Over a LAN or clean broadband connection, RDP/TS/Citrix is the king.
However, the remote desktop connection does have it's limits in that it is
great for servers, but is a pain when trying to assist an active user
session on a workstation. It requires coordination with the user to shadow a
live session or they must get kicked out to log in via remote desktop. Not
the best solution for helping somebody out remotely.
The key component of VNC lag is cursor tacking and graphics. Both products
say they improve this lag considerably using two different methods. It's
hard for me to form an opinion just yet after just a day or so of playing
around.
From: Brian Weeden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: The Hardware List <hardware@hardwaregroup.com>
To: The Hardware List <hardware@hardwaregroup.com>
Subject: Re: [H] TightVNC vs UltraVNC: battle of the VNCs
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 09:05:23 -0700
I have used them both but not really done any comparisons. I found
that across the board while network bandwidth use was low, CPU usage
on the server was rather high. Around 30% or so. And there was a
noticeable lag between commanding an action and the server performing
it. However, over the WAN or a slow LAN it is probably beneficial.
Over a fast LAN I think maybe another solution might be better - I am
going to look into Windows Remote Desktop and see if that is any
better.
On 1/17/06, Hayes Elkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anybody here have experience with both TightVNC and UltraVNC? Which one
> worked out better for you? Both claim to be faster than vanilla RealVNC
with
> TightVNC using a graphics compression algorythm and UltraVNC using built
in
> "graphics drivers" to accelerate screen performance. Aside from other
perks
> like file transfer and chat, what I really want to know is which one is
> smoother/faster, especially over a shaky connection and through a
citrix/TS
> session (realvnc's cursor tracking is a cancer in that regard).
>
>
>
--
Brian
