[geeks] RealVNC

[Chris Byrne]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org 
> [mailto:geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org] On Behalf Of Kirby Menzel
> 
> I've been playing a little bit with TightVNC, and I rather 
> like it.  It can do
> ssh forwarding as a feature, and can use jpeg compression and 
> zlib and a few
> other nice little bandwidth-reducing hacks.
> 
> Of course, it would be good to hear from someone who has used 
> both to get
> their view on which is better.
> 
> Kirb

I've used all three (original AT&T, RealVNC and TightVNC), and in
general I perfer TightVNC. I run it on all the systems at home.

Three reasons

1. Slightly less bandwidth utilisation (a lot less in the "best
compression" mode)
2. Slightly less CPU utilisation
3. Slightly less memory utilization

I have noticed however the TightVNC is more likely to drop a session
then either original or RealVNC, and with best compression updates can
be very jerky.

Chris Byrne