My experience suggests that tightvnc is the way to go. Ultravnc is a great product and if used with the default vnc protocol would be fine too. Some of the 'extra' features like domain authentication instead of just password restrict you to using a) ultravnc on windows, b) ultravnc on windows and c) ultravnc on windows. Because it's non-standard and non-cross platform, you lose the ability to hit it from linux or mac (unless things have changed in the last few months).
Stick with the standard protocol implementation if you ask me. -Ben On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:33 -0800, Micah Croff wrote: > Has anyone compared UltraVNC to TightVNC? I’m just curious why > tightVNC is the one that is supported. UltraVNC seems to have some > pretty cool features but I’m wondering if the reason that it isn’t > supported is because there is something that I’m not seeing. > > > > Ideas? > > Micah > > > > -- Ben Walton Systems Programmer Office of Planning & IT Faculty of Arts & Science University of Toronto Cell: 416.407.5610 PGP Key Id: 8E89F6D2
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
