flexibility. This is why, from my point of view, integrating with other environments is the most important feature that needs to be expanded.  

As an example, IBM has a cloud solution that gives users the capability to connect between different clouds. No matter what kind of cloud you are using the data becomes universal through the capabilities of the IBM solution. You can ensure data security and can move data from one cloud to another. This is the kind of thing I mean by integration. It is an integration of administrative work, resource usage and also of the different environments. Right now we have some things on-premise and we have part of it in the cloud. Most probably will be not only be using Microsoft cloud in the future but also Amazon and Google as well. We want to have this application everywhere in this environment and to be able to use only one interface to let us know what volume of resources we are using, how much different solutions cost us, and if our usage is effective. This way we can make evaluations and change if necessary. The economy of our model is very important for us.  

The other less important point is that the deployment could be faster. We deployed the solution with the help of a vendor, and I do not blame the vendor that things seemed to come together a little slowly because it was not easy to do. I think the implementation can be simplified a little by the manufacturer.  

I have been using this product for around three years.  

XenApp is a very stable solution. This is one of the reasons we were using it. I had some experience with the product at the previous company and we decided just to use the same solution for this company because it is really stable.  

I don't know yet how the product rates in the area of scalability. We are currently moving from one environment to another, and that is an early step in our process. I don't know about scaling because it is a step we will worry about later. These are interim steps we are taking in the plan that we have right now. Our end goal is to be completely in the cloud or in some kind of hybrid environment. When we achieve that, the next step is to use the application to scale. So we are still in a sort of proof of concept period right now where we don't want or have the need to test scalability.  

We currently have 53 people using the solution. Most of them are just users from the office, but we have around 10 engineers and IT people who are capable of doing everything we need for implementation and maintenance.  

Because we are using a partner to interface between us and Microsoft, we do not have contact with Microsoft's technical support. The partner has been successful in covering everything we need.  

I changed my employment over the past two years. Earlier, I was part of the pharmaceutical company Bcom and we were using the same XenApp product there. Then I moved to a smaller Bulgarian company. We were using a different version of Xenapp there and we had a somewhat different experience. The support that Microsoft provided was different in each case. In the first case, it was a global corporation. In the second case, it was a local group of companies and we were supported by the local Microsoft office.  

But in each case, the reason why I switched products was that I changed employment and not that I changed from an entirely different solution to this one.  

The level of difficulty of the initial setup depends on the situation. Because we have this application through a Microsoft provider which is directly working with Microsoft, they have enough staff and experience with it to set it up. It was very easy for us just to use them.  

If we had to do it alone, I don't believe we had the capacity to do it without a lot of trouble. We prefer this model of having some kind of agent who is more knowledgeable and experienced do the setup. They already know exactly how to set up the environment for using the application, and we would have had to learn it all anew.  

The deployment of the solution was more than five months, but it took that long because we probably caused some delay. We were not pushing for the implementation to be completed, we changed our offices, and many other things happened in between. So it is not because of the application or the group doing the deployment, but because we were moving slowly ourselves.  

We had a third party, the supplier, do the initial implementation for us.  

We did not evaluate other options when making the decision to take on this solution because I already had a positive experience with this product in the past. I wanted to use the same solution because I know it and I know that it works and that it would do what we needed it to do. Stability was the main factor in making the decision.  

Right now the computing environment is changing very fast with cloud, hybrid, containers and other options like that. We wanted to have something which was going to allow us to use a hybrid solution until we define the final model that we want to use.  

Advice that I would give to people considering this solution is to use our model of implementation. I absolutely recommend using a local supplier who is knowledgeable and who has experience with the product and deployment because then you won't have any problems. We are only using it. We don't care how it is set up. We don't care about the model itself, but only that the result fits our requirements. This supplier is doing all the things we don't want to have to learn for us.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate this product as a seven-out-of-ten.  

ICA and HDX are the most valuable features of this product to me. These protocols allow features that most other vendors either have not implemented yet or are too bandwidth-intensive to use in the enterprise with WAN users.

Our organization was a VMView shop. Due to issues with application responsiveness / perceived performance, our users had a very negative perception of the technology and were opting for physical PCs instead of VDI. During an extended pilot with these users leveraging Citrix XenDestop, we were able to improve the perceived performance / application response time, as well as use significantly less bandwidth. This was a huge cost savings for the firm.

The biggest area for improvement is in QA testing. The last few releases of either the VDA or updates to the broker either reduced functionality or re-introduced issues that were previously addressed.

I have been using this solution for five years.

The only issue that we had was early on in our implementation with a “Black Screen”. Although we were never able to determine the root cause with Citrix Tech support and escalated engineering, updating form 5.6 to 7.6 greatly reduced this issue / impact to our users.

I rate technical support 5/10.

The initial setup was straightforward. We were able to get three farms up and running within two hours. The migration from older to newer was relatively easy as well.

Implementation was done in house. My best advice if you are migrating from another product to XenDesktop would be to deploy new VDI’s and migrate the users. This allows you to validate the stack and avoid legacy configuration and applications that might have issues. If that is not an option, researching what the VDI’s have installed, and what other remoting technologies are in use, will prove valuable and avoid some of the pitfalls that we had.

ROI I believe is close to three years.

The user experience is comparable to XenApp (our past presentation server), with the same look and feel as a normal full desktop in the head office.

It still uses ICA protocol, which means we did not have to increase the WAN bandwidth to deliver same user experience across all the sites. We did not have to increase telco cost to provide same user experience from sites outside of the head office.

In the past, when we were using the presentation server from Citrix, login time was taking up to eight minutes. XenDesktop reduced login time to less than two minutes. Managers who move around can take their work at any point in time to a new location without having to login from scratch. That increased productivity.

Our organisation has not been successful in delivering a multi-media experience via VDIs. This is one of the areas we are hoping to improve by upgrading to version 7.8.

I have been using this solution for more than four years.

Stability issues due to storage performance caused initial grief. Now it is working. We are using dedicated VDIs for users. We have half of the 1200 VDIs running from one DC and the rest from a secondary DC.

Scalability is good, but it required a lot of learning while our organisation were going through it.

Citrix support was good. They can always do better.

Since we already were using Citrix presentation server, our migration met the same look and feel requirement for the business. Citrix XenDesktop is the leading product for VDIs.

Initial backend infrastructure was easy for our organisation for VMWare and storage, because we were already running VMWare for server virtualisation. Now it is just too many. We are running 1200 VDIs.

It was a hybrid implementation. Design was done by vendor and implementation was done jointly.

Our model for ROI was not financial. It was user experience and opportunity productivity loss savings. If we are to do this work again, I would recommend using DataCore Software Defined Storage using commodity hardware to run a VDI host farm to reduce storage and DR cost.

Get the full business requirement and test the end-to-end performance and the capacity for DR before going full-fledged. Also, understand the licensing cost. Having dedicated VDIs for our organisation saved us lots of headache:

Reducing traffic capacity is needed for more than 13000 remote end-users who are working on Oracle E-Business Suite with about 1600 concurrent remote users working simultaneously all over Egypt. These users connect through 3G mobile modems from different service providers.

It increased the no. of users and reduced traffic and data connection cost in addition to increased user productivity.

Application streaming and shadow feature helped end-user online support and training. It also increased user productivity. Since this application has its own traffic encryption proprietary technique, it increased data connection security.

Eliminating the need of Windows terminal server because it increases the cost for each user as each PC that needs to connect must have its own terminal service license.

Extremely stable.

It is flexible and very easily scalable.

Good customer service and excellent technical support.

Previously, I used direct user connection, but it was not secure enough and used a lot of bandwidth.

If you follow the vendor instructions, the setup is straightforward. But it might be a little bit complex in the tuning phase.

Our own in-house team made the full implementation and operation as well.

The setup cost is not much. Although trimming the application settings is somehow tricky and has a lot of effect on performance, it is done only once. For a large number of users, use the concurrent users' license model.

A direct connection was evaluated.