Black screen when connecting

espenzaal · Post by **espenzaal** » 2006-02-01 07:21

Hey!
I got Single click a couple of days ago and its very very good for all my customers, but in some cases i get this black screen i have seen other people mention when i try to do support to a remote computer.

I use VNCViewer 1.0.1 and the latest files and Creator Tool.

One of my customers suggested that it could be because of some port in his Router/Firewall is blocking the traffic. Can this be the case?
SC works for 95% of all computers i have tested it towards, but not towards my parents computer and no towards this special customer.
Any sugestions?

redge · Post by **redge** » 2006-02-02 05:36

2 possible reasons:

1. customer their made remote desktop connection before you connect.
2. network congestion

1. there no solution until today for issue about remote desktop made before vnc viewer connect to vnc server
2. vncviewer, try tabbed vncviewer more stable
[topic=5652][/topic]

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-06 22:46

Hello friends, long time no see.

I've recently started having problems with SC. For some reason, any time I use SC to connect to someone, it runs horribly slow. Most of the time it just stays black with the loading screen. If I wait about 3 minutes, something will come up, but clicking something as simple as the start menu can mean another 1-3 minute wait.

If I install full-blown UltraVNC, this problem doesn't exist. It's just SC. And it's recently. I don't understand what could have changed in my setup. Tabbed viewer does the same thing. This is the same "compiled" SC that I've used since the beginning of last summer, along with the same viewer (1.0.1). It just started this fairly recently.

Any ideas (or links to the latest preview builds

) would be greatly appreciated.

Ps. how are you doing, redge? I see you've been taking care of the forums nicely

-Ares

redge · Post by **redge** » 2006-02-06 23:38

Ares,
can you replace old by new winvnc and recompile again your singleclick ?
http://sc.uvnc.com/sciii/winvnc.exe (20051006 yyyymmdd)

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 02:21

Actually, I guess that is the one I was using. The MD5 hashes match.
[C78509FD2F8DAB83BD44C20B4A1935AF]

So, yeah, that's not it unfortunately $:\$

-Ares

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 02:27

What's the latest version of vnchooks.dll for SC? I'm thinking that might be the culprit. Though, isn't that only used when connecting to Win9x/ME?

-Ares

redge · Post by **redge** » 2006-02-07 02:34

vnchooks.dll 1.1.0.0 (20050625) for full winvnc
98 370 bytes

vnchooks.dll 3.3.6.0 (20050620) for SingleClick III
53 248 bytes

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 02:36

Thanks redge... yeah, that's what I'm using though. $:\$

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 02:40

But yeah, it just sits at loading, and eventually will freeze. If I let it sit for another minute or two, I'll get the screen, but it will be so slow it is unusable. I'll click the start menu, and nothing for another minute. And this is over 384k cable connections. Shouldn't be this bad, especially with UVNC...

redge · Post by **redge** » 2006-02-07 02:46

did you vnc viewer connect to vnc server and save as template.vnc
and then
vncviewer -listen -config template.vnc for force viewer to listen with quick option = medium

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 02:48

Okay, I've ruled out SC. It's not SC's fault. It's something with my machine. I just have no idea what. I contacted a friend and had her run my latest build. No good. She then asked if she should "delete the old one" - to which I realized she still had an old copy of my SC that had previously worked. So I told her to run that one, and it still did not work. It was an older version, but it had worked previously but now does the same thing as the new one.

I'm running viewer 1.0.1 (Aug 6 2005). I've tried the tabbed viewer. So, what else could it possibly be???

-Ares

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 02:51

I usually have it use Auto, but a few times (including last time) I right-clicked the Listening viewer and went to Default Options and told it to use Tight with 64 colors. Then I told the person to run my SC. That should essentially do the same thing, right? I'm assuming you think there's not enough bandwidth between me and my tester. Problem is, if I remote in with Remote Desktop, it's blazingly fast. Also tested TightVNC. TightVNC works fine too. It's just UVNC SC. No idea why.

-Ares

proc · Post by **proc** » 2006-02-07 12:05

Greetings,

I've started to use SC UltraVNC this week, and I have exactly de same problem.

Could it be any Microsoft update on XP messing with SC ?

Regards

Paulo

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 13:22

proc wrote:Could it be any Microsoft update on XP messing with SC ?

Precisely what I was thinking. I wish I knew someone who still used Windows 98 so I could test lol

-Ares

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-07 18:06

I'm now wondering if perhaps my ISP is throttling VNC data. It already throttles Bittorrent data. I've heard rumors that some ISP's are doing this. I'm going to try using encryption and see if that helps.

-Ares

Ares · Post by **Ares** » 2006-02-08 02:53

Wow, I was right. My ISP is speed-limiting port 5500. I guess because they saw how much data I had been using over that port. My ISP really really sucks!

I changed the port to 1720, the standard VoIP port which usually isn't limited. Works like a charm. So, anyone having drastic speed problems with UVNC should try using port 1720 (or some random port, if 1720 is being used).

I got the idea about port 1720 from the µTorrent forums, because a lot of ISPs are limiting Bittorrent. It typically works. I just can't believe they were rate limiting a legitimate port like 5500 for VNC! I hate my ISP...

It's funny that they're not rate limiting port 5900. But the more I think about it, I usually don't make outgoing connections, as I use SC much more than a regular VNC server. Ever since December, my ISP has been rate limiting my bittorrent. I would switch ports, but they would limit it again. So I've basically quit. The next highest bandwidth I use is probably VNC, using SC. So, evidently they don't care about the legitimacy of the traffic, they just don't want me using my full bandwidth potential. So they limited my port 5500. They're sneaky bastards, if you ask me...

Anyway, hope this helps someone out there. And thanks for the help, redge.

-Ares

proc · Post by **proc** » 2006-02-13 12:19

Same problem with me. I'm now using tcp ports bellow 1024.

Thanks for the help

Regards

Paulo

TKD · Post by **TKD** » 2006-03-12 04:50

are there any problems in using ports 80 or 443 for the connection?

Black screen when connecting

Black screen when connecting

what about ports 80 or 443?