VNC clients exist for all platforms, including windows. With windows X
server implementations being very expensive, VNC was a magnet. For free,
it is well worth it.
VNC only sends the changes over the network after the initial screen
load. It is almost as fast as X on the local machine. The only real slow
down I've noticed is in moving whole windows around when the window
manager didn't move an outline but the actual window itself. On a true X
server the local server takes care of that and wholesale multiple-line
scrolling.
I have noticed vnc server on Windows 95 doesn't work very well in terms
of speed, compared to the linux client. It is usable.
bug
On Tue, 23 Nov 1999, Denis Havlik wrote:
> :~> Yes VNC can be slow. It depends upon network speeds and the cpu power
> :~>and ram on the server machine. I found it to be as fast or faster on dial
> :~>up connections for simple tasks (ie: document viewing, web viewing,
> :~>editing), and fast enough over networks.
>
> How fast is it compared to X (i.e. exporting the whole screen with XDMCP)?
> I have always assumed that it makes sense only for exporting the screen
> from windoze machines to unix (since this is the only way to export
> screen from windoze machines), and never tried it out.
>
> Am i missing anything, like a VCN-client, instead of the X-terminal?
>
> cu
