Yes. For a little historical perspective, TightVNC basically spawned all of these projects, but in various ways. TurboVNC is the most direct descendent of TightVNC 1.3.x. It forked from that project nearly 10 years ago and was originally just TightVNC 1.3.x with high-speed JPEG support. Many changes have occurred since then, but TurboVNC's Unix server and Windows viewer still have a lot of the same look & feel as TightVNC 1.3.x, although they're about an order of magnitude faster.
TigerVNC was a product of a next-generation development effort that originally took place within the TightVNC project, an effort to rewrite TightVNC using the RealVNC 4 code base. Thus, some of the features from TightVNC 1.3.x didn't make it into TigerVNC, owing to its RealVNC heritage. Some have since been added, but not all. TigerVNC's server still has a similar look & feel to RealVNC, although the viewer has been completely rewritten. In 2011, I ported many of the performance enhancements from TurboVNC into TigerVNC, so for most common cases, they can be made to perform similarly, although the general approach that both projects take is somewhat different. In 2009, TigerVNC split off from TightVNC, and Constantin dropped support for Un*x platforms altogether in TightVNC 2.x and later. TightVNC 2.x has probably the most sophisticated interface among Windows VNC solutions. Unfortunately, however, it's also the slowest by far. I've done a lot of research, both in the context of integrating my "Turbo" version of the Tight encoder into TigerVNC and also doing the same for libvncserver. This research showed definitively that it is possible using the "Turbo" encoding methods to achieve similar levels of "tightness" to TightVNC without requiring the intense amount of CPU time that TightVNC requires. Unfortunately, their codec is so CPU-hungry that it is usually unable to fill up even a low-speed broadband pipe. With version 1.2, TigerVNC switched to a common viewer code base, based on FLTK. This has required extending FLTK to support a lot of the features that TigerVNC needs, and I have a feeling that FLTK would have to be further extended to support a toolbar, if history is any indication. Thus, I can pretty much understand why that's not a high priority, as I suspect it would be a huge PITA to implement. Anyhow, since the performance of TurboVNC and TigerVNC is very similar, there is no reason why you can't mix and match their clients and servers to suit your needs. On 4/20/14 4:14 PM, Stormy wrote: > Thanks much! This is exactly what I was looking for, also found that > latest tighvnc also has it... Too bad the tiger took it out and all > these years it is not back.. It could be an "optional" thing left to > the user to decide.. I personally can't work w/o it :) > > Thanks & cheers! > > Stormy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book "Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and their applications. Written by three acclaimed leaders in the field, this first edition is now available. Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/NeoTech _______________________________________________ Tigervnc-users mailing list Tigervnc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tigervnc-users
