Slashdot Log In
Which VNC Software Is Best?
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Oct 19, 2004 09:08 PM
from the connect-the-dots dept.
from the connect-the-dots dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Since when does VNC have anything to do with mythological creatures?
Parent
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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].
Parent
Re:Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
don't disappoint me like that (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
vino (Score:5, Informative)
Re:vino (Score:4, Informative)
http://tuggy.home.sapo.pt/gnome/ [home.sapo.pt]
Parent
Re:vino (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
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.
Parent
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:tightvnc vs. real vnc (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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).
Parent
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.
Parent
UltraVNC (Score:5, Insightful)
Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking?
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
Use Damage (Score:5, Informative)
Go google for it. I have work to do.
Parent
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.
Parent
Pinky (Score:5, Funny)
Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?
Parent
Re:UltraVNC (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
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?
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
How to start Remote Desktop remotely (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
VNC?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:VNC?? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Wow..! (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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.
Parent
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)
Parent
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.
Parent
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: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.
Parent
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:5, Informative)
Parent
VNC Genealogy (Score:4, Informative)
For our part, here's what we've settled on:
- Win32
- UltraVNC [ultravnc.com]
- Linux / *NIX
- TightVNC [tightvnc.com] for virtual framebuffers
- x11vnc [karlrunge.com] for sharing out
:0 (run from a command line as
- Mac OS X
- OSXVNC for the server [redstonesoftware.com]
- VNCViewer [mac.com] as the client
- I've heard good things about Chicken of the VNC [sourceforge.net] (but haven't gotten around to trying it yet)
Have fun!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
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.
Re:RealVNC (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
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.
Parent
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....
Parent