rudholm wrote:
...
meh. Each has its place. VNC's performance is horrible, but it is
easier
than X. It's probably a point of interest that the most popular page on
my website is this one:
http://www.monkeynoodle.org/comp/remote-x-cygwin-howto
--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip Since 1996
You might want to give TightVNC a try, it sports some performance
improvements over the original AT&T version.
I have.
Also, your howto seems to improperly characterize VNC. Perhaps I'm
mis-reading but you seem to imply that the VNC viewer and server trade
packets continuously regardless of activity. That isn't the case, they
only trade packets when there are events to share (such as mouse
movements or screen updates). An idle VNC session uses no bandwidth.
I haven't watched Tight with a sniffer, but AT&T VNC definitely polls.
Additionally, you indicate that a VNC context is limited in size and
pixel depth to the specs of the video card attached to the server
hosting it. This is not the case, VNC contexts can be of arbitrary
dimesions and quantity regardless of any video hardware that may or may
not be attached to the hosting computer (given enough memory, of
course).
That might be a new feature, but it's still not as cool in my mind than
X. Anyway, VNC has its place and I'm sure that Tight offers lots of
benefits that I didn't notice the last few times I tried it. It was
still a lot slower than RDP or X, so I didn't care to hang around and
find out what those benefits were.
--
Jack at Monkeynoodle dot Org: It's a Scientific Venture...
Riding the Emergency Third Rail Power Trip Since 1996
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@lists.slimdevices.com
http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
