4 ms·
Were Windows involved at both ends, you could start with RDP. It has many low bandwidth solutions. It uses local assets on the client to reduce data sent by the
by stephengillie 8y ago
Were Windows involved at both ends, you could start with RDP. It has many low bandwidth solutions. It uses local assets on the client to reduce data sent by the server. It's been the primary method of remotely administrating Windows servers for over 20 years. And some distros support the protocol now too.
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoMy experiences with RDP on Linux have been truly excellent. I often spend all day working on a client's Windows servers from my Ubuntu machine on a 4K display and the experience is no different to running Windows natively. I use XFreeRDP FWIW.
- stult 8y agoI'm usually running one or two local Windows or Ubuntu VMs on my MacBook while remoted in to two or three Windows machines with RDP. The local Windows VMs give me infinitely more trouble, even just considering the memory limitations of a single laptop. On the other hand, there's honestly no perceptible difference between the RDP VMs and running Windows natively. I would do all of my Windows work on them, except I have to ask our sysadmin to spin up any new VMs on our server and I am constantly building new VM images from scratch.