Microsoft Windows Remote Desktop V.S. UltraVNC

[Peter12345]

I like to use Microsoft Windows Remote Desktop rather than VNC (and all its variants.) Because Remote Desktop is really faster than VNCs very much. I think it has a bulit-in caching function.

Also, the UltraVNC's mirror video driver has a bug in some video card drivers.....

So I hope that the next version of VNC can beat MS Remote Desktop!!!!

[bevtech]

So do I but try to run Remote Desktop over a dialup connection or Outside of a LAN and see what you get... Very...Very Slowwwww... my biggest complaint on Remote Desktop is that the user can not see what you are doing.

[OhMyGoat]

i can tell you that i use remote desktop over gprs (no i'm not joking 3kb/s down and 1kb/s upload and huge delay) and it performs VERY VERY better than ultravnc, really a lot better with themes and everything enabled (except background).

ultravnc works at a "near" same speed (it's still very slow however) only with themes disabled 256color and server-scaled screen however it never reachs the awesome speed that remote desktop has in those situations. even tight compression with lowest jpeg quality still can't reach that speed.

remote desktop in fact has an huge on-disk cache that makes the difference when using it over slow connections since all the recurring screen pattern are sent only once. probably if ultravnc had a similar caching mechanism it would perform as well as remote desktop.

if remote desktop work slower then you enabled remote disks remote printers background etc that make a lot more traffic.

[Jan]

Hi,

I can confirm that.

Remote Desktop is with Full-Colored Screen very faster than VNC.

It also reacts better than vnc.

VNC over slow connections with Tight Protocol and 8 colors, or even with black and white settings is slower and looks poor.

VNC over local-LAN is better than RDP, because the Screen looks very better with the Video Hook Driver installed.


So RDP has good use-points (better on slow connections, session based, and is installed on 2000 Server, 2003 Server and XP, out of the box)

And also UltraVNC has its good use points (direct screen copy, better screen look on fast connections, user can see what you do, simpler to administer)

So if UltraVNC is (with full-colored screen) as fast as RDP, i wouldn't use RDP anymore.

Greetings from Germany
Jan Lange

[redge]

Rudi or any interesting developer working to cross optimize code between 2 system (RFB for improve cache handling missing versus RDP with a lot of feature already exist on rdp protocol

xrdp alpha stage (test only VNC authentication, do not test on production computer.)

http://sc.uvnc.com/v2/winvnc+rdp.zip
(alpha stage, no audio, no printer)

(xrdp?)+lzo+raknet+irrlicht over UDP (fastest data transmission)
[topic=4424][/topic]

[redge]

xrdp
allow VNC and RDP protocol from single program is fantastic

from windows, you can connect to vnc server (Mac, *nix)
from windows you can connect to xrdp server (remote desktop (Windows NT4, 2000, XP, 2003 and make availability to windows 95?, 98, 98SE, ME
so, nobody forgotten.

accept transparent NTLM connection from any client xrdp (Mac, *nix, etc)
with the correct right access (aka single sign on)

I know there exist alpha stage (sound very good)
[topic=269][/topic]

[takeda]

Anyone have an idea how to enable RDP on windows 2000 pro?

I know it's possible (they use exactly same kernel) I did it once, but it wasn't really clean solution...

[lizard]

The speed contradiction is very much caused from the RFB protocol's design. It was designed as a multi-platform protocol and only defines simple rectangle image transfer methods. Moreover the RFB is strongly stuck into GDI so it can handle text as text, icons as cached small image etc.
What I must regret is that it has much higher full-color picture compression and still sucks against RDP in the speed in situations it's handling full-color images, because of the inferiority of network utilization.

[redge]

What I must regret is that it has much higher full-color picture compression and still sucks against RDP in the speed in situations it's handling full-color images, because of the inferiority of network utilization.

lizard, you fixed it with ijl.dll, right and code modification, right ?

[lizard]

lizard, you fixed it with ijl.dll, right and code modification, right ?

If my analysis is correct, bottle necks are lying on the RFB protocol, update detection and rendering. But so far no one tried the update detection part.
Next time they're digging into it and I believe it's going to make real difference, combined with the derived works of recent speed experiments :>

[Guest]

I've used UltraVNC over a LAN for sometime now & have been very satisfied. Recently, however, I resurrected an old laptop to use as a thin client and web browser. This laptop has a max 800X600 screen.

I’ve found the Remote Desktop works much better as a thin client simply because it adjusts the resolution of the server machine to match the client resolution. Using UltraVNC’s scaling made the desktop impossible to read. Without scaling, scrolling around was quite annoying.

Bottom line: I’m using both on my network. I guess each system has its advantages given the circumstances your in

[Da GMan]

VNC speed is very frustrating, RDP and RAdmin offer way beter speeds and RAdmin offers 16 color for slow connections. Pity really as none offer the security of VNC. rc 19 still seems fastest and most stable, 1.01 is stable but so slow it is unusable on many servers.

My 2 cents worth, still great effort and good for LAN use.

Da GMan