Steven Stringham SStringh "at" lrlaw.com
Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:00:19 +0000

Isn't it true that XP has Java removed? Hence, it won't work?

>>> alex "at" bittnet.com 08:11:14 AM 01/10/2002 >>>
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.

For more information about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to 

Phoenix (602) 262-5311
Tucson (520) 622-2090
Las Vegas (702) 949-8200

NOTE:  This message is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message 
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible 
for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this 
message is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this 
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the sender of this E-Mail or by telephone.
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