i have to reply to this type of rant I am NOT Affiliated in anyway with RealVNC I have used it since before it was released from At&T Labs I have used it with OS 9; OSX ; Linux; Windows; SCO and a few PDAs
I DO NOT Speak for anybody but myself I know that when someone attacks a product especially when it is not at fault it speaks poorly of the attacker 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. > > or 10.4.6; 10.4x; 10.3 because Apple does not say they have installed REALVNC They only say they have apple remote software which happens to use the same port; why would you assume that it is RealVNC When I want to remotely control a computer I set it up. If I have a Mac I can control it with Apple's remote access Otherwise I need to install software Have you heard of osxvnc? It was available for remote access until you can find the RealVNC for MAC from RealVNC >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" > > An indication something about the MAC that is Non-Compliant with VNC >I tried downgrading my client to RealVNC 4.1.1, and then >it worked. However, the performance is really bad. It is >unusable. > > Ever consider the problem is a configuration issue? >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? > > Because RealVNC is not installed on your MAC >It is really a shame that RealVNC 4.1.2 doesn't work at >all and that RealVNC 4.1.1 only works marginally. > > RealVNC Works fine But there is NO 4.1.1 for MAC And there is NO 4.1.2 for MAC There IS a 4.2.x BETA for MAC ;-) >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. > > ultraVNC does not support the newer realVNC >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. > > Install RealVNC for MAC; don't Assume Apple has done it for you >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). > > This line speed is more than OK for remotely controlling a computer UNLESS you are trying to [pick your high res screen / hi- bit depth / highly detailed / multi point / mouse action in a program] which may require you to wait for a full screen redraw which may take a couple of seconds then you may want to change the setting to update screen region and under mouse [Option in realvnc prefs];-) >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. > > all remote software needs to drive the display; that's the way computers work; whether remote or local; or whether it is duplicated locally and/or remotely makes no speed difference except the local user may notice a delay between updates as the data transfers over the WAN >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. > > I _really_ beg to differ; driving both displays does not slow the machine down the amount of data required t odrive a display is the limiting factor what is the size of a screen 1024x768xmillionsofColors? there si NO MYSTERY about the required Data Pipe 1024x768 RGB 256 colors 3x8 = 2.3 MegaBytes 1024x768 Greyscale 8 bits= 768KBytes 1024x768 RGB 32 bits = 4x8 much bigger ;-) 6.9Megs? which hurts in our instant world Now if you are not using an 8 bit display 768kBytes ; which most graphic software would look really poorly at that greyscale resolution; you would be preferring a 24 bit color display 2.3MB or 32 bit Color even Higher 2 mbit high speed internet does not typically trasnmit & receive at the same speed so while I may receive a 2 mbit stream; I can only send a 256 Kbit stream on a lot of the worlds DSL lines ever wonder why current video cards have more than eight megs of video ram? and they are pushing 64, 128, 256 MB of Video RAM These Days? do you remember 24 bit nubus video cards in MacIIfx; not even available on the PCs of that time; I have a couple in the back storage room :-) they were expensive and nowhere near the 64 ,or 128 megs we can use in onboard video these days ;-P !crikey! --------------- I Support and remotely configure run and help users with a) multiple users b) Mac OSX c) Windows XP Home d) Windows XP Pro e) Win2000 f) server (all versions) They always have to respond to redraw requests ; whether local or network I have not seen a penalty; except! that the local display wait for the network display. a small price for remote control Timbukto does that same thing! which I _have used cross-platform since the early 90's >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). > > Why would you want to force a logged in user to log out and lose all current allipcation and work files? >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? > > no; It is a ton of data to transmit; we are used to local speeds of the hardware It is not CPU Speed it is Data pipe limitations; luckily there is good compression available these days which typically does not hurt cpu speed >If that's the case, then perhaps the RealVNC developer >community might consider asking the two vendors (MSSoft >and Apple) to provide those hooks. > > > There are documents on the Web; on how to simultaneously log-in multiple users with OSX with eah their own display On windows it is called Terminal services and is only supported with MS SERVER software; or an add-on like Citrix >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 _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list VNC-List@realvnc.com To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
