Microsoft Remote Desktop Services Reviews

We use the solution for support and remote access to servers.

We use Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for its convenience and remote access capabilities.

Using our Active Directory policies, we can connect again and then do remote printing and file copying. We use it on our SAP system.

The solution is unsuitable for direct external internet connections. You must set up a VPN and password handling to use it.

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

The product is stable.

I rate the solution’s stability a seven or eight out of ten.

One or two people are using this solution.

The initial setup is simple.

We don't need to buy licenses because we are a Microsoft partner.

We use cloud remote support because we need to assist our customers. It allows them to connect from the web. It's designed to be faster but unsuitable for direct external internet connections. You must set up a VPN and password handling to effectively use it. We primarily work behind the firewall.

Integration is straightforward because it integrates well with Windows Server.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for remote access. I use Microsoft Remote Desktop Services to troubleshoot or reboot the service of my mobile or tablet applications.

The most valuable feature of Microsoft Remote Desktop Services is managing the remote desktop end user or remote server. It is much easier to transfer a file between your desktop and remote site using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services.

The solution should introduce a chat feature for end users.

I have been working with Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for more than ten years.

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

More than 30 people use Microsoft Remote Desktop Services in our company.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The solution has a pretty comparable pricing.

I do recommend Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for my clients. It would be good if we could manage client-server applications through the remote interface.

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

When I'm in the office I use the solution to connect to another server to look at files or services that are running, things like that. When working from home I use it to connect to our VPN and then to my work computer and pretty much do everything that way. I'm a senior software analyst at an educational institution and I believe we have a partnership with Microsoft. 

Because of Covid, the solution has given those stuck at home the ability to continue working.

I think the price of this product is great. The solution allows me the option of using two monitors. I like the screen draw in Remote Desktop, it's better than GoToMyPC, which I've used previously although the improvement could also be related to a better internet connection over the past six months. 

It would be helpful if there was a feature that notifies you when the internet is down so you're not working for nothing, it should be something that pops right up where you can see it. The internet is always going to go down and the product seems to notice that it's down before my VPN notifies me that it's gone down. You're working and nothing's happening and it takes time to get the notification. 

For an additional feature, I'd like to see Remote Desktop specify which computer Zoom meetings will run on. I've joined a couple of sessions from home, and when I turn on my video, all you see is my empty desk chair at the office.

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. 

Scalability is not really relevant but the solution is used by a fair number of the IT staff. 

I've never needed to use technical support. 

I previously used GoToMyPC because I used to do upgrades from home at night. We were paying for that solution which wasn't necessary with the free Microsoft option. I used both of them for a short time and realized Remote Desktop really seemed to draw the screen better and also everybody else was using it. 

The initial setup is straightforward. You've got to have the IP address of the computer you're connecting to - in our organization it's managed by our network manager.

I would recommend this solution. 

I rate this product an eight out of 10. 

If any of our clients using the internet are facing an issue, we connect Microsoft Remote Desktop Services and troubleshoot the exact issue.

Things can be made easier if someone is not with us or at a long distance since we can connect easily with those people. So, it's easy for us to use such features.

There have been some network issues in the solution. So, when we used to connect it, the solution suddenly got disconnected. So the network part needs to be improved. Also, for a long duration, if we share Microsoft Remote Desktop Services, then network issues come up, so I suggest improvements in the aforementioned areas. Also, the pricing could be better.

I have been using Microsoft Remote Desktop Services for one or two months. Also, I am using the solution's latest version.

The network issue is something that causes us to invest longer time duration in connecting, after which it gets disconnected. Hence, I rate the solution's stability nine and a half out of ten.

It is a scalable solution. Scalability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten. Around five to ten of our clients are users using the solution. Also, the solution is being used extensively.

I do have plans to increase the usage of the solution. The number of users is increasing. In the last month, we have had two or three potential clients in the pipeline. In the near future, its usage will increase.

I have never contacted technical support.

The solution's initial setup process was straightforward. The deployment process took around a week.

Deployment steps are followed. For every network deployment, it is necessary to generate a single token. Once this token is generated, payment will be required. Once we obtain the UI connector, it is essential to verify that everything is running smoothly. Only then can it be directly connected, ensuring that the deployment process takes place without any issues.

Regarding the deployment of one server, if done by someone knowledgeable with Microsoft products, then it can be done directly. Else it will take a month since we need time to learn all these things. An engineer looks into a few things.

The implementation can be done in-house.

The solution is expensive. Since things are made to be a bit easier in the solution, the solution's cost is a bit on the higher side.

I will recommend it to others when I think it's quite an easy tool, especially if its implementation is easy. We should also be able to connect and solve our problems through troubleshooting issues remotely. For long-distance purposes, the tool gets quite easier for its users. I will recommend that everyone should use it.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

We use it to connect to the legacy system.

It is still in the early stages, and the features are purely for connectivity.

There is a limitation on the number of concurrent users. The limitation is 20, and you have to spin up more than one server, which is not needed at this stage because of customers. So they reduced it to 12 active users. So if you want to deploy more than 12, you should assess other solutions.

We have been using this solution for three months, and it is the latest version. It is deployed on cloud.

We had issues with stability in the beginning, but it is good now. The stability depends on connectivity in terms of the latency of the internet link.

We have not tried to scale it. We have 40 users using this solution.

I rate the technical support a six out of ten. It took them a while to understand the technology.

We chose this solution because it's a Microsoft Cloud and end-to-end all solution, Cloud 365. In addition, it's all Microsoft, so it made sense to stay with the same VDI solution.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment was done with BCX, and it took one week.

The licensing came with the product, and the solution had no additional costs.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, it depends on the requirements and what you need. In this case, it's just for one legacy system. So if you assess more functionality and scalability, we would look at different products because the customers would be prepared to pay for those products.

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. 

We predominantly use RDS to connect up to a computer and a LAN. We are non-profit and help other non-profits with their technology. We are customers of Microsoft. 

This is a user-friendly solution and I'm very pleased that RDS now includes multi-screen. If you're remotely controlling a system that has two monitors, you can split and have your own, it's a nice feature. I like the ubiquity of the product, the fact that it's around as a protocol, and that it can be utilized at the admin level to look at any console that one might need. You don't need to think about it very much. Of course, the fact that it uses an active directory for security and authentication is pretty nice. It helps secure a network to a large extent because you can really restrict the number of users and accessibility if needed. Those are all good things.

I've sometimes had trouble setting up an RDS connection if I want a specific user to be able to log in with their credentials and have the RDS element retain those settings so that the password isn't required each time. There can be issues with that. 

I've been using this solution for many, many years. 

I've got no issues with the stability of RDS. 

I don't have much to offer regarding scalability. We use RDS predominantly for admin connection to other servers in a network. I might log into one computer in a remote network and then use RDS to get from that server to a different server but that's as far as it goes.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward, especially if you're familiar with the solution. Most organizations we deal with have a technician, or at least a network administrator who deals with any day-to-day issues. We generally maintain the operating system for these organizations and we run updates on them all the time.

There's nothing to be afraid of with this solution. I don't have any problems with it, it's great for me. 

I rate this solution 10 out of 10. 

I'm a technical manager and we are customers of Microsoft.

The solution has very smooth connectivity and is a very user friendly product. An additional advantage is that it works with very low bandwidth. 

We've had a few occasions when the application has crashed suddenly, possibly due to updates. Microsoft updates should not directly impact the application and rather than releasing post hotfixes, it would be better to carry out testing before releasing it to the environment. It's a challenge for us; the new application is upgraded, but there's an incompatibility. It should be the other way around - testing in the lab environment and then commercially released.

An additional feature we'd like to see would be cross-platform support. With more OSs in the market whether Microsoft, iMac or Android applications, it would be good to have a smooth transition between cross-platform support both in terms of operating system and in terms of devices. Moving from tabs to mobiles to desktops to laptops to notebooks - the transition between multiple OSs and multiple hardwares.

I've been using this solution for the last five years. 

The solution is stable. 

The product is scalable, we have over 500 users. 

The quality of the technical support is quite good although it's often dependent on the quality of the Microsoft partner. If the partner is good, then support is good but if not, there can be issues. 

The pricing in comparison to similar products is quite good.

I would suggest a UAT test on a smaller group or pilot deployment. Once you do a test run on the pilot deployment, then it should be rolled out for a larger base of users.

In terms of overall experience, I rate the solution eight out of 10.