To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
But it doesn't do the same as XP's viewer, i wouldn't want to do a days work through VNC, even over a 100Mbps line, it is simply too slow. On top of that i have yet to see a VNC implementation where it doesn't occasionally (or sometimes constantly) forget to update parts of the screen. In contrast i can easily work through RDP, the lag is only really noticeable when i do things like image editing. (And i'm even connected remotely to the RDP session through citrix, so i get double lag)
>even over a 100Mbps line, it is simply too slow.
I call BS. I regularly use VNC to a Linux server over a 10MB network, and by reducing the colour depth, it is easily usable over a 256k internet connection.
>On top of that i have yet to see a VNC implementation where it doesn't occasionally (or sometimes constantly) forget to update parts of the screen.
This only happens on Windows servers, due to the way VNC does screen capture on Windows, because the "proper" way to do it requires kernel-mode drivers and is largely undocumented. It *never* happens on a Linux or OS X server.








Member since:
2005-06-29
One viewer costs money and does more than the XP viewer. Or, you can download a free viewer that does the same as XP's (vncviwer). I fail to see how I have proved your point. :-)