chris at chrisbyrne.com
Sun Feb 2 08:25:23 CST 2003
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org
> [mailto:geeks-bounces at sunhelp.org] On Behalf Of Kirby Menzel
> I've been playing a little bit with TightVNC, and I rather
> like it. It can do
> ssh forwarding as a feature, and can use jpeg compression and
> zlib and a few
> other nice little bandwidth-reducing hacks.
> Of course, it would be good to hear from someone who has used
> both to get
> their view on which is better.
I've used all three (original AT&T, RealVNC and TightVNC), and in
general I perfer TightVNC. I run it on all the systems at home.
1. Slightly less bandwidth utilisation (a lot less in the "best
2. Slightly less CPU utilisation
3. Slightly less memory utilization
I have noticed however the TightVNC is more likely to drop a session
then either original or RealVNC, and with best compression updates can
be very jerky.
More information about the geeks