Alex Angelopoulos alex "at" bittnet.com
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:14:32 +0000

It does work a bit faster over low bandwidth connections.  Interestingly enough, it does seem to also take less memory. I had been
using it to connect to an underpowered NT4SP6a server (P200, 48MB RAM) and noticed a somewhat peppier response on the LAN even.

My general rule of thumb has been that a standard VNC connection is not a truly acceptable performer at less than 56k dedicated
bandwidth from server to client and more than about 10 hops away due to packet dispersion; I don't have any hard figures on the
reduction, but I felt this put it just a little behind a Windows terminal services connection as far as response goes.

Also, as you may have noted, if you are connecting from a Tight client or server to a standard server or client, it is still
compatible (althouhg you don't get the speed benefits).  The only issue I have seen is that I could not get my XP system to talk
Java to a TightVNC server, but that may have been due to something stuttering client side, too.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrew Krug" <akrug "at" amcp.org>
To: <vnc-list "at" uk.research.att.com>
Sent: Thursday/2002 January 10 09:50
Subject: TightVNC

: Just curious if anyone has use this version of VNC?  I am thinking about
: using it but how does it compare in the realworld to regular VNC?
: http://www.tightvnc.com/
: Andrew Krug, MCP
: IT Manager
: Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy
: 100 North Pitt Street
: Suite 400
: Alexandria, VA 22314
: P:703.683.8416
: F:703.683.8417
: E:akrug "at" amcp.org
To unsubscribe, mail majordomo "at" uk.research.att.com with the line:
'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY
See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html