It does work a bit faster over low bandwidth connections. Interestingly enough, it does seem to also take less memory. I had been using it to connect to an underpowered NT4SP6a server (P200, 48MB RAM) and noticed a somewhat peppier response on the LAN even.
My general rule of thumb has been that a standard VNC connection is not a truly acceptable performer at less than 56k dedicated bandwidth from server to client and more than about 10 hops away due to packet dispersion; I don't have any hard figures on the reduction, but I felt this put it just a little behind a Windows terminal services connection as far as response goes. Also, as you may have noted, if you are connecting from a Tight client or server to a standard server or client, it is still compatible (althouhg you don't get the speed benefits). The only issue I have seen is that I could not get my XP system to talk Java to a TightVNC server, but that may have been due to something stuttering client side, too. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Krug" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday/2002 January 10 09:50 Subject: TightVNC : Just curious if anyone has use this version of VNC? I am thinking about : using it but how does it compare in the realworld to regular VNC? : http://www.tightvnc.com/ : : Andrew Krug, MCP : IT Manager : Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy : 100 North Pitt Street : Suite 400 : Alexandria, VA 22314 : P:703.683.8416 : F:703.683.8417 : E:[EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
