On Friday 02 December 2005 02:35 pm, Hal Vaughan wrote: > I have worked with a few people who had TightVNC servers on their system, > using either the TightVNC or RealVNC viewer on my system. Recently I've > worked with some people using the RealVNC server (the latest version). > > Is it my imagination, or is the RealVNC server slower? Does it use > compression to speed up transmission, like TightVNC? > > Just wondering if it's my imagination or not. > > Hal
I guess it is NOT my imagination. I heard from someone offlist that mentioned the differences between Real and Tight, and asked if I noticed a problem with a mixed server and client. I realized I had not checked if this effected the situation, so I reviewed the systems I've worked with in the past few days, and looked at my system on my LAN that has always used Tight, and changed to Real. I found that Real to Real gives me what *seems* to be an even faster connection than Tight to Real (at least a Tight Server & Real Viewer). So my best guess is that I was using some systems with a mixed server/viewer situation, and THAT seems to effect the connection. On my LAN test, I used a Real Viewer and found it was definitely faster with a Real server than when I used a Tight server. To be honest, I'm at the end of a serious push for over a year, so I'm burned out, and at a point where it is hard for me to be sure I'm not imaging such a thing (I need to sleep for a week!). I definitely saw a difference today, testing mixed and homogeneous systems, though. Thanks again for all the help and I hope this may help a few people, too. Hal _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [email protected] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
