On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 01:26, Carl wrote: > > How does TightVNC compare to RealVNC when dialing up, say via a 56k line? > > I have no real numbers to compare (I assume that the only measurable > quantity is the amount of data transferred with a particular encoding > for a particular screen), but the subjective impression is that the > 'tight' encoding performs 'better' over slow links than 'hextile', > 'corre', 'rre', 'copyrect', and, obviously, 'raw', that are provided > with RealVNC. 'tight' uses an optimized zlib compression scheme combined > with jpeg compression to achieve this.
You have missed out the encoding that VNC would actually use over a 56K line - ZRLE. ZRLE performs at least as well as Tight over slow connections, and was introduced in VNC 3.3.4, which is why there's been no need to add the Tight encoding. VNC 3.3.4 and above will auto-select the encoding and colour depth of the connection based on the apparently available bandwidth. Cheers, -- Wez @ RealVNC Ltd. - http://www.realvnc.com Open Source VNC - Commercial Support & Development _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
