## 5 Conclusions  
Returning to the subject, this study evaluated the use of our VDI solution called SUFFER using two different mechanisms for knowing more about its use for a computer Science course. The idea was to provide a set of answers to the proposed research question: _What are the student's expectations and impact of a Virtual Desktop Infrastructure solution designed and adapted for a Computer Science laboratory in the first course._  
In conclusion, these kinds of infrastructures are well received by students and teachers given the ease with which a laboratory can be deployed and this conclusion was extracted using some quantitative (TAM and SUS) and qualitative (user opinions) analysis. The advanced technology acceptance model (TAM) was applied to assess the behavioral intention to use SUFFER during the course. Perceived usefulness of SUFFER was found to be the strongest determinant factor for their attitude followed by Perceived ease of use that also has a strong significant effect on their attitude. The results presented just a significant relation between the perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. On the other hand, it was analyzed the System Usability Scale, obtained a score of 72.26 which is considered _Okay_ under the umbrella of original [PERSON] or Bangor studies. After this experience, we believe that the tool is okay for use with first-year students of Computer Science and it is expected to enhance students' results if adapted correctly. This study found some issues and positive elements of impact on the students' satisfaction. However, it is clear that the drawbacks of this kind of solution are its high network dependence, thus it has to be clear the network conditions of the place where this kind of solution will be used. Furthermore, it is necessary to analyze students' perception of privacy in this tool of remote teaching. Some of them exposed that they would feel observed during the laboratories, even the teacher supervision is on-demand, and the teachers were only connected to those machines where a student required help. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline \hline  & **vCPU** & \begin{tabular}{l} **RAM** \\ **(GB)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} **Disk** \\ **(GB)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} **OS** \\ **(Month)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{l} **Price** \\ **(Hour)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline Option 1. Microsoft A1V2 & 1 & 2 & 10 & Ubuntu & 26.51 * & 0.36/h \\ \hline Option 1. AWS & 1 & 2 & 10 & Ubuntu & 25.00 & 0.20/h ** \\ \hline Option 2. Microsoft B2S & 2 & 4 & 8 & Ubuntu & 21.96 * & 0.30/h \\ \hline Option 2. AWS & 2 & 4 & 10 & Ubuntu & 33.00 & 0.30/h ** \\ \hline Personal Computer & \
\begin{tabular}{l}
\begin{tabular}{l} \text{Celeron}\\ N4020 \\ \end{tabular} \\ \end{tabular} & 4 & 32 & Ubuntu & 299 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Cost associated with a desktop unit. **Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, F.J.R.L. and M.A.C. ; Formal analysis, F.J.R.L. ; Investigation, F.J.R.L. ; Methodology, F.J.R.L. and M.A.C. ; Software, F.J.R.L. and D.F.G. ; Supervision, M.A.C. ; Validation, F.M.R. and A.M.G.-H.; Writing--original draft, F.J.R.L. ; Writing--review and editing, F.J.R.L., D.F.G., F.M.R., A.M.G.-H. and M.A.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. This work has been partially funded by the Kingdom of Spain under grant RTI2018-100683-B-I00 and Erasmus+ KA201 Strategic Partnership Project, Grant/Award Number: 2018-1-ES01-KA201-05093. **Institutional Review Board Statement:** Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to two reasons: (1) everything was set for minimizing personal information of the individual. (2) the total number of answers is under the total number of participants. Individual written consent was waived due to participate in the questionnaire was optional. The individuals known about this study and they could choose if do it or not. Provided on-demand. The authors declare no conflict of interest.