On Thu Jun 03, 2004 at 08:47:47AM -0500, Nguyen, Hien T wrote:
> I have been searching around the web for various VNC software and have
> found that there are several different types. These are realVNC,
> tightVNC, and ultraVNC. From the perspective of saving network
> bandwidth, which of these would be good to try? Which of these are very
> stable in term of using it across various platforms? Do they crash
> pretty often?
>
UltraVNC is Windows only and is focussed on improving the responsiveness
of the Windows VNC server (by adding virtual display drivers) and adding
extra functionality (file transfer, windows login authentication, etc),
so is probably not what you're after. I've not looked at it recently as
it caused frequent crashes on our main servers when we tried it last
year, so this data may be out of date.
RealVNC is the current mainstream version of VNC - the version 4 betas
include lower bandwidth encoding methods so may be suitable for you.
I've not used these so I can't provide any info about stability or extra
features I'm afraid. I don't think the stable version has been touched
in a while so is probably lacking a lot of the lower bandwidth encoding
features found in other versions.
TightVNC adds some extra functionality like view-only passwords, the
ability to specify ports for the Java & native ports, and provides the
Tight encoding which works well on lower bandwidths (as well as optional
jpeg compression, etc). This is the one I use and would recommend for
cross-platform production use currently.
HTH,
Robin
--
___
( ' } | Robin Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
/ / ) | Little Jim says .... |
// !! | "He fallen in de water !!" |
[demime 0.99d.1 removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]
_______________________________________________
VNC-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To remove yourself from the list visit:
http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
