I have to say it, this is the worst VNC I've ever tried

[hotpock...@gmail.com]

I'm just trying to VNC to my main computer from off-sight, or from my couch.

Version 1.5, flat out doesn't work. Viewer can't even connect because of an error about an unusable address. Downgrading to 1.4.3 will attempt to connect, but the server will not respond. Downgrading both viewer and server to 1.4.3 is the only way to actually get them to connect.

Performance is horrible. Even on gigabit network, it takes 10times longer to connect than TightVNC, and once it does, it's sluggish and slow to respond no matter what settings I try to use.

Specifying anything in the "Screen" tab doesn't work. It doesn't scale the session to the window, and won't resize the resolution on the target computer.

I usually don't make posts like this, but this software is just so bad, I had to say something.

I'm using this on Windows computers, so I have to assume the developers are only concerned with the Linux side of the builds.

[DRC]

If you're using the Windows server, then yes, it doesn't receive the
same attention in the project as the Un*x server does. But as far as
performance-- not sure how you're measuring it, but TigerVNC is easily
an order of magnitude faster at encoding/decoding the TightVNC protocol
than TightVNC is.

[hotpock...@gmail.com]

Well, performance wise, it feels like I'm playing a game at 5fps. Moving windows around is jerky, clicking on buttons show pauses, stuff like that.

I was hoping this would work because the machine I'm connecting to runs at 1440p and the computer I use only runs at 1080p and it would be nice to be able to switch to a lower res on the fly, like RDP does. Even Teamviewer does a good job of switching res, though you have to manually do it each session, but it's nice that I don't have to change re-specify it's res when I close the session. It just reverts back automatically.

[DRC]

I can't really speak to the actual operation of the TigerVNC Windows server. There may be other factors limiting the performance. However, I know for a fact that the encoder is not a limiting factor. TigerVNC's encoder is based on the TurboVNC encoder that I developed, which is compatible with TightVNC but uses different (read: much faster) heuristics to determine which tiles to encode as JPEG and which to encode using indexed color. The TurboVNC encoder is also used by libvncserver and (of course) TurboVNC. I can easily get more than 50 Megapixels/second out of it on a 100 Mbit network using 5-year-old hardware on the server and client side.

If you're on a high-speed network, set the Compression Level in the TigerVNC viewer to 1 and the JPEG quality to 8 and make sure JPEG is enabled, and it should fly. If it doesn't, then try the TigerVNC Viewer with the UltraVNC server as a sanity check. If that's also slow, then there is something else limiting the performance. I've had good luck with the UltraVNC Server using their mirror driver (which only works on Windows 7, unfortunately.) I have observed performance issues without it, although nothing as serious as you're describing. I don't think TigerVNC's WinVNC implementation supports a mirror driver, so maybe that makes a bigger difference than I realize.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TigerVNC User Discussion/Support" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tigervnc-user...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to tigervn...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tigervnc-users/719dbdf8-84a0-49fe-81c8-2702269bd16c%40googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[DRC]

Not sure why replies keep going to the poster and not to the list, but
that probably needs to be tweaked.

Anyhow, if you guys want to try out a proof of concept version of
UltraVNC with the TurboVNC encoder (should be about 30-40% faster than
the "stock" version of UltraVNC), it is available here:
http://www.turbovnc.org/files/ultravnc.zip

That would be a really good test against the TigerVNC WinVNC server,
since the encoder in both solutions should perform approximately the same.

On 7/18/15 5:47 AM, Jernej Simončič wrote:
> In my experience, UltraVNC server works best on Windows (including
> working well with UAC), once you set it up properly (after installing
> the latest UltraVNC server, install the add-ons, too - they're found
> on the 1.1.9.6 download page; don't forget to install w8hook+w8keys if
> you're on Windows 8 or newer).

[Jernej Simončič]

On Sunday, July 19, 2015, 20:48:21, DRC wrote:

> Not sure why replies keep going to the poster and not to the list, but
> that probably needs to be tweaked.

Sorry, didn't notice that this list doesn't set Reply-To, and haven't
adjusted my mailer settings.

> Anyhow, if you guys want to try out a proof of concept version of
> UltraVNC with the TurboVNC encoder (should be about 30-40% faster than
> the "stock" version of UltraVNC), it is available here:
> http://www.turbovnc.org/files/ultravnc.zip

Thanks, I'll have a look at this.

--
< Jernej Simončič ><><><><>< http://eternallybored.org/ >

Eternal boredom is the price of constant vigilance.
-- Levy's Tenth Law of the Disillusionment of the True Liberal