TightVNC vs. RealVNC (was Re: Another question about Cadence
Benjamin J. Weiss
Thu Jun 12 16:36:01 2003
Okay, I installed RealVNC last night. The setup:
At work, Win2k SP2, RealVNC Viewer 3.3.7, T-1 line with almost nobody here
At home, RedHat 9.0, RealVNC Server 3.3.7, cable modem line.
Quick summary, I liked TightVNC better and switched back.
RealVNC seemed to have an overall faster transfer rate, in that the first
screen just popped right up. However, TightVNC had a faster *feel*, because
the RealVNC client would "freeze" whenever a large amount of data was being
transferred. Whenever a large screen update was being made, the mouse
stopped responding and the client wouldn't perform the local screen update
until it had all of the image data.
This is opposed to TightVNC, which never had the mouse stop responding while
viewing the same screens, and which did "incremental" display updates as the
screen was loading.
While RealVNC may have completed the loading of the full screen a bit
faster, its "nothing until finished, then display all" approach was a bit
frustrating, so I switched back.
You guys are awesome, though, and I appreciate all of the hard work you guys
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benjamin J. Weiss" <Benjamin@weiss.name>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:11 PM
Subject: Re: Another question about Cadence slowness
> Okay, I'm going to try uninstalling TightVNC 1.2.8 tonight and take a look
> at the latest RealVNC (3.3.7?) to see if it's significantly faster in my
> non-scientific opinion than TightVNC. I didn't see an RPM for RedHat 9,
> I guess I'm gonna have to compile it. Oh, joy. :)
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James ''Wez'' Weatherall" <email@example.com>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:48 PM
> Subject: Re: Another question about Cadence slowness
> > Fred,
> > The Tight encoding was superceded in VNC release 3.3.4, which introduced
> > automatic encoding selection and the new ZRLE encoding. ZRLE provides
> > similar compression ratios to Tight (better in many cases) with less
> > processing overhead.
> > Cheers,
> > Dr. James Weatherall
> > RealVNC Ltd. - http://www.realvnc.com
> > ---
> > Jeff Boerio wrote:
> > >
> > > Fred,
> > >
> > > This is a problem we have observed as well. I'm sure you notice that
> > > the CPU of your Windows VNC client goes through the roof as it
> > > to do things such as redraws. It is not a network issue at all, it is
> > > in the Windows client itself.
> > >
> > > I spent a lot of time working with the folks at Real VNC on this
> > > problem, and you should see an dramatic improvement in their next
> > > release.
> > >
> > > - Jeff
> > Hi, Jeff,
> > I do recall reading in the archives that work was
> > being done with RealVNC folks to deal with it. I
> > don't recall if the exact CAD tool was mentioned.
> > I don't suppose that the change in code could be
> > easily incorporated into TightVNC? Tight encoding
> > really helps sometimes, and I'm not sure why
> > there hasn't been a merging of efforts.
> > Fred
> > --
> > Fred Ma, email@example.com
> > Carleton University, Dept. of Electronics
> > 1125 Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario
> > Canada, K1S 5B6
> > _______________________________________________
> > VNC-List mailing list
> > VNC-List@realvnc.com
> > To remove yourself from the list visit:
> > http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
> VNC-List mailing list
> To remove yourself from the list visit: