Horizon 8 Reviews

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.

We use this solution for delivering virtual desktops and applications.

Currently, we are using version 2006 which has an older model of provisioning and there are some compatibility issues that we are going to solve in the coming months. The latest version is 2103. However, there is not much difference between 2006 and 2103 it is almost the same.

The small differences are in adjunct functionality and regarding the transference relationship between domains. 

The benefits of this solution are that it is modern and it works perfectly well with the rest of the VMware environments we have. Having this vertical integration is what matters to us as an organization and this solution excels in this area. You deploy it and it works without much hassle.

The multimedia playback is not very good and they could improve it by increasing the quality.

In an upcoming release, there could be more integration support for Linux and better Linux user profile management. This is a feature we use in the universities but most other normal businesses will not be interested in Linux. 

I have been using this solution for approximately six years.

95% of the features work without any issues and 5% of them have issues that are normally difficult to pinpoint. However, since these small issues can normally be corrected by support, this solution's stability rating is high.

We have 5,000 users on the system but only 200 of them are using it together at the university. Scalability was not ever an issue.

We have contacted technical support and they have been responsive.

The initial setup is a moderate level of difficulty.

We did the implementation of the solution.

In my organization, we use a lot of VMware solutions for vertical integration and have evaluated other solutions, such as Citrix.

I would have said this solution needs to improve in profile management a couple of years ago because VMware does not have profile management that works out of the box. However, this issue was solved by Microsoft by releasing a solution that works very well with VMware Horizon.

Those who are wanting to implement this solution should consider the Cloud offerings for VMware Horizon. There is a possibility it could cut the time for delivery and it is more scalable. You will not have scalability issues.

I rate VMware Horizon 7 an eight out of ten.

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.

The use case is remote access to VMs. It allows us to remote access the VMs and our servers.

It's centralized management, and you have access gateway to enter the VMs from outside.

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 have been using VMware Horizon View for 34 years. 

The solution is highly stable. I rate the stability eight out of ten. 

The initial setup is easy. The deployment took a few weeks time. I would rate the setup an eight out of ten. 

The deployment was done in house with two people. One person is required for maintenance.

The solution is expensive. 

Overall I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

VMware Horizon View is easily scalable. Its onboarding is easy and comes with flash provisioning features. 

We would like to see better performance with the product. 

I rate the tool's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate VMware Horizon View's salability a nine out of ten. My company has more than 3000 users. We continue to onboard around 20-30 percent of new users. 

I rate the tool's initial deployment an eight out of ten. Deployment takes two to three hours to complete. It is a simple OEM SOP. You need around two resources to complete the deployment. 

We did VMware Horizon View's deployment in-house. 

VMware Horizon View pricing is high compared to other solutions. I rate it two out of ten. Its licensing costs are monthly. 

It is better to go for AVD on a private cloud than a public one since private clouds are expensive. I rate the solution a five out of ten. 

I work in a public school where some teachers and staff work from home. We use the product in the home office. 

I like the tool's security. It is also easier to roll out the software updates. 

I like VMware Horizon's ability and performance. 

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

I have been using the product for five years. 

I rate VMware Horizon's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate the tool's scalability a nine out of ten. My company has over 150 users. 

We contact our partner for first-level support. 

I rate the tool's deployment a nine out of ten. It can be completed in a few hours. 

VMware Horizon is expensive. It should provide a special price for more user licenses. 

I rate VMware Horizon a nine out of ten. 

My company uses VMware Horizon View for educational institutions and for the student lists maintained. My company also uses the solution in the healthcare industry.

VMware Horizon View offers something called a security gateway, which allows users to get access to VDI without a VPN. The user experience provided by VMware Blast Extreme is also good. The USB redirection from the client to VDI is another good feature of VMware Horizon View.

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.

I have been using VMware Horizon View for five years. My company operates as an integrator of the solution.

It is a very stable solution.

It is a very scalable solution.

Owing to the VDI part in VMware Horizon View, my company caters to the requirements of enterprise-sized companies.

The solution's technical support is good. I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have past experience with Citrix. I feel that VMware is better than Citrix. Citrix requires its users to have a bit of technical skill to carry out the deployment process.

The product's deployment phase is difficult as it contains a lot of components, which requires a technician to have a technical understanding of integrations.

The solution can be deployed in a week, but it may vary depending on the requirements of a customer.

One architect and two engineers are required to take care of the deployment part of VMware Horizon View.

VMware Horizon View is an expensive product. My company needs to opt for a subscription-based pricing model when it comes to the licensing costs attached to the product.

The maintenance phase of VMware Horizon View is easy.

Two people are required to take care of the maintenance phase of VMware Horizon View as there are more than 100 VDIs.

I think that VMware Horizon View presently has a SaaS offering, an option with which the maintenance part can be made much easier. VMware and Azure have a partnership to offer a SaaS-based solution. If you are open to a product deployed on the cloud model, you can choose VMware Horizon View.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We use it to gain access to our organization's applications.

One of the most valuable aspects is that I can connect from home, and the system operates seamlessly. It offers great flexibility, allowing us to access it as a complete virtual machine or even just as individual applications.

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

I have been using it for approximately four years.

I would rate the stability capabilities eight out of ten.

I would rates its scalability abilities eight out of ten.

Whenever we submit a ticket, there is a productive exchange of information, and more often than not, they manage to address our needs effectively. While there may be occasional challenges, the support is generally quite reliable. I would rate it nine out of ten.

Positive

We use a combination of Citrix, Horizon, and Microsoft for virtual apps and desktops based on specific requirements and customer needs.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The deployment was managed by our team, and I handled the installation. The client only had to perform the minimal configuration, such as setting the server's IP. It was highly adaptable and user-friendly, and it took approximately a couple of days.

We observed a return on investment in data protection, resulting in a time savings of around twenty five percent.

It falls on the more expensive end in terms of cost.

You can consider using Microsoft Remote Desktop sessions, which provide a more basic set of features if you don't require all the advanced features offered by Horizon, such as speed optimization, visual enhancements, desktop printing, image resolution, and a seamless user experience. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.