James sent me this. I think it was meant for the group. If it was not, it is still informative. I'm putting his comment immetiately below. BTW, what I wrote was this: "How does TightVNC compare to RealVNC when dialing up, say via a 56k line?" I happen to use RealVNC. I tried TightVNC but did not like that with each re-boot, it nagged me for button clicks.
--- start comment --- > 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 --- end comment --- Carl ----- Original Message ----- From: "James ''Wez'' Weatherall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 19, 2003 9:55 AM Subject: Re: tight encoding in realvnc? > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > VNC-List mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
