4 ms·
When I had to choose my remote desktop solution, I've tried all the FOSS ones, and they're been a disaster, without any exception. I've tried I think a couple
by pizza234 4y ago
When I had to choose my remote desktop solution, I've tried all the FOSS ones, and they're been a disaster, without any exception.
I've tried I think a couple of VNC-based solutions (since I've tried the most common, TigerVNC was very likely one of them), and they were extremely slow - I can't remember how fast, but something like 1/2 FPS.
This left me very perplexed, because on a 10 Mbit network, with 25-ms ping, a protocol must be very badly designed (or, to be more precise, very antiquated) to have such bad performance. So IMO, the bad reputation is justified.
Other FOSS solutions weren't better, in one way or another. The other one that worked out of the box was X2Go (based on NX 3), which was still very slow (and it seems to be abandoned nowadays).
Sadly, I had to move to a closed-source solution.
Closed source solutions are so fast that sometimes I forgot that I'm on a remote machine. I'm very puzzled why there is such a large gap between open and closed source solutions.
- andrea76 4y agoWho is this closed-source solution?
- pizza234 4y agoNomachine. At least some commercial remote desktop solutions are very strict about business usage - they don't allow it at all (last time I've checked, Teamviewer was so). Nomachine is a bit looser: they allow occasion business usage, as long as it's not the core of the remote workflow.
- LoganDark 4y agoNoMachine would be perfect if it streamed macOS servers at full resolution. No, I do not want to view my beautiful Retina MBP's screen on my 4K laptop at... 1440x900.
- any1 4y ago10 Mb/s network? Was this 20 years ago? Admittedly, because of VNC's age, there are many sub-optimal encoding methods available and many different implementations which might not be fully compatible with each other. So, maybe your chosen server has some good encoding methods available and maybe the client can support some good encoding methods, but the intersection of supported encodings might be bad. Users of VNC often need to understand how to tweak their settings for the best result. The client should choose the "best" encoding automatically, but this cannot be fully relied upon. On a slow network (like yours), it's probably best to select "tight" encoding, allow lossy compression (jpeg) and turn down the quality a bit. That is to say, if the implementation that you're using doesn't support h264. Currently, there are not many that do.
- pizza234 4y ago> 10 Mb/s network? Was this 20 years ago? Typo :) It's 100 Mbit.
- pizza234 4y agoEDIT: 100 mbit, not 10 mbit!