TightVNC vs regular VNC

Todd A. Jacobs nospam "at" codegnome.org
Mon, 20 Aug 2001 08:44:20 +0000


On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Edric wrote:

> 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

I suppose it depends on what you're sending and what kind of bandwidth. I
find that SSH (compression level 5) + Tight Encoding with JPEG and
Compression both set to 5 + Copyrect Encoding yields the best performance
for me.

Of course, if you have a Fast Ethernet connection or similar, you're much
better off running raw encoding. YMMV.

-- 
Work: It's not just a job, it's an indenture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------