We performed a comparison between Microsoft Virtual Server and Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out in this report how the two Application Virtualization solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI."Microsoft Virtual Server is a stable and easy-to-use solution."
"The performance and scalability offered by the tool meet our company's expectations."
"The greatest aspect of the solution is its capability to be available from anywhere."
"The most valuable feature is the tool's cheap cost."
"The product helps us secure VMs from vulnerabilities in our systems like Sentinel. It indicates the threat via email notification."
"The tool is perfectly stable."
"The most valuable features are monitoring, and the self-service that they have for a customized environment."
"Microsoft Virtual Server is a highly scalable solution."
"The most valuable feature is the ease with which you can publish applications to different groups of users, by integrating with Windows Active Directory."
"Setup was straightforward. Our particular use case involved an Active Directory forest involving two data centers and three domains. User authentication against Active Directory was the easiest to set up and validate of any application installed in the last three years."
"It has allowed us to centralize the software location so we don't have to update the software client on 70 computers."
"We use RAS to publish cloud desktops to our clients. The ability to easily publish resources to a subset of users is what we find most valuable."
"The management capability from the RAS portal provides greater control than using pure MS inbuilt into RDS capabilities."
"It is a stable solution."
"Client compatibility with many systems makes it very versatile. The reporting that is included is awesome."
"We can publish apps and desktops on Terminal Servers and seamlessly share printers. We also combine Parallels with Deepnet Security to get two-factor authentication."
"While I am generally satisfied with the solution, it could slightly improve its stability."
"The product must provide easier rollouts."
"The security performance and cost."
"The tool must provide more freedom to the customer."
"In the future release, I would like to see more automation. Moreover, improvements related to recovery could be beneficial."
"The platform could provide more integration and stability."
"The pricing and scalability are areas of the product with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"Microsoft Virtual Server needs to improve its stability."
"The solution's application virtualization feature needs improvement."
"We use several gateways because access to our secret zone requires two-factor user authentication. It is a lot of hassle differentiating among users with or without two-factor. Of course, we could use two farms, but that would mean more management too."
"The customization of the web interface could possibly use some improvement. Little things, like being able to place a background image instead of just choosing from a palette of colors, would be nice."
"We have had significant, ongoing issues with printing. It would be great to have a best practice for dealing with printing that we can offer to our customers."
"Sometimes you need to understand how to use load balancing and the gateway in order to scale, which means the team may need some additional technical knowledge."
"The main issue we have with all of our users is printing. Randomly, a printer will disconnect or someone won't connect to it and I will have to reset the print service and then nobody can print. That's the big headache we've had over the course of the five years."
"We would like the ability to provide a popup message, such as a maintenance notification. That same notification on the Parallels client would be awesome."
"Improvement is needed in performance monitoring of the client's endpoint, and automatic re-connection of the client in the event of circuit disruptions (this works well generally but can present challenges)."
More Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Virtual Server is ranked 3rd in Application Virtualization with 33 reviews while Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is ranked 5th in Application Virtualization with 24 reviews. Microsoft Virtual Server is rated 8.2, while Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is rated 8.8. The top reviewer of Microsoft Virtual Server writes "Easy to use but challenges with desktop version and lags ". On the other hand, the top reviewer of Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) writes "Provides good scalability and a secure environment". Microsoft Virtual Server is most compared with , whereas Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is most compared with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, Citrix Workspace, Citrix DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service), Parallels Desktop and NVIDIA GRID. See our Microsoft Virtual Server vs. Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) report.
See our list of best Application Virtualization vendors.
We monitor all Application Virtualization reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
