Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS)

The primary use case of Parallels is to offer it to customers as a hosted service. I help them to migrate from other solutions like VMware to Parallels RAS . I recommend it to companies that prefer cost-effective, easy-to-setup solutions for remote workforce or branch office setups.

Parallels Desktop  allows me to run both Mac and Windows operating systems on a single machine, eliminating the need for separate Windows hardware. This saves both time and money.

One valuable feature is the ability to securely use a wide range of devices to access the company's infrastructure. The inclusion of all necessary components, such as load balancer and gateways, in a monthly fee is also beneficial. In terms of Parallels Desktop , the coherence mode that allows Mac and Windows applications to run seamlessly side by side is highly regarded.

A potential improvement could be reducing the dependency on Microsoft solutions for Parallels RAS . As for Parallels Desktop, there is nothing specific that needs improvement.

I have been using Parallels RAS for maybe about five years. Similarly, I might have been using Parallels Desktop for five years or possibly even more.

Parallels Desktop works very well, and there are no issues with stability.

Parallels RAS is quite scalable. I can start from fifteen users and scale it to nearly any size. I am unsure what scalability means for Parallels Desktop, but as long as the Mac has enough memory, it works smoothly.

The technical support by Parallels is quite good. For Parallels RAS, the support is rated eight out of ten. However, I haven't needed technical support for Parallels Desktop.

Positive

I was using VMware before but migrated to Parallels years ago because it is more cost-effective and easier to set up.

The initial setup of Parallels RAS is straightforward. The initial setup for Parallels Desktop is also straightforward.

It's hard to determine the return on investment for Parallels RAS as it depends on comparative gains from competitors' products. For Parallels Desktop, I haven't calculated ROI as the investment is not significant.

The pricing for Parallels RAS is straightforward with a monthly fee for a minimum of 15 licenses. For Parallels Desktop, it is a yearly cost of a couple of hundred euros. No additional fees for maintenance or support are required.

I used VMware and sometimes recommend migrating from VMware and Citrix to Parallels RAS.

I would recommend Parallels Desktop to others with similar needs. Also, if any improvements are needed, it might be to lessen the dependency on Microsoft.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use the product as a VDI to share a desktop for the client portal. It helps employees and the client to access it simultaneously.

We can provision the servers without the need for another third-party solution.

The product does not utilize SQL for reporting purposes. Also, it does not support some hypervisors similar to Citrix. These particular areas need improvement.

We have been using Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) for one and a half years.

It is a stable platform.

It is a scalable platform.

The technical support services need improvement.

Neutral

Citrix is suitable for big companies. It is difficult to set up and requires a certified technician with two Citrix certifications for easier deployment. They charge around $ 4,000 to $ 5,000 for training programs. In contrast, Parallels provides free training and can provision servers without integrating with third-party vendors.

The initial setup is simple. I rate the process a nine out of ten.

The product is not expensive. I rate its pricing a three or four out of ten.

I rate Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) an eight out of ten.

The solution can be used for remote applications and remote desktop.

The solution is powerful, and it has good speed and performance.

Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) is an expensive solution, and its pricing could be improved.

I have been using Parallels Remote Application Server (RAS) for a few years.

Parallels Remote Application Server is not a stable solution.

The solution’s scalability is great.

I previously used Citrix and Microsoft RDP.

The solution's initial setup is easy.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. Parallels Remote Application Server can be deployed in 15 minutes.

I would recommend the solution to other users. Just one technical staff member is required for the solution's deployment and maintenance.

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

We use the solution to access remote desktop applications. It helps us to have all our business applications in one place. We can also deploy as many desktops as required within hours. 

The solution has the best security features in terms of data access control. It is highly reliable.

The solution's application virtualization feature needs improvement. They could incorporate additional applications that are not available on the platform. Along with that, it should also support a few legacy systems. It will allow customers to access necessary information securely.

We have been using the solution for three years.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution. I rate its scalability a nine out of ten.

We contact the solution's technical support team when we require to test new applications for initial setup.

The solution's initial setup process is easier and faster than Citrix. It takes two to three hours to complete.

The solution is worth the investment.

The solution costs $100 per user per annum at present. It is inexpensive compared to Citrix.

Compared with other vendors, the solution has the best price, ease of implementation, and rapid deployment of resources.

I advise others to make the purchase decision for the solution depending on the requirements of their business applications. The solution provides ease of use and a secure environment. Also, it has integration with different types of OS like Mac, Windows, and Linux. In addition, it has good scalability of usage and reliability for uptime.

I rate it a nine out of ten.