VNC - which one?

I have just started looking at VNC as a way to control my home network.
I started looking for the software, aware that there was VNC and
TightVNC. Suddenly I discover that there are a whole host of different
flavours.

Currently my network has a mixture if Windows 9x systems, but I expect
that to include Win XP soon and maybe some form of Linux later on.

Which VNC should I use?

--
John Blundell
Reply-to: address is valid.
Antispam From: address


John Blundell

I use TightVNC pretty successfully. I think they're all largely based upon
the same thing.


Chris
"John Blundell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have just started looking at VNC as a way to control my home network.
> I started looking for the software, aware that there was VNC and
> TightVNC. Suddenly I discover that there are a whole host of different
> flavours.
>
> Currently my network has a mixture if Windows 9x systems, but I expect
> that to include Win XP soon and maybe some form of Linux later on.
>
> Which VNC should I use?
>
> --
> John Blundell
> Reply-to: address is valid.
> Antispam From: address

"John Blundell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have just started looking at VNC as a way to control my home network.
> I started looking for the software, aware that there was VNC and
> TightVNC. Suddenly I discover that there are a whole host of different
> flavours.
>
> Currently my network has a mixture if Windows 9x systems, but I expect
> that to include Win XP soon and maybe some form of Linux later on.
>
> Which VNC should I use?
>
> --
> John Blundell
> Reply-to: address is valid.
> Antispam From: address

I use TightVNC generally over SSH.

I've found this is the best way

--

-+ Shaolin +-
Discard what is useless, absorb what is not and
add what is uniquely your own.

.: http://www.security-forums.com :.

In article <JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed) says...
> I have just started looking at VNC as a way to control my home network.
> I started looking for the software, aware that there was VNC and
> TightVNC. Suddenly I discover that there are a whole host of different
> flavours.
>
> Currently my network has a mixture if Windows 9x systems, but I expect
> that to include Win XP soon and maybe some form of Linux later on.
>
> Which VNC should I use?
>
>
I prefer the RealVNC interface.

--
Conor

Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him.

John Blundell <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I have just started looking at VNC as a way to control my home network.
> I started looking for the software, aware that there was VNC and
> TightVNC. Suddenly I discover that there are a whole host of different
> flavours.
>
> Currently my network has a mixture if Windows 9x systems, but I expect
> that to include Win XP soon and maybe some form of Linux later on.
>
> Which VNC should I use?
>
>
I use TightVNC, for no particular reason. Installs easily, works fine,
lots of things to tweak if you want to, so I didn't look any further.

"John Blundell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> Which VNC should I use?

Hi,

Several colleagues and myself use radmin which is available at:

http://www.radmin.com/default.html

We found that Tight VNC was susceptible to crashing. I've can remotely
administer 3 systems (at least) on my LAN with radmin due to being able to
change the port it runs on during install.

Dave.

Dave Watson <spammed.off@invalid> wrote:
>
> "John Blundell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> >
> > Which VNC should I use?
>
> Hi,
>
> Several colleagues and myself use radmin which is available at:
>
> http://www.radmin.com/default.html
>
> We found that Tight VNC was susceptible to crashing.

I've never found that. Have you tried more recent versions? The worst
that (very occasionally) happens is that the viewer loses touch with the
server, but it only takes a few seconds to reconnect and everything's
good again.

> I've can remotely
> administer 3 systems (at least) on my LAN with radmin due to being able to
> change the port it runs on during install.
>
TightVNC can run multiple sessions without reconfiguration. And it's
free :-)

"John Blundell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)...
| I have just started looking at VNC as a way to control my home network.
| I started looking for the software, aware that there was VNC and
| TightVNC. Suddenly I discover that there are a whole host of different
| flavours.
|
| Currently my network has a mixture if Windows 9x systems, but I expect
| that to include Win XP soon and maybe some form of Linux later on.
|
| Which VNC should I use?

I prefer RealVNC.

In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Dave Watson <spammed.off@invalid> wrote:
> >
> > "John Blundell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > >
> > > Which VNC should I use?
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Several colleagues and myself use radmin which is available at:
> >
> > http://www.radmin.com/default.html
> >
> > We found that Tight VNC was susceptible to crashing.
>
> I've never found that. Have you tried more recent versions? The worst
> that (very occasionally) happens is that the viewer loses touch with the
> server, but it only takes a few seconds to reconnect and everything's
> good again.
>
> > I've can remotely
> > administer 3 systems (at least) on my LAN with radmin due to being able to
> > change the port it runs on during install.
> >
> TightVNC can run multiple sessions without reconfiguration. And it's
> free :-)
>
I've always found that any of the vnc's are incredibly slow when used
over the net (even with broadband on both ends), if used over a lan if
you were working with a large amount of pc's fine but on the net slower
than tortoise.
I've always found the best to be pcanywhere with remote anywhere being a
second choice , the problem being though it's windows only so no go if
you are doing it with linux (well until symantec finally get round to
releasing a linux version of pcanywhere).

Adam Davies <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed) >,
> (E-Mail Removed) says...
> > Dave Watson <spammed.off@invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > "John Blundell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:JgMtWnGsOqj$Ew$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Which VNC should I use?
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Several colleagues and myself use radmin which is available at:
> > >
> > > http://www.radmin.com/default.html
> > >
> > > We found that Tight VNC was susceptible to crashing.
> >
> > I've never found that. Have you tried more recent versions? The worst
> > that (very occasionally) happens is that the viewer loses touch with the
> > server, but it only takes a few seconds to reconnect and everything's
> > good again.
> >
> > > I've can remotely
> > > administer 3 systems (at least) on my LAN with radmin due to being able to
> > > change the port it runs on during install.
> > >
> > TightVNC can run multiple sessions without reconfiguration. And it's
> > free :-)
> >
> I've always found that any of the vnc's are incredibly slow when used
> over the net (even with broadband on both ends), if used over a lan if
> you were working with a large amount of pc's fine but on the net slower
> than tortoise.
> I've always found the best to be pcanywhere with remote anywhere being a
> second choice , the problem being though it's windows only so no go if
> you are doing it with linux (well until symantec finally get round to
> releasing a linux version of pcanywhere).
>
The OP was talking about LAN use. You can optimise TightVNC to give
reasonable performance on a slow connection (as long as the machines are
powerful enough to run the compression that it uses) but no amount of
compression is going to overcome the latency of a WAN connection. As you
say, one of the good things about VNC is its cross-platform
compatibility. One of the others, of course, is that it's free (as in
speech and beer).