Hi Nable, using X2Go means that you'll need a local X-Server. This X-Server catches a lot work of display, caching and input management locally. So - yes, you'll need more power on the client to run this complete X-Server even when content ist rendered on serverside. On the plus side: this is a "near native" (ok, the diff between nxagent and XOrg is increasing) redirection of Linux displays.
Regards, Heinz Am 30.09.2013 22:22, schrieb Nable 80: >> Furthermore, xrdp encapsulates the VNC protocol > AFAIK, that's not 100% truth. XRDP has several options (including > rdp2rdp proxy), personally I use (for most setups) x11rdp + xrdp (Xvnc > is too resource-consuming), although sometimes (for special setups) I > use X2Go because of Debian packages (one has to build x11rdp from > source to get the best recent version) + out-of-box sound forwarding > support + easy directory sharing + ready thinclient packages. > > Here are some more observations from me: when you have a weak/slow > client (Vcxsrv and XMing seem to be rather slow on my old laptop with > WinXP) and heavy server, the xrdp seems to be working better. When you > have rather powerful client and want to reduce amount of software > rendering on server-side, X2Go seems to be better. 2developers: > please, correct me if I'm saying smth wrong, as I don't know much > about the internals of X11-related software. > _______________________________________________ > X2Go-Dev mailing list > X2Go-Dev@lists.berlios.de > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev > _______________________________________________ X2Go-Dev mailing list X2Go-Dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev
