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."It is an expensive platform. I rate its pricing an eight out of ten."
"The product is reliable."
"The solution is good at allowing end users to connect anytime and anywhere."
"The tool is perfectly stable."
"It is a scalable solution...I followed some online tutorials, because of which I did not face any technical issues or the need to contact the solution's technical support."
"Microsoft Virtual Server is a highly scalable solution."
"The most valuable features are monitoring, and the self-service that they have for a customized environment."
"The most valuable feature is the ability to share folders and run Active Directory."
"The stability is ok - once I finished the setup, the system was quite stable."
"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."
"Client compatibility with many systems makes it very versatile. The reporting that is included is awesome."
"The most valuable feature is the ease with which you can publish applications to different groups of users, by integrating with Windows Active Directory."
"The management capability from the RAS portal provides greater control than using pure MS inbuilt into RDS capabilities."
"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."
"The connection is compressed so we don't need a lot of resources to run it."
"It permits us to control the applications that our users are able to get to, in a seamless manner. We're able to distribute applications to users' desktops, just like those applications are on each user's computer, but they're not."
"The security performance and cost."
"In terms of what could be improved, pricing is always too high of course."
"The solution's user interface could be improved."
"The solution’s stability could be improved."
"There could be more security features included in the product."
"The product must reduce the cost by 40%."
"Microsoft Virtual Server needs to improve its stability."
"The pricing and scalability are areas of the product with shortcomings where improvements are required."
"HALB is not stable in our environment. When running two HALBs we have stability problems, so we use an active one and a passive for backup. Also, it would be nice to implement an upgrade of the environment without having to stop the servers. As it is, this must be done during off-hours."
"It needs Windows scaling on Android/iOS devices. At present, the concept of delivering apps to Android and iOS devices is appealing, but the reality is the screen size on these devices is so small that, unless there is some scaling option, it is not really usable."
"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."
"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."
"From a seller's point of view, there are a lot of things that they could do better in the sales cycle."
"A web-based management interface for administration and reporting would be nice, instead of needing to log into a remote server."
"Currently in the RD Session Hosts – Sessions section, I can see what server a user is logged into but not what app he is using. Being able to do so would be immensely helpful when a non-technical user is complaining of issues, but I can’t tell which app he is using, and he is actually logged into multiple servers since they serve multiple apps."
"If the solution crashes, then all the customers connected through that agent, lose their session."
More Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) Pricing and Cost Advice →
Microsoft Virtual Server is ranked 3rd in Application Virtualization with 31 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 "Has a good interface but needs to improve in areas like pricing and scalability". 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 DaaS (formerly Citrix Virtual Apps and Desktops service), Citrix Workspace, VMware Workstation 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.