Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

We have many customers that are using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for publishing internal applications through the services. The process involves virtualizing applications for internal and external users and making them accessible through Microsoft Remote Desktop Services and reverse proxy services. By doing so, users can indirectly access the applications without logging into the server directly. The solution is used mostly for external company users.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services has helped the security posture of the organization by not exposing its internal applications. instead of giving internal direct access to their internal apps. They give access to only a secondary server with limited access to internal applications.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is its security and simple configuration.

The solution can improve the policies of the solution.

I have been using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for approximately 15 years.

The stability of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is good.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is scalable, we are able to have more licenses or increase the load if needed.

The solution is straightforward and we have not had any problems needing to contact support.

I have not used a similar solution to Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The initial setup of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is simple. It only takes a few clicks of the mouse to complete.

The price of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is reasonable. The solution can come for free for some clients with certain agreements.

For customers who already have the Microsoft EA framework, the license for enhancing internal security when publishing web and internal applications to both internal and external users is readily available. By using this feature, customers can ensure that their applications remain secure without compromising access to their users. This eliminates the need for direct access, thereby enhancing the overall security of their systems.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Microsoft Remote Desktop Services an eight out of ten.

The users connect to a central server and share the physical or visual server resources. They use the remote desktop environment for office documents, operations, and company-specific programs.

The solution works perfectly. The tool shares computer resources perfectly. It provides the necessary security options.

When we update the environment, we face problems sometimes, and the users cannot use the system.

I have been using the solution for about 10 years.

The tool is stable. Sometimes, the updates break the system.

The tool is very scalable. We can add and delete objects from the environment easily. We have approximately 500 users.

The setup is straightforward. It is easy to deploy. Microsoft provides the necessary documentation, including detailed steps to install and configure the servers. The deployment process can be improved. It can be made more easier.

The tool must be cheaper. It should provide an option to pay the license fee once in a year or once in two years.

We don't use any support because we can easily find online documents to solve our issues. I recommend that everybody use the product. If any company wants to share one computer’s resources with many users, they can choose Microsoft Remote Desktop Services. Overall, I rate the product an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for remote desktop services. It can be used locally or on the cloud. It's on every single Windows machine. 

If you need a remote desktop for Windows 10, or Windows 2016, you use RDP, which is Remote Desktop Services.

The solution is great for remote into machines. 

It works fine, and it is largely issue-free.

The product is stable. 

If you are deploying it, as a VDI solution, then it is very limited.

The product is not very scalable. 

I've used the solution for 15 years.

It's quite stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales minimally. It's not meant for scaling. 

Everyone uses the product to some extent. We do not have plans to decrease usage at this time. 

I try not to contact technical support.

Neutral

We were using Citrix, which I found to be much better.

The solution comes with the Windows Server. You simply enable the feature and begin using it. 

The solution is bundled within Microsoft products. 

I wouldn't necessarily recommend the solution to others unless they had no other choices.

I'd rate the solution five out of ten. 

I was exploring a different feature, particularly trying to deploy active directory domain services. Hence, as an IT administrator, I needed to enable a Remote Desktop Service feature that allows me to connect remotely to the server in just a matter of seconds, so that was my use case for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I was trying to install Microsoft Office on the computer remotely, which means connecting to the server through Microsoft Remote Desktop Services to see if the server has access to the internet or whenever an update needs to be installed.

What I found most valuable in Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is accessibility because the solution lets you take control of your computer remotely, and that's a good feature.

What needs improvement in Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is the connection when I'm outside the network. It should be more accessible. For example, if I use a public network, I want to connect remotely more effortlessly, from my internal network, without much requirement.

I want to connect easily from an external network even when I'm not in my enterprise or company. It should be easy to connect or integrate Microsoft Teams, for example, with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I've used Microsoft Remote Desktop Services twice, and if it's an emergency, I can use it immediately. From time to time, I use the solution.

I found Microsoft Remote Desktop Services stable.

For me, Microsoft Remote Desktop Services doesn't require scaling compared to other services. It works fine, so you won't need to scale it.

I have yet to contact Microsoft Remote Desktop Services technical support.

I found it easy to set up Microsoft Remote Desktop Services. It takes a few seconds to enable your options on your computer, particularly for on-premise deployment. However, it takes about two minutes to deploy if you'd like to deploy the solution for a managed server in the cloud.

I deployed Microsoft Remote Desktop Services with the help of a consultant because when I was trying to deploy on the cloud, there was a pop-up telling me to wait ten minutes to complete the setup. Then I could get assistance if I had a question, which I did.

I recall that you don't need to pay for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services because that's included in Windows.

The version of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services that I use depends on the environment I'm in. For example, if it's Windows 10, I'll have a different version than Windows Server 2022 or Windows 11. It depends on the system version I want to run the solution on.

Most of the time, the deployment model for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is on-premises. Still, you can also do a hybrid deployment if you want to connect to a server in another region.

The IT team uses Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

I recommend the service to others.

My rating for Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is eight out of ten.

The product helps assess our system.

I like the way it can assess our system. 

The features it has already serves or needs.

The initial setup is very simple. 

It is quite stable. 

The product offers good pricing.

Technical support has been helpful. 

I don't need any other new features. It works well as it is. 

We'd like them to continue to improve on security. 

I've been using the solution for quite some time. It's been around ten years or so.

This is a stable product. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable. 

I'd rate the stability seven out of ten. 

Our system is on Windows, and we need to scale very little. As far as we're concerned, it scales enough for us. We have about 20 users on the solution currently.

We use Microsoft 365, and if we have any issues, we contact support that covers that. We've been satisfied overall with the level of support we get. I have no complaints. 

Positive

We are also using TeamViewer. It targets different areas from Remote Desktop. For example, it allows others to access your system - not you. They each serve different purposes. 

The initial setup is great it's very simple and straightforward. I do not find it to be complex at all. 

The pricing is good. I'd rate it five out of five in terms of affordability.

I'm a customer and end-user. 

I seldom use the product; however, for me, it works exactly as I need it to. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

We use Remote Desktop Services for a few things. My experience started with Microsoft Remote Desktop when I tried to reuse really low power desktop machines to turn them from these desktop machines into class remote desktop terminals. That is my initial experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop. My most current experience with Microsoft Remote Desktop is using a specific Microsoft product on the servers where you don't have any chance to administer them using the web browser. SCCM, active directory administration and other Wintel server roles are most handy and the most secure to administer from the Microsoft Management Console. Therefore, you need to do it at least from some instance of the Microsoft windows server.

I like that it works. In most cases, it's predictable. You know what you get.

Microsoft still has some really bad remote desktop appliances for Mac. This is really frustrating because if I'm on windows I can remove the Microsoft remote desktop applied for Windows, but I'm already using windows, I always have an option B. I can still plug directly with Microsoft management console from the windows station and still do something remotely. But on a Mac, I have to rely purely on the Microsoft Remote Desktop. 

If I need to pass second-factor authentication, not a one-time password thing, if I do a Microsoft remote desktop session, I have to reach the first server, which is my best one. From that server, you're actually going inside your protective network. Then on the second spot, you are not able to pass a YubiKey and go any farther. That creates the problem. We have had many support tickets.

With this new company, I have been using this solution for two and a half years, but overall I have 15 years of experience.

It is being used mainly on a Mac platform.

I would say it's stable.

In the last setup, we had 3,000 users. It wasn't the nicest experience.

My experience with support is varied. It really depends. It varies depending on which support line you get. If you say you're a particular engineer then they won't really bother to support you. But if you say you have an enterprise contract and that you're a big company and you have a contract then they offer better support.

We previously used Citrix. Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is a more developed version of Citrix.

I would recommend going for VMware.

Microsoft programs are never easy to install but the installation wasn't something we didn't expect.

We deployed it on our own.

We use enterprise orchestration so it doesn't take too long to deploy. Microsoft products do not really play along with the open-source orchestration platforms. Once you overcome this, it becomes easier.

I would not recommend going with this solution because I wouldn't recommend going for a big enterprise setup. 

I would rate it a four out of ten. 

In the next release, they should develop better support for remote desktops for alternative platforms. It's really lacking consistency. If I have to support terminal server clusters and I have to do change management on the big cluster, then I actually run into a lot of issues both on the Microsoft Remote Desktop as well as Citrix. They should provide a consistent user experience. It's a pain to roll out changes into a different mode of the cluster and to propagate them over multiple modes. I end up in a situation where a portion of my users get the changes and the other portion doesn't.

We use it in our bank.

We have some servers, and more than two users go remotely with them. We prepare with the Microsoft engineer servers that take them and the license for the users when they need them.

It has generally improved how our organization functions.

The solution is now stable.

The initial setup is simple. It's quick to deploy.

It works well and does what we need it to do.

Sometimes the server stops working, and we don’t know why. Occasionally we’ll get a message to the effect of "There is no remote license."

I’ve been using the solution for about one year.

While we had a problem before, now everything is stable. It’s reliable now. We’ve dealt with our issues and no longer have troubles.

I can’t speak to the scalability. I’ve never attempted to scale. That’s handled by someone else in the company.

Right now, we have 50 licenses available to us. We use the solution quite extensively.

I’ve never dealt with technical support for issues related to the stability problem. I can’t speak to how helpful or responsive they would be. Other team members deal with them. We do have a support contract with Microsoft.

I have dealt with them on Teams on Active Directory and found them to be helpful. I found their help to be excellent.

We already had a license with Microsoft, and therefore, it was natural to use this product as well.

It’s not difficult to set up. It’s pretty straightforward.

The deployment is pretty fast. It only takes about an hour and a half. We only needed to have three people handle the deployment and maintenance.

An engineer worked with us to set up the servers. We have machines joining the domain, and we have workgroup machines.

We handled everything in-house. We didn’t need the help of consultants.

I’m not sure if we have seen an ROI.

I cannot speak to how much the solution costs. My understanding is that it is moderately priced in that it is not cheap or expensive. We ended up getting it when we renewed our license. It’s an extra feature with the broader Microsoft license.

I’m not sure which version of the solution we’re using.

I’d recommend the solution to others. It’s solved problems for us and worked well.

I’d rate the solution nine out of ten.

We have a partnership with Microsoft.

As an internal Microsoft product, we find it very trustworthy. It's quite secure. It connects easily to Windows operating systems on devices. 

The performance meets our requirements and the stability is good.

The solution scales well.

The setup process is easy.

The solution is under the Microsoft infrastructure and therefore does not allow for service under other operating systems. We'd like, in the future, if it would work with Linux or Unix-based operating systems or even Mac.

Although I don't use it consistently, I have used it for ten to 15 years. It's a pretty old solution. 

The solution is stable. The performance is good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's very reliable. 

The scalability is okay. Sometimes we deploy a server-client scenario, so many clients can connect to the same server and they can log in at the same time simultaneously. There's no issue with scalability in that sense.

We have 50 users on the product currently.

We've never had any real issues. I haven't dealt with technical support.

In terms of the initial setup, the implementation process is simple and straightforward. It's not difficult. 

Since it is not a new solution, most of the engineers know how to deploy and how to operate it; we are not waiting for further technical documents for assistance.

Since it was quite easy to deploy, we did not need any outside assistance from integrators or consultants. 

While it's connected to the cloud, it's a solution that is currently on-premises. 

I'm not sure if we are using a specific version. Whatever options that come with Microsoft, we use that. Since they upgraded Microsoft (for example, earlier it was Microsoft XP, and Windows 7, 8, 9, 10, et cetera), the options come up throughout those operating systems. We use whatever they offer.

I would recommend the solution to others. I'd rate it at a nine out of ten. We've had a good experience with it over a number of years.