Freddy Jensen wrote: >I discovered that a RealVNC 4.1.2 client on WinXP cannot >connect to a VNC server running on a MacOS 10.4.8. > >Initially it connects, and it takes forever to draw >the first screen (like 15 secs). When the screen is >finished drawing then the VNC client disconnects with >a message saying: > >"unknown message type" > >I tried downgrading my client to RealVNC 4.1.1, and then >it worked. However, the performance is really bad. It is >unusable. > >Then I tried the latest "UltraVNC", and it worked much >better. It is still slow,... actually so slow that you >can't really do any serious work with the setup, but at >least I can connect to the Mac. > >Now my question is: > >Should I give up completely on using VNC to control my >Mac remotely? > >It is really a shame that RealVNC 4.1.2 doesn't work at >all and that RealVNC 4.1.1 only works marginally. > >Also, I think it would be a good idea for the RealVNC >developers to find out why "UltraVNC" is so much >faster than RealVNC for this setup. > >I would like to stay loyal to RealVNC and use it for all >my remote access needs, but in this case I simply can't >use it for controlling my Mac. > >In general, the only RealVNC setup that I use that is >superior in performance is when I use a RealVNC 4.1.2 >client on a WinXP to connect to a RealVNC 4.1.2 server >running (in memory) on my Linux machine. In that scenario >the performance is outstanding (over a 2mbps DSL line). > >I realize that the main reason for this is that the VNC >server does not need to drive any display. It only reacts >to redraw requests from the client. > >In both of the two other scenarios where the RealVNC >server runs on either a WinXP or a Mac and I connect >to them via a WinXP VNC client, then the servers have >to drive the local screen on the machine in addition >to responding to redraw requests from the remote client. >This is the main reason that those two scenarios are not >usable at all for doing real work. > >It is a shame,... It would be really nice if RealVNC could >be improved in such a way that for both the WinXP VNC server >and for the MacOS VNC server it would log out the local user >when a remote client connects (just like the WinXP remote >desktop does). Then the VNC server would only have to respond >to redraw requests from the remote client and would not have >to spend CPU cycles on driving the local screen. > >I don't understand why this is not possible. > >Is it because the two OS'es do not provide the necessary >hooks for logging out the local user and driving the local >screen in memory? > >If that's the case, then perhaps the RealVNC developer >community might consider asking the two vendors (MSSoft >and Apple) to provide those hooks. > > >Could we get some feedback from the RealVNC developers >on these issues? > >Thanks > > > >-- >Freddy Jensen, Sr. Computer Scientist, Adobe Systems Incorporated >345 Park Avenue, San Jose, CA 95110-2704, USA, Ph: (408) 536-2869 >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED], URL: http://www.adobe.com >-- >_______________________________________________ >VNC-List mailing list >VNC-List@realvnc.com >To remove yourself from the list visit: >http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list > > > What version of RealVNC did you install on Mac OSX?
Apple DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY VERION OF RealVNC Apple has there OWN PROPRIETARY remote control software ;-) it just happens to claim it is a vnc software ;-P RealVNC Has a BETA version of MacOSX RealVNC It sounds like you are connecting to the Apple Remote comtrol software this is NOT a realVNC problem it is an APPLE F&*KUP your message was not very nice to these fine VNC supplies email list _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list VNC-List@realvnc.com To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
