TightVNC vs regular VNC

Greg Breland gregory "at" netdoor.com
Fri, 03 Aug 2001 18:41:42 +0000


Are you sure you are using tight-vnc with the local cursor option?
Tridia, for example, does not support the local cursor option yet.

The local cursor option lets the client handle the cursor and the server
turns it's visible cursor off.  The means that everytime you move the
mouse, the client sends the mouse movement, but more than likely the
server will not have to send anything back.  This greatly reduces the
amount of data being sent around because of mouse movements.

Now as for actually sending over screen updates, SSH+Hextile proably is
more efficient, but SSH+Tight should be even better because even if
Hextile compresses better, Tight is sending over much less data.

Greg

On 03 Aug 2001 09:29:02 -0700, Michael March wrote:
> In my experience, SSH+Compression+Hextile always *seems* to work better
> than Tight encoding.
> 
> > "lag" also depends on what compression level you've set Tight encoding to
> > use, as well as any other options like using the jpeg encoder.  Also if
> > you're running a graphics-rich through it or have a complicated background,
> > it'll appear "worse".  Also check to make sure both sides are running at the
> > same colour depth - if VNC has to convert them, it'll take some processing
> > power.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Edric [mailto:ebulalacao "at" yahoo.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2001 10:08 AM
> > To: vnc-list-digest "at" uk.research.att.com
> > Subject: TightVNC vs regular VNC
> > 
> > 
> > I've compiled both versions on Solaris 7 Intel
> > successfully.  The box is a P3/600mhz w/ 512mb RAM. 
> > On a 10base-T network, I noticed that if I use the
> > "tight" encoding, the screen display is slower than if
> > I just use "hextile".  I'm assuming this is because it
> > takes more time for the Unix box to compress the data
> > stream it sends to the client and it takes additional
> > time for the client to decompress the data stream. 
> > The client is a Windows 98 laptop, P2/300mhz w/ 96mb
> > RAM.  So the bottleneck is the processing power of
> > both machines, not the network.  Is this assumption
> > accurate?  Has anyone else had similar experience?  I
> > have not tested TightVNC vs regular VNC on a dial-up connection.
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
> > http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
> > to majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com
> > See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
> > to majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com
> > See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
> to majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com
> See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send a message with the line: unsubscribe vnc-list
to majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------