Horizon 8 Reviews

In VDI, the primary benefit is providing users with a better environment than their endpoint machine by hosting their virtual machines in the server environment, improving performance. However, application virtualization becomes more appealing if specific resource requirements exist for the endpoint. Multiple users can benefit by using dedicated GPU resources, saving resources compared to individual dedications in VDI setups. VMware resources can be efficiently shared among various users in application virtualization, offering significant advantages over traditional VDI implementations.

VMware offers a friendly environment, and it's easy to provide the user with the package. It is a bundled solution that is readily deployable. The advantage lies in its simplicity, it requires minimal expertise. There are instances where Microsoft RDP outperforms due to its integration with the backend operating system. Yet, deploying and managing a Microsoft environment necessitates a specific skill set, typically that of a knowledgeable system administrator. 

On the other hand, Horizon offers a more user-friendly experience; you can quickly deploy applications, access simple documents, and navigate without needing specialized expertise. Additionally, comprehensive support and documentation are readily available to aid in setting up the Horizon environment.

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. 

I have been using VMware Horizon for two to three months.

There has been no downtime in the last four months. Some administrative complexities exist, but they were resolved after learning from the documentation.

The solution’s scalability is good. We require hardware that can scale accordingly. We are beginning with 50 users and scaling out over the next two years.

The initial setup takes a couple of hours, maximum. Everything requires a little knowledge. When it comes to deploying VMware Horizon, some understanding is necessary. Initially, I was confused about which documentation tool to use. I studied by myself and found the documentation provided very good and clear. Then, I deployed it.

When I found the documentation, learning and deploying VMware Horizon took a couple of days.

Initially, I had to test VMware vSphere, configure a Windows Virtual Machine and deploy the Horizon server. After that, we connected, integrated, and tested vSphere and vCenter with Horizon.

I have one vSphere server installed. On that server, I have configured virtual machines for application publication. Additionally, I have two Windows 10 virtual machines for endpoints, which will be provided to the end users. They will log in to the Windows 10 virtual machine, where the published applications will be installed. Initially, we'll start with three users at a time.

According to the technical documentation, they are apparent and easily accessible.

From one point of view, VMware Horizon uses virtualization configurations deployed on Microsoft servers, necessitating compliance with Microsoft's rules. It relies on Microsoft RDP services in the background. One beneficial feature is publishing applications installed on a Windows 10 machine.

You should check whether they aim to provide a VDI environment, and then the VDI option is best. However, GPU usage becomes crucial if they intend to centralize application solutions to conserve server resources. If assigned to a single-user PC, GPUs are hardware resources that might need to be more utilized when the user is not actively using them. Therefore, the optimal approach would be to install all the applications on a server, allocate the necessary hardware resources, and then share them using application virtualization.

There are only two or three products that meet this requirement. It is a very reliable and stable product. On the contrary, there is Microsoft Remote Desktop. These two are the best, both in terms of reliability and finding documentation.

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

Our primary use case for VMware Horizon is facilitating remote access to our compute clusters for our developers. VMs predominantly run on Linux systems, specifically utilizing RHEL 8. The developers connect from various locations in Europe.

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

We have been using VMware Horizon for four months.

We have approximately 100 VMware Horizon users in our organization. We never encounter any challenges for scalability.

We have escalated the issues related to backup during the USB tunnel integration process for virtual machines.

Positive

The initial setup was easy, including the onboarding process. It took us two and a half months to complete, which was longer than expected due to the vacation season. We have to update the triggers for maintenance.

We took help from a third-party vendor for implementation.

At present, they provide decent pricing in terms of bundled licenses. However, they might increase the price after the acquisition.

VMware Horizon has proven to be the only best product for enabling individuals across Europe to efficiently run jobs on our compute cluster while accessing the graphical user interface of their Linux machines. The main benefit lies in robust security features.

From the point of view of virtual desktop deployment, it gives standardized access to our users. Its most valuable feature is the rapid and versatile access from clients operating on various Windows, Linux, and MacOS systems. It has benefited users in terms of speed and reliability of the connection, including security aspects. We never encountered any issues related to the reliability and uptime of the platform.

One area for enhancement in VMware Horizon that would greatly benefit our use cases involves improved support for USB connectivity, allowing seamless tunneling of USB devices from laptops to the virtual machines running in the VDI. Additionally, addressing a bug related to integrating Active Directory and Linux environments is crucial for reliability.

We have designed an independent IT infrastructure for Horizon. Thus, the scalability creates no disturbance to our overall infrastructure.

We have compared a few features of other open-source products. VMware Horizon is better in terms of graphical user interface for Linux users.

I advise others to consider infrastructure, virtualization, network, and storage requirements before making a purchase decision.

I rate VMware Horizon an eight out of ten.

Our current use of the solution involves the two specific projects in Arreaspace Kiasat, which involves catering to both the needs of the client and the server's functionalities with a Linux based approach.

The most valuable feature in this solution which really helped for my use case was the stand out three dimensional acceleration. It was really important for enhancing the performance for certain clients based on their scenarios.

We have used VMware Horizon since 2021.

The stability is also reliable and the solution gives a very constant performance with a rating of 8 out of 10.

In our case, the scalability is average as it serves its purpose effectively but only caters to the needs of 100 clients only, so I will rate it 5 out of 10. Horizon is best suited for enterprise level companies especially considering the benefits in terms of pricing as VMware is now under Broadcom's ownership.

I am incapable of providing direct feedback on the tech support of VMware as we have channelized our support to the first line through Fujitsu, our OEM.

Compared to competitors, Horizon outperforms Citrix in recent years due to Citrix facing security issues. As an alternative, when cost is a concern, we occasionally turn to the open-source solution Waccamola, although it lacks the extensive functionalities of Horizon.

Pricing for Horizon is relatively high, earning a rating of one out of ten.

Overall, the solution itself deserves a solid seven to eight rating out of 10.

In our case, it's for our own internal use. Let's say I am at home, and there's an issue with our customer. Something has happened. I can connect using Secureline and log on to this virtual desktop, accessing the system from there. So it's only for internal use.

From my standpoint, the desktop is the most valuable feature. 

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. 

I have been using this solution for over half a year. 

I've only used it a few times, and it was very stable. The performance was good.

About 15 of us in our organization are using the solution. Our current size is sufficient.

The initial setup is easy. It's a remote desktop, not that fancy. It's easy to manage with just one guy.

I have used Citrix. 

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

We are using VMware Horizon View for R&D. We use it like a machine that we need 24/7 at any cost. It should be accessible from anywhere, whether on an office premise or over the internet. But there are a few locations such as in the case of contractors, where we are not allowed to provide our machine. Here, we provide VDI infrastructure to them. They then connect the VDI and work. We integrate their system with Microsoft's Remote Desktop Service. Further, we tag the RDS with the solution. It acts as a connecting bridge between Microsoft hardware and the remote server.

VMware's most helpful feature is its ability to work like a centralized management system. When I say centralized management, it includes everything from vulnerability to application management, and much more. Regarding an R&D environment, we can quickly roll out VDI on their customized operating system. VMware is beneficial for customized platforms that offer auto-promotion and auto-deprovision. 

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.

We used to work with VMware 3.2 and were the first to implement it back then. We used it for over two to three years. Recently, during the COVID time, we again implemented VMware for the remote management of VDIs. So, we have been using the solution for nearly twelve months now. We were testing and using it.

We need to understand every component, from the first tool to the last, and make a call accordingly. We must implement all the best practices and have a backend storage connection transfer. We need to specify how many VDIs and storage are required. If you calculate everything perfectly, it is a stable product. I don't see any issues in our environment other than a slight issue regarding an agent. Because when the VM agent starts to run from and talk to the different VMware servers, there could be a network interruption. We need to make the changes according to the review of the five users. It's a stable product.

It is a scalable product. We have around 50-80 people in our company using the solution.

I contacted them for a query about one of the zero-day vulnerabilities. They provided some assistance but it didn't help with the security scanner. Again, we interacted with the level two team; they immediately released a fix for that. They are doing it well. They have a proper installation matrix in place. They will do it easily if you ask them to escalate to the next level. You just need to instruct about the engineering level for assistance.

Positive

I had experience working with Citrix. But, I needed more confidence in the product because it depends on the active directory. Its value of profile and image management depends on Microsoft group policy. You cannot use the Citrix hypervisor because it is not stable. Comparatively, VMware is a good product. You get a bundle of features with VMware. With it, you don't have to depend on any other vendor for authentication.

The setup depends on the requirement. Implementing VMware 3.2 was a critical setup, as we were the first to deploy it. With the current setup, the site for deployment, even if it's a dedicated VDI, an automated VDI, or some golden image-based VDI, has no redundancies. The only thing is we need to have some networking knowledge. We need to know which port must be open from where to where and see the proxy and direct model. Also, we need to have a basic understanding of firewalls and networking. It helps us do an implementation faster.

Then it comes to redundant CR architecture, which includes the UA layer, the other view, and different standpoints. If we don't understand the account, we can implement it from an infrastructure standpoint. When it comes to a VDI, we get multiple ways out. Sometimes, auto-provisioning becomes complicated. When you need more automation to meet the requirements, it becomes redundant. We need an end-to-end understanding of the security networks, AD architecture, profiling, group policy, etc. We need to know how the authentication standpoint works. The port must be kept open from one authentication server to capture all the details and complete implementation.

I have been working with Microsoft products for twenty years. I advise others to be clear about their requirements, the use cases, and the kind of VDIs they need. They should know whether they want a centralized management system, out of provisioning, or if they want to build a VIN. They should also decide which purchasing programs to opt for. VMware is the best fix for the organization because they are prevalent in the hypervisor.

I would rate it as a nine. The reason is the number of tickets we have raised to VMware compared to the Microsoft product.

I use the solution for application delivery and data security for external people.

The most valuable feature of VMware Horizon is the VDI service, which helps externals use their own devices while keeping the data inside our data center.

The solution should provide easy configuration.

I have been using VMware Horizon for around one and a half years.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight out of ten.

Since the solution is on-premises and we are moving to the cloud, scaling down is very easy. On the other hand, if we would deploy a lot of new VIs, it would be very easy to just add them. VMware Horizon is very flexible when scaling up and scaling down. Around 2,200 users in our organization use VMware Horizon to deploy the main applications.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

The solution's technical support is very good. When we face issues with VMware Horizon, the support team creates patches in less than three weeks. If there are issues, the support team is very involved in finding out what's happening and solving the issue.

Positive

We previously used Citrix. We switched to VMware Horizon because Citrix was not as flexible as VMware Horizon was for us. The supplier that won the contract was in favor of using VMware. So, VMware Horizon came with the supplier we selected.

Delivering legacy applications and overall stability was challenging while setting up the solution.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a five out of ten.

The solution's actual deployment before we got into the pilot phase took about six months. The solution's deployment process included design, implementation, testing, and distribution to the end user. We had five people, including two from the supplier and about three internal people, to deploy the solution.

We needed to keep our legacy applications running because the business is reliant on them. If the applications stop, the business stops. In that case, we had no choice but to choose a technology like VMware Horizon.

We paid a lot of money for software that is not really fully operational out of the box. We had to have patches from VMware to get it into production. Hence, we lost a lot of time implementing the solution. We have a three-year contract, for which we pay about ten euros per user per month.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing a seven out of ten.

I am using the latest version of VMware Horizon. I think one person from the supplier does the maintenance for VMware Horizon. We can implement our zero-trust strategy using VMware Horizon. It's a big part of our zero-trust solution. So, external people only have access to Horizon instead of having direct access to our company data with their devices.

Users should make a good comparison between cloud solutions Azure VDI and VMware Horizon, especially now that the company has been sold to a private investor.

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

We put our client-server applications on Horizon.

The product helped us deploy complex applications.

The product’s scalability makes the deployment easy. It is important to us. The product handles security and compliance in the virtual infrastructure well.

The tool is not future-proof anymore.

I have been working with the product for about ten years.

I have a good impression of the tool’s stability.

I have a good impression of the tool’s scalability. We have five users.

The initial setup is complex. It is not easy to deploy. It could be much easier. The vendor must build a SaaS solution. The deployment takes too long.

The license could be cheaper.

Everyone is working with Teams after COVID-19. Relatively, Teams is a bit better than VMware Horizon View. I believe there is no future for VMware Horizon View.

I will not recommend the solution to others. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

Horizon basically protects you're VMware and your Bring Your Own Device (BYOD). BYOD connecting to your network and these can be secured using VMware Horizon.

With COVID there is a very big impact. There is a hybrid kind of workforce model now. People will be able to connect using their own devices. If it is BYOD case, the number of assets is going to increase. It will almost double the number of the secured assets out there. This means that as the asset size grows, there's a lot of traffic. If you talk about the Horizon it is Zero Trust Architecture plus Micro-segmentation. It has to level both into one platform.

You then need to physically test that your endpoints are all secured so that there is no way for somebody connecting from their own device or laptop to accessing the network with any kind of malicious code. You're protected.

The solution is quite stable. The performance is good.

The scalability has been very good. It's easy to expand it to more endpoints.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward.

The solution could be more secure. Horizon is a recent addition in the sense that, due to COVID, we're working from home and those off-network devices also have to get secured. It's not only on-premises and the cloud infrastructure anymore. Your connectivity from the endpoints from the employees who are logged in from home also has to get brought in.

The solution isn't quite mature yet. It needs more time to mature and to get more market recognition.

The solution needs to work on its pricing. Compared to VMware Workspace ONE it should not be more in terms of cost.

I've been using the solution for more than four years.

The solution is stable. It offers good performance. There aren't crashes and it doesn't freeze. there aren't bugs or glitches. It's been good overall.

The scalability is excellent. If you need to extend it to more endpoints, it's possible to do so, and it's not difficult in terms of a process. If a company needs to expand the offering, it can do so with ease.

We have a hybrid workforce, with 8,000 or so users who likely have both their work and home devices on the system.

We do plan to continue to use the product going forward. We have no plans to move away from it.

Our end-user support is our level end-user computing, EUC. EUC is a separate kind of support model, and there is dedicated support if we run into issues. So far, we have been satisfied with the level of support.

VMware worked with Workspace One, which has been upgraded into Horizon.

The initial setup is not overly complex. It's easy. It's a part of the VMware Workspace segment which makes it quite simple. A company should have no issues with the implementation.

Normally, the process from beginning to end only takes a couple of hours. It's a pretty quick process.

For maintenance, we have a team called EUC - End User Computing - that inspects all the upgrades and handles all the maintenance.

I handled the process of implementation myself. If did not need an outside consultant or integrator. We were able to manage everything in-house.

There is a good ROI.

We do have a licensing fee that we need to pay. Horizon is expensive if you were to consider EDR. I cannot speak to the exact cost of the product, however.

EDR itself is a big investment. If you're investing in EDR be prepared to pay a bit. There are two platforms that we are using - Windows and Linux. In the Windows platform, basically, we can secure it using the Windows Defender. In the case of Windows Defender, we don't need any separate EDR. For Linux, however, we need it. That said, mostly the users are all Windows users. More than 60% to 70% of the users are Windows users and so we don't need the EDR product across the board. That saves some costs for us.

I did evaluate multiple EDRs before choosing this solution.

We use the latest version of the solution at this time. It's the most up-to-date option.

From the COVID impact, the number of vulnerabilities has gone up. That means there are other challenges of coping with the security in recent times due to the deluge of more assets, basically, made on one level because people are bringing their own devices into the mix. So far, we've been able to secure everything, and we've been able to stand back and say that we're fine and, even with this new hybrid work model, we are secure and back to normal, so to speak.

The solution is a recent edition that is not been fully adopted and it is still slightly immature. It's not reached a stage where it is saturated. For that reason, I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten.  

I would recommend the solution.