> > Not quite equivalent if Tight is used together with JPEG, and > > there are photo-like images or gradients on the screen. ;-) > > Over a slow link, VNC will auto-select 6bpp (bits per pixel), in which case > ZRLE will match Tight even if Tight has JPEG enabled.
I can confirm that they are definitely comparable ... connecting to my office over an encrypted tunnel, 4.0b3 selected 6bpp and performance was similar to what I've had in the past with TightVNC. I'm not sure if it's equal when the JPEG lossiness (compression) is set to the maximum, but I personally prefer the 4.0b3 results. However, there are still some trade-offs, depending on usage ... I noticed that with my particular colour scheme, the title bars of background windows (or minimized documents in an MDI, e.g. Excel) were a uniform grey, and thus the title bar was not useful for distinguishing one from another. However, the small text in menus is always clear with 4.0b3 and sometimes I had to "churn" them with TightVNC if I had the JPEG compression set very high. So there are still pros and cons to each, but for my purposes RealVNC is preferable. I do wonder if it would be possible to implement a PNG-like "interlace" of the screen updates ... this might make some of the "snappiness" apparent at higher bpp. What sez Wez? One thing I can't recommend strongly enough to people who want to use RealVNC Server on their MS Windows machines over a slow network: get a copy of TweakUI from Microsoft (free) and turn off all of the fading and animation effects. They're useless noise for remote control purposes. Zac _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
