Update: UltraVNC 1.4.3.6 and UltraVNC SC 1.4.3.6: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=37885
Important: Please update to latest version before to create a reply, a topic or an issue: https://forum.uvnc.com/viewtopic.php?t=37864

Join us on social networks and share our announcements:
- Website: https://uvnc.com/
- GitHub: https://github.com/ultravnc
- Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@ultravnc
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ultravnc1
- X/Twitter: https://x.com/ultravnc1
- Reddit community: https://www.reddit.com/r/ultravnc
- OpenHub: https://openhub.net/p/ultravnc

File Transfer UVNC compatible with tightVNC flavor ?

Any features you would like to see in UltraVNC? Propose it here
Post Reply
redge
1000
1000
Posts: 6797
Joined: 2004-07-03 17:05
Location: Switzerland - Geneva

File Transfer UVNC compatible with tightVNC flavor ?

Post by redge »

it is possible to do it software compatibility for file transfer with UltraVNC and TightVNC ?
UltraVNC 1.0.9.6.1 (built 20110518)
OS Win: xp home + vista business + 7 home
only experienced user, not developer
UltraSam
Admin & Developer
Admin & Developer
Posts: 462
Joined: 2004-04-26 20:55
Contact:

Post by UltraSam »

No.
UltraSam
jmblack

Post by jmblack »

no?

Is the tightvnc implimentation bad design? Having ultravnc detect that it is connecting to a tightvnc client and use the tightvnc file transfer mode doesnt seem too ugly an option. Then again I havent looked at the tightvnc code...
Guest

Post by Guest »

The TightVNC FT is not ugly or badly implemented... and it seems to work, which is the primary goal in software developpement :D
It is simply not compatible with UltraVNC FT from the bottom.

To my knowledge, Tight FT started in 2003 (?) and has become more and more different from Ultra FT until now. I don't know if their protocole is "finished" or not right now.

UltraVNC FT protocole was initialiy designed in February 2002. At this time I proposed it to the Tight team as a wasn't planning to do my own public VNC version... they refused it for some reason.

Supporting the 2 FT protocoles would be too heavy in the current UltraVNC code base. We could do this but the weight of both the viewer and server would increase consequently. And I'm not sure their protocole is not going to change again.
Maybe later.

FYI, in UltraVNC 2 I plan to redisign the FT protocole or at least improve it in such a manner that backward compatibility with UltraVNC V1 will be broken.
Post Reply