November 9, 200520 yr not sure if any other clients support it, but tightvnc has an interesting compression algorithm.
November 9, 200520 yr UltraVNC, especially with their Video Hook Driver. Also SingleClick (SC) rocks. It is great for supporting remote users.They also have a very good, active user forum, too.-John Edited November 9, 200520 yr by jftuga
November 9, 200520 yr Remote Desktop, built into Windows. Smoother than any VNC client. UltraVNC crashes if any lag is present.
November 9, 200520 yr I'll add another vote for Remote Desktop. If you don't have XP Pro or Server 2003, then UltraVNC is my favorite.
November 9, 200520 yr Regular RealVNC 4, nice server, and professionnal client viewer to get resize option & more ... faster than UltraVNC & TightVNC when I have tried these 6 month past ...
November 9, 200520 yr RealVNC and I didnt know much about the XP Remote desktop dealiyo till my girlfriend showed it to me that she was using it at work...and it was sweet. Also Citrix is really cool...on the very high end but there is absolutely no lag at all!
November 10, 200520 yr Remote Desktop is nice but it has some serious bandwidth requirements. I haven't compared the speed to too many others. I generally use real VNC when not using Remote Desktop. Remote Desktop lags though even over highspeed but you canm tone it down by tuning it right.
November 10, 200520 yr Remote Desktop is nice but it has some serious bandwidth requirements. I haven't compared the speed to too many others. I generally use real VNC when not using Remote Desktop. Remote Desktop lags though even over highspeed but you canm tone it down by tuning it right.Remote Desktop uses much less bandwidth than VNC due to only having to send general information about open windows instead of having to send the whole screen. eg: draw button at X,Y with size of X,Y. draw window at X,Y with size X,Y. if it is slow ofr you, try turning the colors down to 16bit. XP and server 2003's implementation seems to send 32bit by default.Remote Desktop requires much lower *latency* than VNC to be useful, but this is largely due to the high-latency nature of VNC. eg, it's so busy sending full or mostly full copies of the screen, it's hard to notice the rest of the lag.Regular RealVNC 4, nice server, and professionnal client viewer to get resize option & more ... faster than UltraVNC & TightVNC when I have tried these 6 month past ...If RealVNC is faster, then your server does not support the more advanced compression methods of ultra/tight, or you have them disabled in the client.
November 11, 200520 yr I use UltraVNC when i'm fixin one of my friends computers. but i have TightVNC on my BartPE CD since its only 1 exe for the client and 1 exe for the server.maybe i'll try the Remote Desktop sometime. only used it like 3 times.
Create an account or sign in to comment