Which VNC Software Is Best? 680
Futurepower(R) writes "Which VNC software do you think is best, and why? There are several free programs, for example, TightVNC, RealVNC, UltraVNC, and TridiaVNC. Or, is it better to pay for VNC software, like Tridia VNC Pro or Radmin? Which is fastest, most secure, and the least hassle? Which has video resolution scaling of the remote desktop?"
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Since when does VNC have anything to do with mythological creatures?
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Interesting)
Also missing FreeNX, which talks VNC (Score:5, Interesting)
The NX protocol [nomachine.com] is essentially compressed and cached X; it talks to VNC, RDP and whetever else through its own proxy.
Mandrake 10.0 RPMs are here [cyberknights.com.au] and here [cyberknights.com.au]. The SRPMs will probably rebuild fine on 10.1 or 9.2 and are here [cyberknights.com.au] and here [cyberknights.com.au].
Re:Obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
Can 8-bit microcontrollers run a graphical user interface ? I mean, logically, one would be limited to 1 MB of memory, and that would be pretty little to put the application, GUI, and TCP/IP stack into...
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously (Score:4, Funny)
Now that was most probably the best software advertising campaign ever. I bet their website got more hits than ever before and probably will ever in the future.
don't disappoint me like that (Score:4, Funny)
vino (Score:5, Informative)
Re:vino (Score:4, Informative)
http://tuggy.home.sapo.pt/gnome/ [home.sapo.pt]
Re:vino (Score:4, Informative)
Re:vino (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:vino (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously. Use "xset -r".
The X keyboard stuff has autorepeat built in, for when your keyboard doesn't. Most keyboards have it, so it shouldn't be turned on to begin with.
When you press a key on the viewer side, the X server will, through vino, get a keypress event.
When you release the key, X gets a key release event.
If you take a "long" time between those two events, autorepeat kicks in.
Now suppose you have a slightly laggy connection, then the chance that, through network lag
tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
As for security, if you have it set to turn off wallpaper, it turns it off upon every connection attempt, before authentication. It's a pretty resource intensive action. I've been able to use this to DOS my home pc's, opening hundreds of connections. The system bogs down with a rapid flashing of the desktop reminiscent of the japanese seizure robots.
I suppose I should file bug reports for all these.
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
To that I add the fact that 2k pro does not have it either (which is what I still use at home).
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:3, Informative)
Also: a discussion on Techreport.com on how to change the RDC listening/sending port, and a bunch of other RDC related info/links: here [techreport.com]
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
Also, since the Windows VNC clients these days have hooks into the video system, they run almost as well as MS's remote desktop on Windows - and almost all are cross-platform and Free as well. Windows' remote desktop capabilities are decent for simple administration across a LAN, but they aren't as useful in a large mixed environment. After all, you can run VNC with a Linux server and a Palm OS [wind-junkie.de] client; I challenge you to do that with a Windows remote desktop.
Actually (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Actually (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.sra.co.jp/people/akira/os2/vnc-pm/
A native 32-bit OS/2 PM version of a VNC server has been coded by russian programmers this year (2004).
It's here: :-P
And yes, some of us still run 32-bit OS/2 with SMP, JFS, Mozilla 1.7, OpenOffice, gcc, wget, you name it. Why go multi-user if there's only one person sitting in front of each PC at a time? :P
http://eros2.by.ru/pmvnc_en.shtml So there
UltraVNC (Score:5, Insightful)
Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Re:UltraVNC (Score:2, Informative)
Plus, its still backwards compatible with the standard/original vnc, so you can connnect to it even without the optimized windows UltraVNC client.
Re:UltraVNC (Score:5, Informative)
Eh? UltraVNC is a fork of TightVNC, so it supports the "tight" protocols just fine. As long as your Unix box is using X-Windows -> VNC translation, the performance should be just as good as UltraVNC on Windows. Before UltraVNC came along, Unix was the best place to use VNC, because the X protocol could be directly interpreted without the need for a special video driver.
Re:UltraVNC (Score:5, Informative)
additionally, enhancements have been made to
the polling algorithm which have greatly improved
performance and cpu usage.
1.3.x is labelled a development version,
but it's very stable. check it out.
Re:UltraVNC (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to agree with TightVNC - the video driver addon for 1.3 is very good and TightVNC is by far the fastest VNC I've used.
Re:UltraVNC (Score:4, Informative)
Use Damage (Score:5, Informative)
Go google for it. I have work to do.
Re:Use Damage (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes and yes. Being able to remotely connect to a running X session is the main reason to use VNC on X anyway; if you want a new X session you might as well just run an X server locally (excellent free X servers are now available for windows, including a java applet one and a port of XFree86 that is integrated with Windows).
IMHO X should support moving/duplicating sessions and single apps, and I believe work to that effect is progre
Re:Use Damage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Use Damage (Score:3, Informative)
Re:XFree86 Integrated with Windows (Score:4, Informative)
Latest version released August 1, 2004 as freeware, but identical to previous 2002 commercial version...
old, buggy, no longer maintained, but Free, DirectX 6.1-based port of R6.5.1 [redhat.com].
I'm half considering attempting to merge the diffs from that port into Xorg 6.8... I started the other day on a lark, told myself that if I got it to compile I'd create a sf.net project for it... Don't hold your breath though, coz I've got a billon other projects demanding my time just at the moment...
Re:UltraVNC (Score:5, Informative)
With the right settings I was able to connect to it with TightVNC 1.2.9 and play a movie fullscreen on tv without it getting shaky.
Using the dfmirage driver though slows down and prevents Classic Media Player going fullscreen while I'm connected.
It does work very fast for regular use though, but for my purpose the original way works best.
Pinky (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?
Re:UltraVNC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:UltraVNC (Score:3, Informative)
Are you referring to Microsoft's RDP Client [microsoft.com] by any chance?
Re:UltraVNC (Score:3, Informative)
Depending on what version of the underlying technology you use, it's been called RDP as well as other things. I forget what Citrix called it, since it's technically a Citrix product (like every decent MS "product" RDC was written by someone else)...
Still, the original poster was clearly mistaken. VNC = cross platform. RDC = proprietary. The only official RDC component available on a non-Windows-on-x86 is an RDC Client for OS X.
I
Re:UltraVNC (Score:4, Informative)
RDP = Remote Desktop Protocl
ICA = Independent Computing Architecture
VNC = Virtual Network Computing
Microsoft's RDP client is called Remote Desktop Client, and has nothing to do with Citrix's protocol or products. Microsoft shafted Citrix with their cheap knock-off that doesn't work 1/10 as well as Citrix's ICA protocol.
Re:UltraVNC (Score:5, Funny)
Narf, I think so Brain, but where are we going to get enough punchcard ballot machines for all the voters in Florida by midnight November 1st?
Wrong... (Score:3, Informative)
VNC on Mac OS X (Score:5, Informative)
On the server end of things, there's OSXvnc [redstonesoftware.com], a nice free VNC server for Mac OS X. (There's even an OS9vnc, on the same page.)
The best free client for Mac OS X, in my opinion, is Chicken of the VNC [sourceforge.net].
At the commercial end of the spectrum is Apple Remote Desktop 2.1 [apple.com]. Apple Remote Desktop is much more than just a remote control solution; it provides desktop and systems management tools, software distribution tools, mass screen sharing, scripted actions, and all sorts of other features. But as of version 2, the remote screen protocol is based on VNC. With one checkbox, any VNC client can connect to any machine running Apple's VNC server software (which it confusingly calls "Remote Desktop Client"), and Apple's client software (which it calls "Remote Desktop Admin") can connect to ordinary VNC servers on any platform. Apple Remote Desktop does automatic resolution scaling, full screen, etc., and as of 2.1, even supports multiple monitors - even when using free VNC clients to connect! The VNC server piece (the one Apple calls "Client") is free, but there's a catch: at least one copy Remote Desktop Admin is required to be "legal", but then Remote Desktop Client can be installed on an unlimited number of machines in your organization.
Re:VNC on Mac OS X (Score:3, Informative)
How to start Remote Desktop remotely (Score:5, Informative)
VNC?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:VNC?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:VNC?? (Score:3, Funny)
cast another vote for tightVNC (Score:3, Informative)
Wow..! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Wow..! (Score:2)
You haven't tried Citrix.
Re:Wow..! (Score:5, Informative)
No, not quite. Citrix originally licensed NT 3.51 and changed the windows code in order to retrofit true-multiuser capabilities and their super-thin, super-fast ICA protocol. When Microsoft noticed that the idea worked, they refused to license NT 4.0, and created their RDP protocol in a hurry. As a result, the RDP protocol was similar, but much heavier than ICA.
I remember some of our users running Citrix over dial-up. It was difficult to tell they weren't at their terminals.
Re:Wow..! (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft pretty much pushed Citrix out of the market and did their best to relegate Remote Desktop Networking to "Admin" functionality. Assholes.
Re:Wow..! (Score:5, Informative)
Once there was OS/2... a company named citrix came along an created a multi-user version with a remote protocol much faster and leaner than X... and it was good... ran great over 9600 baud modems.
Then Windows came out and destroyed OS/2. Citrix licensed the entire Windows 3.51 code base and overhauled the kernel with new multi-user windows feature, thereafter called multi-win. They mated multi-win to their ICA protocol for presentation. You purchased "Winframe" from them, it was their build and you had to get service packs etc.. from them.. but it was rock solid, super fast and worked. You paid for the server, then a per concurrent user license fee. So you only paid for the max number of concurrent users.
Then the thin-client rage hit, spurred largely by the success of Citrix. Citrix had secured the source code to Windows NT 4.0, ported multiwin and their ICA hooks to it, christened it Winframe 2.0 and had it ready to go when Microsoft pulled the plug. Microsoft made a big splash with their "Hydra" project that they were going to come out with their own citrix killer. In reality it was a small team of program managers gathering requirements. the whole thing was created to steal multi-win and ICA before the thin-client rage destroyed them(as was the thinking back then)
So the 8,000 lb gorilla at the last moment, Citrix 2.0 was DONE for months, refused to agree to the licensing terms for NT4.0 effectively derailing Citrix. Citrix was smart though.. they didn't blink, instead they went into overdrive negotiation mode and eventually hammered out an agreement where they licensed multi-win to Microsoft for a small amount of cash, kept ICA to themselves and got Microsoft to sign a 3 year no compete for non-windows platforms. The multiwin technology was then baked into Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server (and if you actually have a copy around and view the details on the core kernel DLLs, they still say citrix BTW) and they took their netmeeting protocol h.323 and created RDP. RDP clients were only available for windows as per the citrix agreement. Citrix then built Metaframe as an add-on to the multi-win kernel extensions and brought their superior management tools and protocols to the platform.
The killer is that microsoft then demanded a per seat license of NT 4.0 Professional for each user, whether they were running Citrix or not. In the end, anyone deploying thin-clients uses Citrix so Microsoft succeeded in essentially foisting a huge tax on the thin-client market thwarting any inroads in might have had as a major desktop replacement. You have to buy Windows, pay Citrix, pay for seats (or TCALS, slightly less expensive per seats licenses if you arent running XP now) and ICA licenses which are still connection based. This relegated Citrix to a very important, but niche player which made them happy, and protected Microsoft's desktop monopoly.
Citrix has gone on to extend their technology with clustering and other very powerful tools, including securing the protocol very nicely. RDP has been better optimized and runs fairly well, although ICA still runs circles around it. Microsoft then added a remote admin mode to W2k, XP and W2k3 using the now venerable multi-win extensions that are now part of the core kernel code.
And now, as Paul Harvey says, you know the rest of the story.
Re:Wow..! (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong!! Citrix Metaframe does not run on RDP. Citrix still uses their superfast and lean ICA protocol.
I didn't say it doesn't. My point was that ICA plugs into Microsoft's RDP server. Thus you have to license Terminal Server, Terminal Server Licenses, and Citrix Licenses. But ICA still kicks serious ass.
Re:Wow..! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Citrix "saga" is one of the great untold stories of the otherwise well-known Microsoft quest for dominance.
At the time, I worked for a company whose product was just plain not at all stable on Citrix, so I became intimately familliar with Citrix back in the mid 1990's. Ironically, I'm working for a different company, and I'm supporting/developing a product for Citrix today. It's really an awesome platform, if it weren't for the onerous licensing model foisted on us by Microsoft.
RDesktop != VNC (Score:5, Informative)
Remote desktop however is a bit different. It doesn't give you just an image of what is occuring on the other end. Remote desktop is a stripped down single user terminal server. When you connect to an XP or 2000 machine using RD, then the remote XP machine redirects all local console functions of that machine to your client. This has the effect of knocking out whoever is sitting at the local console of the machine you are RD'ing into. In effect, all video operations are redirected to an off-screen video buffer, then compressed, and sent on their way using the remote desktop protocol. The sucky thing about this is that remote desktop only allows one and only one console session to exist.
Remote desktop also encrypts the entire session using 128 bit encryption. It even allows you to redirect your local disks and printers to the remote machine for use. You can use this feature for a sort'of poor mans VPN. All the data moved through the redirected drives will be encrypted and moved over the RDP port.
Remote desktop is faster than VNC because Microsoft is able to perform tricks in kernel space. For example, if you fire up windows media player to view a video file, then that data doesn't have to be rendered at all on the remote machine. Microsoft simply streams it to your client machine using RDP. The same thing however won't work with Apple QuickTime or RealPlayer. I'm also not entirely sure whether the windows are even drawn to video first. Microsoft may be pulling some redirection of GDI commands so that RD acts somewhat like X in that respect.
Our site uses VNC for user desktop support since the video is shared with the user. We use remote desktop for server management. Remote desktops feature for helping the user is problematic at best becuase they have to invite you to join first. It whole invitation thing is simply cumbersome. That's why it is just simpler to use VNC.
So, there are positives and negatives to using VNC or RD.
+1
Re:RDesktop != VNC (Score:4, Informative)
No it doesn't. It's just how they've implemented Terminal Services under Win XP - they don't allow concurrent users.
"Remote desktop is faster than VNC because Microsoft is able to perform tricks in kernel space. For example, if you fire up windows media player to view a video file, then that data doesn't have to be rendered at all on the remote machine. Microsoft simply streams it to your client machine using RDP"
Try creating a filter graph for DVD playback. It won't work.
Re:RDesktop != VNC (Score:4, Informative)
There is no kernel space conspiracy in this case. BTW, there is *no* kernel space conspiracy in *every single case* where Windows is better than (put your favorite open source project here). Slashdotters talk about kernel space like it's some kind of magical execution privilege where code is executed at 10GHz.
When you're dealing with networking software, you still have to properly format your data to send it across the network, and there is no kernel magic that will help you with that. The same thing also applies to most kinds of software: all the data processing that your application depends upon can not be replaced by any kind of "kernel-space magic", you still need an efficient implementation, and you will have to do it by yourself. Well, if you're not sure about how stuff works, then... Well, nevermind.
Re:RDesktop != VNC (Score:3, Informative)
The Windows VNC servers all don't have a clue about any or at least much of the semantics on the screen: it's just one big bitmap. Okay, they have figured out about there being various windows, and a main window, so they're starting to acquire additional "meta-information" to the bitmap.
The window manager - that is, an X server on Unix and the operating system ("
Clarification is called for... (Score:4, Informative)
On Win2k3 Server, as in Win2k, you are limited to two simultaneous RDP sessions, but you are now able to
These two above are _without_ having purchased any Terminal Services CALS or any additional software.
Finally, with WinXP SP2, it is entirely possible to configure (via a registry setting) the OS to allow a RDP session separate from the console 0 session. There is significant discussion over the topic of if this feature made it into SP2 release, or was pulled in late beta. I can say that I have seen it work on a SP2 release system. There may be specific caveats such as the PC not being in a domain, and having "Fast User Switching" enabled (as the one, peculiar PC where this happened to me would have been configured), but the functionality is definitely there.
Finally with regards to WinXP, given another system, it is possible to use the command-line shadow command (ex. shadow 0
The point is that there is much more to the Remote Desktop remote administrator and XP RDC functionality than meets the eye if you merely click the icon.
Fastest (Score:5, Informative)
And Terminal Services on Windows is much better than VNC (there are Unix clients).
Over slow connections VNC is better. I just use whichever works. I've found that RealVNC locks up/crashes Windows less often than the others.
Re:Fastest (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fastest (Score:5, Interesting)
This was cut and pasted from an email I sent to workmates a while back when I heard about NX initially. These days I prefer to use RealVNC (until I get around to buying a copy of NX) to connect to my XFCE session at home from the office.
Even on what you consider a fast connection (local ethernet) I prefer VNC over X11.
For Windows platforms... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:For Windows platforms... (Score:3, Informative)
RealVNC, UltraVNC, TightVNC (Score:4, Informative)
gpl (Score:5, Funny)
RAdmin has the lowest overhead (Score:5, Informative)
With RAdmin, neither of these was necessary. I threw a sniffer on the wire to see what the traffic was like, and it was extremely small.
It also worked under Wine reasonably well (I don't know if they make a native Linux version now, they didn't when I played with it a couple of years ago). The amount of traffic with a 1600x1200x24 resolution on the remote desktop was small enough to be used over a dialup with reasonably good performance.
Re:RAdmin has the lowest overhead (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RAdmin has the lowest overhead (Score:4, Informative)
I use Remote Desktop on a daily basis. Remote Desktop creates a "Virtual Desktop" in memory, that only you see (Windows 2000 & 2003 version). It doesn't allow file transfer natively, unless you map a drive through your connection, or use a 3rd party software called WtsFtp. It's only available in Windows Server 2000, 2003, and Windows XP. I believe the Windows XP version allows only 1 user to be logged into the machine at a time. A Remote Desktop Connection is considered to be 1 user. I use both those applications on a daily basis.
Remote Desktop is faster than Radmin, which is way faster than various flavors of VNC i've used over the past.
Re:RAdmin has the lowest overhead (Score:4, Informative)
i.e., "%SystemRoot%\System32\mstsc.exe
Re:RAdmin has the lowest overhead (Score:3, Informative)
Re:RAdmin has the lowest overhead (Score:3, Informative)
I have gotten my $30 worth and then some.
Gailin
Check out TWD Industries (Score:3, Interesting)
Jonah Hex
RAdmin (Score:3, Informative)
RAdmin has several nice features, but they're mostly not really anything you can't get from VNC. One cool exception to that is the ability to "bounce" from RAdmin servers. Let's say you are adminning a machine a remote location which is "messed up" in some way, bad subnet mask, bad default gateway, etc. You can set an intermediate machine at that location for RAdmin to bounce off of. It's also possible to use this to create an "RAdmin Gateway", so a machine on your edge network, which you bounce through to get access to the internal machines. That isn't a recommendation, but I've seen people do it before.
The 3.0 beta client also has nice Dealmaker features for me. Folder support, so no more one long ass list of all your connections (although you could DIY this solution through the use of command line shortcuts), and the ability to set the default refresh rate to something other than 100 updates/sec, rather than having to change it every time you make a new connection.
Other than that, they're all fairly similar. I like RAdmin's Get/Set clipboard feature. The file transfer is decent only for small files, but for those small files, it's great. There's a remote CMD shell feature which always struck me as a bad plan, but no worse than remote desktop I guess.
Try them all out, there's a 30 day trial of RAdmin anyway, just play. It's not nearly as fast as Terminal Services, but it's not as slow as (vanilla) VNC, or slow feeling I guess. And I haven't tried VNC in an eternity, so I'm no expert.
Really, RDP is the way to go if you have Windows2000 or 2003. It's super fast relative to anything else I use, 2k3 gives you the option of full color. However RAdmin is very good for servers on which you WANT multiple user sessions to "collide". I don't want someone logged into a server making contradictory changes to mine without us colliding with each other and backing off.
ssh + X forwarding (Score:5, Interesting)
I've heard there are products that serve X over low bandwidth [nomachine.com].
Re:ssh + X forwarding (Score:3, Insightful)
Proof that the majority of slashdot users use windows!
Re:ssh + X forwarding (Score:3)
If I had a $1 for every time a windows user says to me "Linux, isn't that like DOS?" I'd be richer than I am now.
Re:ssh + X forwarding (Score:5, Informative)
Ultra VNC (Score:3, Informative)
VNC Genealogy (Score:4, Informative)
For our part, here's what we've settled on:
x11vnc -forever -passwd mysecretpw
Here's the advantages of each (since noone's said) (Score:5, Informative)
TightVNC: optimized for low-bandwidth
Ultra: tons of extras - file transfer, chat, video driver, NT/AD security
Tridia: get around firewalls, more management features
I miss anything?
No one sees the fatal flaw in VNC... (Score:5, Funny)
I VNC'd into my work machine to check a few things, but then needed to check my email on my own desktop. Without thinking (I thought I was at work because, hey, this is my work background!) I VNC'd to my home computer - which is the computer I was using to VNC into work.
Let me tell you what. It wasn't bad enough that VNC crawled to the speed of molasses going uphill on a cold day. No, VNC further decided to lag the mouse movement so everytime I inched closer to the 'X' to close the session, it would jump forward a little, then backward more than I moved and oscillate there a little bit until it settled down and I could try again. It took control of the mouse on my screen!
Someone needs to check into this. Seriously, someone could be injured if they accidently VNC'd recursively. I'm just glad it was only looped on itself once. Imagine if I VNC'd through a dozen computers! The oscillations would never dampen, bringing the universe (at least the internet, and they're pretty much the same thing anyway) to a grinding sine wavy halt.
Is there a VNC that checks for this failure mode? Perhaps a good PID algorithm is all that's needed, but something must be done.
-Adam
Re:No one sees the fatal flaw in VNC... (Score:4, Funny)
I must admit that one of the first things I did with VNC when I tried it many years ago was to make a VNC loop. However, the software was smart enough to sense it and not allow it. Knowing there is no software that can be smarter than the dumbness of users, I added a third machine to the mix--and voila! I had my loop.
Recursiveness... Easy to fix (Score:3, Informative)
(Alt-F4 was not working, due to the machines both being locked.)
Different clients for different uses (Score:4, Interesting)
I was asked "Is there one implementation that's better than the others? Why did this piece of software fork so many times?"
And I answered as follows:
Because they're all different. Some for framebuffers, some serve differently, some compressed, some not. Read on, and I think you'll getthe idea.
(Search packages.debian.org for vnc, and you'll see all of these pop up.)
TightVNC uses JPEG or zlib to compress the data stream to optimize for lower bandwidth connections. It is under the GPL. Packages: tightvncserver, and xtightvncviewer
The default VNC viewer (packages vncserver and xvncviewer) are (c) 2002 RealVNC, and (C)1994-2000 AT&T. They are under the GPL. This seems to be
what you alien'ed.
x2vnc - use a vnc server as a second screen, so you can move the mouse between the local machine and a machine across the network that is running the vnc client.
directvnc - doesn't require x - uses libdirectfb-0.9-20. Depends on zlib and libjpeg, so it may work with tightvnc's protocol
svncviewer - depends on svgalib
x11vnc - the x11vnc server works the same way the Windows 2000 vnc server does - mirroring the physical screen over vnc
linuxvnc - "With linuxvnc you can export your currently running text sessions to any VNC client. So it can be useful, if you want to move to another computer without having to log out and if you've forgotten to attach a 'screen' session to it, or to help a distant colleague to solve a problem."
3dwm-vncclient - I think you get the picture
vnc-java - I think you know what this is. Why bother with it? Probably so you can serve yourself a vnc client over HTTP, probably.
tkvnc - a wrapper for xvncviewer
IMHO, It Depends. (Score:5, Informative)
UltraVNC is miles ahead of the others when used with the video driver on Windows on a broadband or better connection. It is smooth, very usable for most office applications. Personally, I find file transfer to be useful too. The client side has some nice GUI touches for fullscreen mode - a little control bar that is very similar to the one in Remote Desktop.
On the other hand, RealVNC is the "gold standard". The stable releases are extremely stable. Of note, in version 4, there is a nice GUI for limiting remote access by IP address.
It is worth emphasizing that there is a vast difference between RealVNC on Linux and on Windows. Because of the nature of OSS, on Linux, VNC doesn't need to screen scrape. On Windows, w/o a special video driver (a la UltraVNC), VNC is generally stuck with a high-tech version of screen scapeing - it's slow, innacurate, and generally unpleasant for "work", but still incredibly valuable for the flexibilty of remote access.
Windows Remote Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)
I use one called SSH (Score:3, Insightful)
Multi-Monitor Support (Score:3, Informative)
I've found that RealVNC (and NOT UltraVNC) has excellent multi-monitor support that gives you a view that spans across all monitors.
However, the beauty is in the fact that you can use the superior UltraVNC client to connect to the multi-monitor supporting RealVNC.
What other experiences have others had with multi-monitor across some of the VNCs I haven't tried, such as TightVNC?
UltraVNC (Score:3, Informative)
Another killer feature (which TightVNC also has) is the ability to scale to any size. This allows you to scale a 1280x1024 VNC screen so that you can see the whole remote desktop on a local 1024x768 display.
Lastly, being able to change the remote resolution without losing the connection is nice. I don't think TightVNC can do this.
Chicken of the VNC is good for Mac, but doesn't have these features.
UltraVNC for features and security (Score:3, Informative)
From UltraVNC's old FAQ [sourceforge.net] Ultr@VNC is an enhanced VNC distribution, for Win32 platforms only (for now). It's based on RealVNC, features TightVNC smart cursor handling and encoding, almost all the special functionalities that can be found in eSVNC and Vdacc-VNC, and a LOT more.
Plus, at the time it was the only one with 128 bit encryption (via a plug-in) and still might be. The encryption not only protects the data in transit, it also acts as a second password. You can run the others through SSH, but the plug-in makes in integrated into UltraVNC.
Also, RealVNC now charges for their best version.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is just confusing the heck out of me.
One better for speed, another for CPU, a third for OS/2, why? Why can't we merge the best of the best in a one and only VNC?
Re:RealVNC (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Windows Remote Desktop (Score:5, Informative)
Also historically, the original VNC was extremely robust over multiple OS's, very lightweight on your CPU on each end, and extremely forgiving of low-bandwidth connections such as modems. The Java based console is also being used by a bunch of blade server management tools to provide the IP-based console access to the individual blades.
Last, VNC is ectremely useful for multiple console presentations, either with the other client's mice and keyboards disabled for the VNC session or with them active for shared screen use.
Now, that said, VNC is not that secure in and of itself. There are various issues, such as its common use of high-numbered network ports and the unlikelihood of local firewalls to block them and the resulting ability of some smart-aleck leaving a VNC server running on your Windows desktop so they can observe you remotely because you're not clever or experienced enough to notice the little flag on your screen that says VNC is active. There's also its practice of insisting on storing a local user key for the VNC session: once someone has that key and either brute-force cracks it, or reads you typing in your password over your shoulder, they can take over any VNC server you might run.
This is why some of us really prefer to SSH-tunnel sessions, so that all the X-windows traffic of VNC is encrypted, and so that it's much tougher to steal the passwords to log into such a connection.
Why not dump VNC for NX? (Score:5, Interesting)
NX (by NoMachine) and FreeNX (the GPL'ed edition) are REALLY fast, on the other hand. They are 100% encrypted through SSH and can tunnel to VNC, X, and RDP....
NX will currently only host from Unix/Linux. However, there are a bunch of clients.
I made an IMMEDIATE change to FreeNX/NX after using it only once. Now, I no longer use VNC for Linux....
Re:GPL and Commercial VNC? (Score:3, Informative)
GPL once applied, can't be removed. That's it. But you can apply it to a specific code branch and it doesn't work backwards.
Taking more extreme situation how it works.
You start an office suite, as your own "closeware", never releasing. Then around 1.0 you start selling the suite on some proprietary license - a database tool and a text e
Re:VNC has already been cracked (Score:3, Informative)