VNC 4.0 Beta 3
Wed Jul 30 17:21:01 2003
> > Not quite equivalent if Tight is used together with JPEG, and
> > there are photo-like images or gradients on the screen. ;-)
> Over a slow link, VNC will auto-select 6bpp (bits per pixel), in which case
> ZRLE will match Tight even if Tight has JPEG enabled.
I can confirm that they are definitely comparable ... connecting to my office
over an encrypted tunnel, 4.0b3 selected 6bpp and performance was similar to
what I've had in the past with TightVNC. I'm not sure if it's equal when the
JPEG lossiness (compression) is set to the maximum, but I personally prefer
the 4.0b3 results.
However, there are still some trade-offs, depending on usage ... I noticed that
with my particular colour scheme, the title bars of background windows (or
minimized documents in an MDI, e.g. Excel) were a uniform grey, and thus the
title bar was not useful for distinguishing one from another. However, the
small text in menus is always clear with 4.0b3 and sometimes I had to "churn"
them with TightVNC if I had the JPEG compression set very high. So there are
still pros and cons to each, but for my purposes RealVNC is preferable.
I do wonder if it would be possible to implement a PNG-like "interlace" of the
screen updates ... this might make some of the "snappiness" apparent at higher
bpp. What sez Wez?
One thing I can't recommend strongly enough to people who want to use RealVNC
Server on their MS Windows machines over a slow network: get a copy of
TweakUI from Microsoft (free) and turn off all of the fading and animation
effects. They're useless noise for remote control purposes.