Speed

[Rudi De Vos]

There are reports that pchelpware is a lot slower then UltraVnc.
Any information how the tests are made

LAN ? Encoder ultravnc, encoder pchelpware ?
Internet ? Encoder ultravnc, encoder pchelpware ?

Do we need a faster encoder for LAN cpu== bottleneck
Do we need better compression for internet, bandwidth==bottleneck

[redge]

only one reported to me slower than SingleClick over LAN and WAN

You're right that comparing PHW with SC without encryption isn't fair, I hadn't thought about it.

their compare SingleClick not encrypted to PcHelpWare encrypted
a distorted comparison

[Rudi De Vos]

Encryption is only extra cpu, but the effect become bigger bigger with the bandwidth.

10MB --> compress hard--> 500k --> encrypt
10MB --> compress less --> 3MB --> encrypt

For internet connections, the encryption is neglectable
compress 85%: 10MB -> 500k
encrypt 15%: encrypt 500k

You can compare PHW with SC for WAN, effect encryption is small.
( Unless you are using PII 300Mhz)

[dado023]

which is better for V.90 56K modem connection:
Single Click or PChelpware?

tnx

[Bmull]

We moved to PCHW from VNC SC, for Vista support.

We find it is a bit slower than VNC SC. If the end user has a slow/marginal connection, PCHW seems to be noticeably slower than VNC SC. I would say a slow connection is 300KBps download/125Kbps upload.

Repeater service runs on dedicated XP Pro PC/ P4 2.8/512MB. We reboot that PC every night.

Our Pipe is 2mbps down/300kbps, and PCHW must share with a lot of other traffic. Firewall is allowing ports inbound so server clients can get to the repeater.

Our PCW_.exe file is about 350K, larger than VNC SC, but this size is so small is does not matter for downloading from a website.

We turned Proxy off, because we wanted more speed. Proxy seemed to slow things and we want best refresh possible.

On good quality internet pipes, PCHW is great. On marginal pipes it gets in trouble. We try running those at "medium" but the screen drops out too much/, must hit refresh.

We can also run PCHW when we are outside of our office, so both the viewer and server connect thru our firewall, to the repeater.

Your question about 56K modem:
Anything you use is going to be slow anyway. PCHW via a satellite internet connection is punishing, but then so is Logmein and GotoMyPC. Then again, if PCHW saves you from driving to a site, patience is well worth the wait on 56K modem connections.


-Bill

[dado023]

We moved to PCHW from VNC SC, for Vista support.

We find it is a bit slower than VNC SC. If the end user has a slow/marginal connection, PCHW seems to be noticeably slower than VNC SC. I would say a slow connection is 300KBps download/125Kbps upload.

Repeater service runs on dedicated XP Pro PC/ P4 2.8/512MB. We reboot that PC every night.

Our Pipe is 2mbps down/300kbps, and PCHW must share with a lot of other traffic. Firewall is allowing ports inbound so server clients can get to the repeater.

Our PCW_.exe file is about 350K, larger than VNC SC, but this size is so small is does not matter for downloading from a website.

We turned Proxy off, because we wanted more speed. Proxy seemed to slow things and we want best refresh possible.

On good quality internet pipes, PCHW is great. On marginal pipes it gets in trouble. We try running those at "medium" but the screen drops out too much/, must hit refresh.

We can also run PCHW when we are outside of our office, so both the viewer and server connect thru our firewall, to the repeater.

Your question about 56K modem:
Anything you use is going to be slow anyway. PCHW via a satellite internet connection is punishing, but then so is Logmein and GotoMyPC. Then again, if PCHW saves you from driving to a site, patience is well worth the wait on 56K modem connections.


-Bill

Thanks for shearing your experience.
I use logmein, but less and less because i discovered pchw, and as long there is a public repeater in function i will use it.

best regards