Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


VNC? bleh | 49 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'VNC? bleh' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
VNC? bleh
Authored by: kkL on Oct 25, '07 10:08:32AM

Oh, so it is just VNC? That's disappointing.
I hoped Apple could create some smarter protocol that would be aware of windows, scrollable views, buttons, etc. so basic UI interaction could work quickly without transferring all the pixels over the wire.



[ Reply to This | # ]
VNC? HOORAY.
Authored by: Westacular on Oct 25, '07 11:27:17AM

So many apps today -- particularly on OS X -- are full of custom widgets and eye candy that what you're suggesting it really more trouble than it's worth. Bandwidth is cheap and the compression used by VNC is good and fast.

When the server has a decent driver built in to the OS that knows exactly when and which pixels have changed (as seems to be the case here) there's not much gained by doing things the hard way, and a lot to be lost in complexity and incompatibility.

VNC is a standard tool, with software for almost any platform you can think of. Using this makes the Screen Sharing feature vastly more useful for people working in mixed environments. I applaud Apple for building useful, free VNC server and client tools right into Leopard.



[ Reply to This | # ]
VNC? HOORAY.
Authored by: displaced on Oct 25, '07 12:53:22PM

Absolutely.

The expanded availability of screen sharing seems to indicate that Apple have seriously overhauled their VNC server. The VNC implementation in ARD is notoriously cruddy, implementing neither the better encodings, nor the server-side hooks into the windowing system necessary for good performance.

99% of the experience of a VNC session is decided by the quality of the server. One that's tightly linked into OS X's compositor should perform very well.

Looking forward to 6pm tomorrow :)



[ Reply to This | # ]
VNC? bleh
Authored by: tersono on Oct 26, '07 12:28:14AM

When it's as well implemented and as fast as Apple have made it this time (a VAST improvement over the VNC implementation built into ARD), I'm glad they've stuck with a tried and true protocol - meaning that I can use it to admin a wide range of hardware that already supports VNC.

Right at this moment, I'm using Screen Sharing to access an old Windows 2000 server. Works beautifully and is noticeably faster than CotVNC.



[ Reply to This | # ]
VNC? bleh
Authored by: vrillusions on Oct 27, '07 01:58:07PM

It's actually a lot better then just vnc. I have an xp pro machine with ultravnc server on it. On the mac I connect to server, type in vnc://11.22.33.44 (the ip of said machine) it brings up the screen sharing app and asks for a password with the option to save it in keychain [sic] It then has the following message:

The computer "192.168.0.15" is running a VNC server that does not support Screen Sharing keystroke encryption. Text you type to this computer may be intercepted over the network. Do you want to continue connecting anyway?

If the remote computer has Remote Login or SSH enabled, you can select the "Encrypt all network data" setting in Screen Sharing's preferences to connect securely.

I get two things from this. First off, the implementation in leopard supports encryption (by default vnc isn't). if the server has an ssh server, it appears you can set it to login through ssh and tunnel the vnc connection through the ssh tunnel so it's encrypted. For the non-tech savy, apple has just made connecting to remote computers with vnc 10x as easy. Now I'm just assuming how that works, but that's a pretty amazing "undocumented feature" if it's true.

I've also noticed this way of connecting to windows servers running vnc is a lot faster than using CotVNC.



[ Reply to This | # ]
VNC? bleh
Authored by: n1mie on Oct 27, '07 07:05:56PM

I gotta say that I am very thrilled that they stuck with the established protocol. As others have said, this makes it extremely compatible with both Windows as well as Unix variations on the theme. That means you can control those machines and they can be used to control yours. Perhaps that is not useful to you, but it is to many of us.

---
--Chip



[ Reply to This | # ]
VNC? bleh
Authored by: teilo on Oct 29, '07 09:48:41AM

I could not disagree more! Having integrated VNC is an absolutely wonderful feature.

At my printing company, we run 10 different RIPs headless, using VNC to connect to them. Before our alternatives were X11 clients or CotVNC (which is so bad it is unusable). The best of our options worked so-so (modifer-click or drag didn't work on anything). We ended up using a MacPorts compile of TightVNC.

I just tried the native Leopard client, and it is wonderful. It supports screen scaling (which none of the other clients do), and the modifier clicks all work. The Network Server and Keychain integration is more than I could hope for.

Only two things I see could be improved: An option to turn off the encryption warning, and anti-aliasing when the screen is scaled.



[ Reply to This | # ]