Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

Load balancing: RDS Broker servers divide user sessions evenly among the RDS Host servers that host the applications. You can install multiple RDS Broker servers in an RDS cluster; this is built-in and no extra resources are needed. Optionally, the cluster can be made Highly Available if needed.

High Availability (HA): easy to set up - once the MS SQL database is created and the RDS Broker servers have the needed rights, the database is created automatically and HA is enabled.

Applications are ready for BYOD scenario’s, since RDP is a multi-OS/device technology. No more app testing for client OS migrations.

The valuable features I mentioned assure a stable and highly available environment with maximum uptime for business users. Also, they assure that assigned resources (application RDS hosts) are optimally used, without the need for any extra administrator intervention or monitoring.

Currently, installation of applications on an RDS farm must be performed manually on each server. This should be more controlled and automated.

Also, application sources are mixed on the file system and registry level. They should be in separate ‘containers’.

We did not have any problems with stability.

There are no issues with scalability. At any time, an RDS Host server can be added to any server collection. Also, some additional parameters allow us tocontrol and scale the expected user load (session limit, RDS Host weight).

Technical support is OK if you have MS Premier support.

We did not previously use a different solution.

Installation of the RDS farm was pretty easy. Configuration is a little harder; you need to configure trusted certificates (RDS 2012 allows HTTPS only), add groups and group policies for users, RDS hosts, server collections, etc.

Once configuration is done, management is easy.

There are two choices for RDS CALs (Client Access Licenses). Device CALs are cheap but allow low user mobility and require a high management effort (‘static’ or ‘task station’ scenario). User CALs are 20% more expensive, but offer high mobility and low management cost (‘dynamic’ or ‘mobile’ scenario).

We did not evaluate any other options.

My advice is to start in a lab environment to thoroughly test your infrastructure setup and configuration.

Use User CALs, they give much lower TCO.

Also, for applications you envision to provision on RDS, test whether they install correctly on Windows Server.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is only available for the professional version of the Windows operating system. This restricts a lot of users. The feature should be available for all versions.

I have been using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for more than 10 years.

Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is highly stable.

I did not have a problem with the stability because I was using it for personal use, not for business use. The solution was scalable for my needs.

I have not used the technical support from Microsoft.

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

We're using Microsoft Remote Desktop to remotely log into computers via terminal services.

Microsoft Desktop Services is stable but it takes up a lot of resources in the CPU. It's a bit heavier than some solutions.

About a year.

Installing Microsoft Desktop Services is straightforward. It was handled by the vendor. 

I rate Microsoft Desktop Services eight out of 10. At the moment, I wouldn't recommend it to others. 

We are using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for small-scale virtual desktop applications. It is utilized for normal desktop usage.

This solution saves us time and money because running applications directly on the server means that we can use lower-priced, entry-level computers for the users.

The most valuable feature is performance. We run all of our applications on the server and access them using this product, which is must faster than upgrading all of the desktops.

It could be made simpler from a management perspective.

It should be easier to set it up for desktop printing.

We have been using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for about five years. When we started using this product, it was called Terminal Services.

This product is quite stable and we have never had any problems with it.

Given our usage, we have not had to deal with scaling this product.

I've worked with VMware Horizon and Citrix before.

VMware Horizon is easier to manage, although the Microsoft product is easier to install than other solutions.

The initial setup is relatively easy. In that regard, Microsoft is easier to install than the VMware ones that I've worked with, as well as Citrix.

We set everything up ourselves and I haven't had the need to consult anybody else for technical support.

The pricing could always be improved.

Overall, this product works well, it is fine for the purpose that we use it, and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the latest update. 

The solution should have better security. 

It is overpriced.

The solution lacks stability.

We have scaled the solution and find this easy to do.

While the Microsoft support is good, it would be nice if they would have faster response time. 

The initial setup is difficult and there is a lack of adequate documentation. The process should be simplified.

The solution is overly expensive. 

Overall, the solution is good.

I would recommend it to others.

I rate Microsoft Remote Desktop Services as a nine out of ten.

We are a solution provider and this is a product that we implement for our customers.

We use Microsoft RDS in conjunction with VMware for desktop virtualization.

The most valuable features are the desktop session and desktop virtualization.

My customers are worried that the RDP protocol can be easily compromised and would like the option to use an alternative like Blast. The details of RDP are available to everyone and it has been used in industry for many years, so people know what points are vulnerable. If there were a patented protocol available as an option then people would be happy because they will be more assured of the security. Tweaking this would be really good in terms of security.

I have been working with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for between five and six years.

Microsoft RDS is reliable.

It is really easy to scale-up or scale-out. Just add one, two, or three cells and it works. It's really straightforward.

I have never been in contact with Microsoft technical support.

The initial setup is pretty straightforward and I haven't had any issues in the past three years.

The solution has a perpetual license and it is purchased upfront.

My advice for anybody who is considering this solution is that it is really easy to set up and it can be deployed in an urgent manner, depending on the environment. If you need remote access and do not have the expertise, yet it is an emergency situation, then this could be a great product.

If you're looking for a good end-user experience and you're concerned about all of the features, then Microsoft does not have all that VMware does. It can do almost everything, but there are some features that it does not support.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

The primary use case of this solution is to improve mobility and to access current sessions from different locations.

Reliability is a key feature for us.

The ease of use, as well as ease of integration within our security framework, are valuable.

We need to extend over a potentially slower network, and we have heard that performance over slower networks is not as good. I understand that there are other products out there that work better over slower networks.

In the next release, I would like to see better performance over slower networks, and integration with Linux, but this is something that we're going to get out of Microsoft in terms of a unified solution. It rolls out to bigger issues and access management with being unified with Microsoft and Linux.

This hasn't quite come together, I would have to get other products outside of Windows to get this to work.

The unified solution may be a cross-platform solution, which would be great in the future.

I have been using this solution for six years.

We are running a remote desktop from our workstations, not from our servers, and we are running an old Windows 7 version that is just about to be retired.

This solution is stable, I am not aware of any outstanding issues.

In terms of how we use it in our environment, it's not an issue for us, this solution is scalable.

We have approximately 50 users, who are mostly consultants. We are a small consultancy organization, and we are mostly IT.

I have not contacted technical support directly and I know the team doesn't have any issues with this. Usually, we get a reasonably good turn around time. Not against remote desktop, I don't believe that we have had support for that.

In general with Microsoft, it's been good.

Previously we experimented with other products, but for the moment we are staying with Microsoft remote desktops.

There are other products that we are looking for. At the moment we have four different platforms, and maybe having a unified solution might be the key reason to change in the future. We need a cross-platform solution. We have to have remote access, for example, on Linux Solutions as well, and we don't want to be running on different clients.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It's almost an out-of-the-box function once you have installed the other components.

Once you have set up your workstations and your servers, it's not a big deal to switch on and enable and integrate with Active Directory or remote logins. 

In terms of testing, it took half a day to a day's work to ensure that it was working.

We implemented this solution with our in-house team.

Retrospectively, no, we selected Microsoft and used it.

We are doing some research at the moment to see what we will do in the future for our next generation of infrastructure and renewal.

It's a good solution, and especially if you already have Microsoft running then it's probably one of the better solutions to choose from.

I am not sure whether it's the best future cross-platform solution when we are running multiple workstation environments with different platforms.

I am really happy with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services in our current environment. We have no issues at the moment.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.