Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Retina-friendly Windows VNC?
989 views
Skip to first unread message
zoara
Nov 27, 2013, 6:28:40 AM11/27/13
to
So I've gotten VNC working over an SSH tunnel from my work Windows PC to
my home Mac. Problem is, it's slow... I think partly because it insists
on running in full-colour and partly because it's rendering all those
billions of retina pixels.
Is there any way I can reduce the colour depth or scale the VNC
session's pixel count to "non-retina" values? The client I am using -
UltraVNC - allows me to request reduced colour depth and image scaling
from the server, but if I try to do this the connection is dropped
straight after I enter my password (presumably when it tries the first
render). I can reduce size at the client end, but then all those pixels
are still being sent.
This is just using the built-in Screen Sharing function on the Mac, set
to allow VNC connections. Does that allow what I'm after, or do I have
to look at third-party VNC servers?
Or is this an issue with the Windows client? I've also tried RealVNC and
results are similar. Are there other clients that will allow me to
request what I'm after?
Thanks,
-zoara-
--
BttM
my home Mac. Problem is, it's slow... I think partly because it insists
on running in full-colour and partly because it's rendering all those
billions of retina pixels.
Is there any way I can reduce the colour depth or scale the VNC
session's pixel count to "non-retina" values? The client I am using -
UltraVNC - allows me to request reduced colour depth and image scaling
from the server, but if I try to do this the connection is dropped
straight after I enter my password (presumably when it tries the first
render). I can reduce size at the client end, but then all those pixels
are still being sent.
This is just using the built-in Screen Sharing function on the Mac, set
to allow VNC connections. Does that allow what I'm after, or do I have
to look at third-party VNC servers?
Or is this an issue with the Windows client? I've also tried RealVNC and
results are similar. Are there other clients that will allow me to
request what I'm after?
Thanks,
-zoara-
--
BttM
Sara Merriman
Nov 27, 2013, 6:40:59 AM11/27/13
to
In article <1lczr77.w07ec234iykgN%net...@fastmail.fm>, zoara
Can you connect to the Mac and then go into its System Prefs and change
the screen res. there?
the screen res. there?
Graham J
Nov 27, 2013, 7:33:03 AM11/27/13
to
using a VPN over the internet. This is because the Mac sends its screen
in 24-bit full colour. Of course it works fine over a Gigabit LAN !!!!
By contrast, a Windows host will send its screen in 8-bit colour, and
that is acceptable over a VPN via the internet.
I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
host operates.
--
Graham J
zoara
Nov 27, 2013, 9:23:32 AM11/27/13
to
Graham J <graham@invalid> wrote:
> zoara wrote:
> > So I've gotten VNC working over an SSH tunnel from my work Windows PC to
> > my home Mac. Problem is, it's slow... I think partly because it insists
> > on running in full-colour and partly because it's rendering all those
> > billions of retina pixels.
> >
> > Is there any way I can reduce the colour depth or scale the VNC
> > session's pixel count to "non-retina" values? The client I am using -
> > UltraVNC - allows me to request reduced colour depth and image scaling
> > from the server, but if I try to do this the connection is dropped
> > straight after I enter my password (presumably when it tries the first
> > render). I can reduce size at the client end, but then all those pixels
> > are still being sent.
> >
> > This is just using the built-in Screen Sharing function on the Mac, set
> > to allow VNC connections. Does that allow what I'm after, or do I have
> > to look at third-party VNC servers?
> >
> > Or is this an issue with the Windows client? I've also tried RealVNC and
> > results are similar. Are there other clients that will allow me to
> > request what I'm after?
>
> I've never been able to get VNC to work acceptably to a Mac host when
> using a VPN over the internet. This is because the Mac sends its screen
> in 24-bit full colour. Of course it works fine over a Gigabit LAN !!!!
When I did this years ago, I managed reduced colour depth using Vine
> zoara wrote:
> > So I've gotten VNC working over an SSH tunnel from my work Windows PC to
> > my home Mac. Problem is, it's slow... I think partly because it insists
> > on running in full-colour and partly because it's rendering all those
> > billions of retina pixels.
> >
> > Is there any way I can reduce the colour depth or scale the VNC
> > session's pixel count to "non-retina" values? The client I am using -
> > UltraVNC - allows me to request reduced colour depth and image scaling
> > from the server, but if I try to do this the connection is dropped
> > straight after I enter my password (presumably when it tries the first
> > render). I can reduce size at the client end, but then all those pixels
> > are still being sent.
> >
> > This is just using the built-in Screen Sharing function on the Mac, set
> > to allow VNC connections. Does that allow what I'm after, or do I have
> > to look at third-party VNC servers?
> >
> > Or is this an issue with the Windows client? I've also tried RealVNC and
> > results are similar. Are there other clients that will allow me to
> > request what I'm after?
>
> I've never been able to get VNC to work acceptably to a Mac host when
> using a VPN over the internet. This is because the Mac sends its screen
> in 24-bit full colour. Of course it works fine over a Gigabit LAN !!!!
Server. Unfortunately, it was kludgy at best and unreliable at worst (I
used to have to SSH in, then fix the inevitable not-running Vine from
the command line, before VNCing in). So I was trying to avoid that if
possible!
Annoyingly, Vine Server doesn't open at all in Mavericks.
> I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
> host operates.
bit depths is incompatible between the Windows client and the Mac's
built-in server. So if the answer to my first question is "the built-in
server is capable of providing different bit depths" then the second
question is "why is it ignoring what the client requests?". If it's
bugs, then a different client might work.
-zoara-
--
BttM
Jim
Nov 27, 2013, 9:25:34 AM11/27/13
to
On 2013-11-27, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
>> host operates.
>
> I was thinking something like the mechanism used to request different
> bit depths is incompatible between the Windows client and the Mac's
> built-in server. So if the answer to my first question is "the built-in
> server is capable of providing different bit depths" then the second
> question is "why is it ignoring what the client requests?". If it's
> bugs, then a different client might work.
I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
>> I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
>> host operates.
>
> I was thinking something like the mechanism used to request different
> bit depths is incompatible between the Windows client and the Mac's
> built-in server. So if the answer to my first question is "the built-in
> server is capable of providing different bit depths" then the second
> question is "why is it ignoring what the client requests?". If it's
> bugs, then a different client might work.
anything less.
Annoying.
Jim
--
Michael Garibaldi: "What are you so nervous about? We went up against the
entire Earth Alliance, and two carrier groups."
Security Guard #2: "Yeah, but this is the post office. This could get us
in real trouble." Twitter:@GreyAreaUK
zoara
Nov 27, 2013, 10:03:39 AM11/27/13
to
Mavericks. I can choose an RGB profile, or I can set the Retina display
as "scaled" or "Native".
And "Scaled" just gives me a slider where I can change the apparent
resolution - but that's still pixel-doubled. So "Looks like 1024x640" is
still sending 2048 by 1280 pixels of info down the pipes (2.6m pixels),
whereas really all I want is for my "looks like 1440x900" display to
actually send 1440 by 900 of data (1.3m pixels) - I'm happy to scale
back to non-retina if I'm VNCing from a non-retina device.
So using the lower res will give me less desktop space but still be
sending twice as much data as a "scaled back" retina "looks like
1440x900" display.
Notably, TeamViewer both scales the display down to (real) 1440x900 and
reduces the colour depth, so it's a lot quicker. I'm using it now. I'd
rather not use it though, because to get it to work on my sleeping
MacBook, I have to TeamViewer into the always-on server, and from that I
have to Screen Share to the sleeping MacBook (to wake it - using Wake on
Demand and Bonjour Sleep Proxy), and then I TeamViewer directly into the
MacBook and tidy up after myself on the server.
And then it sometimes just cuts out on me anyway.
I'm figuring a VNC-over-SSH tunnel means I can wake the sleeping MacBook
directly, without having to use the server as an intermediary (and it's
a bit more secure than TeamViewer). That said, port-forwarding the SSH
request doesn't actually seem to wake the MacBook - it only seems to
wake it if the SSH request comes from the local network. Something else
to investigate.
-zoara-
--
BttM
Sara Merriman
Nov 27, 2013, 10:36:44 AM11/27/13
to
In article <1ld001u.1pzo8uoy7kcl1N%net...@fastmail.fm>, zoara
Pretty useless then, really.
> Notably, TeamViewer both scales the display down to (real) 1440x900 and
> reduces the colour depth, so it's a lot quicker. I'm using it now. I'd
> rather not use it though, because to get it to work on my sleeping
> MacBook, I have to TeamViewer into the always-on server, and from that I
> have to Screen Share to the sleeping MacBook (to wake it - using Wake on
> Demand and Bonjour Sleep Proxy), and then I TeamViewer directly into the
> MacBook and tidy up after myself on the server.
>
> And then it sometimes just cuts out on me anyway.
>
> I'm figuring a VNC-over-SSH tunnel means I can wake the sleeping MacBook
> directly, without having to use the server as an intermediary (and it's
> a bit more secure than TeamViewer). That said, port-forwarding the SSH
> request doesn't actually seem to wake the MacBook - it only seems to
> wake it if the SSH request comes from the local network. Something else
> to investigate.
>
Gawd.
> Notably, TeamViewer both scales the display down to (real) 1440x900 and
> reduces the colour depth, so it's a lot quicker. I'm using it now. I'd
> rather not use it though, because to get it to work on my sleeping
> MacBook, I have to TeamViewer into the always-on server, and from that I
> have to Screen Share to the sleeping MacBook (to wake it - using Wake on
> Demand and Bonjour Sleep Proxy), and then I TeamViewer directly into the
> MacBook and tidy up after myself on the server.
>
> And then it sometimes just cuts out on me anyway.
>
> I'm figuring a VNC-over-SSH tunnel means I can wake the sleeping MacBook
> directly, without having to use the server as an intermediary (and it's
> a bit more secure than TeamViewer). That said, port-forwarding the SSH
> request doesn't actually seem to wake the MacBook - it only seems to
> wake it if the SSH request comes from the local network. Something else
> to investigate.
>
zoara
Nov 29, 2013, 6:24:58 AM11/29/13
to
Sara Merriman <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <1ld001u.1pzo8uoy7kcl1N%net...@fastmail.fm>, zoara
> <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > I feel completely lost - I have no options in "Displays" for that in
> > Mavericks. I can choose an RGB profile, or I can set the Retina display
> > as "scaled" or "Native".
> >
> > And "Scaled" just gives me a slider where I can change the apparent
> > resolution - but that's still pixel-doubled. So "Looks like 1024x640" is
> > still sending 2048 by 1280 pixels of info down the pipes (2.6m pixels),
> > whereas really all I want is for my "looks like 1440x900" display to
> > actually send 1440 by 900 of data (1.3m pixels) - I'm happy to scale
> > back to non-retina if I'm VNCing from a non-retina device.
> >
> > So using the lower res will give me less desktop space but still be
> > sending twice as much data as a "scaled back" retina "looks like
> > 1440x900" display.
> >
> Pretty useless then, really.
Retina is still a weird concept in the world outside of Macs, I think. A
> In article <1ld001u.1pzo8uoy7kcl1N%net...@fastmail.fm>, zoara
> <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> > I feel completely lost - I have no options in "Displays" for that in
> > Mavericks. I can choose an RGB profile, or I can set the Retina display
> > as "scaled" or "Native".
> >
> > And "Scaled" just gives me a slider where I can change the apparent
> > resolution - but that's still pixel-doubled. So "Looks like 1024x640" is
> > still sending 2048 by 1280 pixels of info down the pipes (2.6m pixels),
> > whereas really all I want is for my "looks like 1440x900" display to
> > actually send 1440 by 900 of data (1.3m pixels) - I'm happy to scale
> > back to non-retina if I'm VNCing from a non-retina device.
> >
> > So using the lower res will give me less desktop space but still be
> > sending twice as much data as a "scaled back" retina "looks like
> > 1440x900" display.
> >
> Pretty useless then, really.
lot of software gets confused and treats it like a huge display with
comically-large cursors and icons.
> > Notably, TeamViewer both scales the display down to (real) 1440x900 and
> > reduces the colour depth, so it's a lot quicker. I'm using it now. I'd
> > rather not use it though, because to get it to work on my sleeping
> > MacBook, I have to TeamViewer into the always-on server, and from that I
> > have to Screen Share to the sleeping MacBook (to wake it - using Wake on
> > Demand and Bonjour Sleep Proxy), and then I TeamViewer directly into the
> > MacBook and tidy up after myself on the server.
> >
> > And then it sometimes just cuts out on me anyway.
> >
> > I'm figuring a VNC-over-SSH tunnel means I can wake the sleeping MacBook
> > directly, without having to use the server as an intermediary (and it's
> > a bit more secure than TeamViewer). That said, port-forwarding the SSH
> > request doesn't actually seem to wake the MacBook - it only seems to
> > wake it if the SSH request comes from the local network. Something else
> > to investigate.
>
> Gawd.
things to my will. But - see response elsewhere in this thread - I'm now
happily using a third-party VNC server and it all works fine, including
the port-forwarding waking the sleeping computer. All I need to do now
is open the saved connection in my SSH client, then open the VNC client,
and I'm connected even if my Mac was asleep.
Nice.
-zoara-
--
BttM
zoara
Nov 29, 2013, 6:24:57 AM11/29/13
to
Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-27, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
> >> host operates.
> >
> > I was thinking something like the mechanism used to request different
> > bit depths is incompatible between the Windows client and the Mac's
> > built-in server. So if the answer to my first question is "the built-in
> > server is capable of providing different bit depths" then the second
> > question is "why is it ignoring what the client requests?". If it's
> > bugs, then a different client might work.
>
> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
> anything less.
>
> Annoying.
That appears to be the case.
> On 2013-11-27, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >> I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
> >> host operates.
> >
> > I was thinking something like the mechanism used to request different
> > bit depths is incompatible between the Windows client and the Mac's
> > built-in server. So if the answer to my first question is "the built-in
> > server is capable of providing different bit depths" then the second
> > question is "why is it ignoring what the client requests?". If it's
> > bugs, then a different client might work.
>
> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
> anything less.
>
> Annoying.
However, I decided to go the third-party route and kinda regret being so
reluctant - guess I got burned by my experiences with Vine Server.
I installed RealVNC (which has a client and server) and am now happily
using MacSOUP in 256 colours (and at non-retina) from thirty miles away.
From deciding to give up on the built-in one to having things up and
running with a third party took five minutes. That's less time than I
spent composing my original question, never mind trying to coax the
built-in server to run at a lower bit depth.
Ugly, but fast. Faster than TeamViewer, in fact.
-zoara-
--
BttM
Jim
Nov 29, 2013, 6:41:38 AM11/29/13
to
On 2013-11-29, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
>> anything less.
>>
>> Annoying.
>
> That appears to be the case.
>
> However, I decided to go the third-party route and kinda regret being so
> reluctant - guess I got burned by my experiences with Vine Server.
>
> I installed RealVNC (which has a client and server) and am now happily
> using MacSOUP in 256 colours (and at non-retina) from thirty miles away.
> From deciding to give up on the built-in one to having things up and
> running with a third party took five minutes. That's less time than I
> spent composing my original question, never mind trying to coax the
> built-in server to run at a lower bit depth.
>
> Ugly, but fast. Faster than TeamViewer, in fact.
Filed under "deeply interesting". Thanks.
>>
>> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
>> anything less.
>>
>> Annoying.
>
> That appears to be the case.
>
> However, I decided to go the third-party route and kinda regret being so
> reluctant - guess I got burned by my experiences with Vine Server.
>
> I installed RealVNC (which has a client and server) and am now happily
> using MacSOUP in 256 colours (and at non-retina) from thirty miles away.
> From deciding to give up on the built-in one to having things up and
> running with a third party took five minutes. That's less time than I
> spent composing my original question, never mind trying to coax the
> built-in server to run at a lower bit depth.
>
> Ugly, but fast. Faster than TeamViewer, in fact.
David Sankey
Nov 29, 2013, 7:13:24 AM11/29/13
to
On 29/11/2013 11:24, zoara wrote:
> Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-11-27, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
>>>> host operates.
>>>
>>> I was thinking something like the mechanism used to request different
>>> bit depths is incompatible between the Windows client and the Mac's
>>> built-in server. So if the answer to my first question is "the built-in
>>> server is capable of providing different bit depths" then the second
>>> question is "why is it ignoring what the client requests?". If it's
>>> bugs, then a different client might work.
>>
>> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
>> anything less.
>>
>> Annoying.
>
> That appears to be the case.
>
> However, I decided to go the third-party route and kinda regret being so
> reluctant - guess I got burned by my experiences with Vine Server.
Experience with Vine server?
> Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2013-11-27, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>> I don't think it has anything to do with the client - it is the way the
>>>> host operates.
>>>
>>> I was thinking something like the mechanism used to request different
>>> bit depths is incompatible between the Windows client and the Mac's
>>> built-in server. So if the answer to my first question is "the built-in
>>> server is capable of providing different bit depths" then the second
>>> question is "why is it ignoring what the client requests?". If it's
>>> bugs, then a different client might work.
>>
>> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
>> anything less.
>>
>> Annoying.
>
> That appears to be the case.
>
> However, I decided to go the third-party route and kinda regret being so
> reluctant - guess I got burned by my experiences with Vine Server.
Care to expand on this?
Dave
Jaimie Vandenbergh
Nov 29, 2013, 9:22:19 AM11/29/13
to
boxes, to remote to Macs - and half the time you'd have to start the
damn server up again. What's the point in that?
When it works, it's great.
Cheers - Jaimie
--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc
zoara
Nov 29, 2013, 10:18:57 AM11/29/13
to
-zoara-
David Sankey
Nov 29, 2013, 11:37:18 AM11/29/13
to
I've only ever used it Mac to Mac Chicken (was CotVNC) to Vine Server
over ssh. There was a patch when the server would die but as I already
had the ssh session I'd just kill it and carry on.
Haven't noticed any issue recently.
Dave
zoara
Nov 29, 2013, 2:58:31 PM11/29/13
to
Jim <j...@magrathea.plus.com> wrote:
> On 2013-11-29, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
> >> anything less.
> >>
> >> Annoying.
> >
> > That appears to be the case.
> >
> > However, I decided to go the third-party route and kinda regret being so
> > reluctant - guess I got burned by my experiences with Vine Server.
> >
> > I installed RealVNC (which has a client and server) and am now happily
> > using MacSOUP in 256 colours (and at non-retina) from thirty miles away.
> > From deciding to give up on the built-in one to having things up and
> > running with a third party took five minutes. That's less time than I
> > spent composing my original question, never mind trying to coax the
> > built-in server to run at a lower bit depth.
> >
> > Ugly, but fast. Faster than TeamViewer, in fact.
>
> Filed under "deeply interesting". Thanks.
That doesn't include the time I already spent setting up an SSH tunnel,
> On 2013-11-29, zoara <net...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect the OS X VNC server insists on 24bit colour and refuses
> >> anything less.
> >>
> >> Annoying.
> >
> > That appears to be the case.
> >
> > However, I decided to go the third-party route and kinda regret being so
> > reluctant - guess I got burned by my experiences with Vine Server.
> >
> > I installed RealVNC (which has a client and server) and am now happily
> > using MacSOUP in 256 colours (and at non-retina) from thirty miles away.
> > From deciding to give up on the built-in one to having things up and
> > running with a third party took five minutes. That's less time than I
> > spent composing my original question, never mind trying to coax the
> > built-in server to run at a lower bit depth.
> >
> > Ugly, but fast. Faster than TeamViewer, in fact.
>
> Filed under "deeply interesting". Thanks.
though that actually wasn't much as it turns out to be quite easy on an
Airport Extreme. Most of my time was spent finding a port that wasn't
blocked from work.
Think you can buy a version of RealVNC that has built-in security,
removing the need for a tunnel.
I'm getting some odd behaviour where I sometimes get kicked off the
machine after a few seconds, but I can't work out what's causing it. The
pattern is tricky to work out. Seems to be only when the lid is closed,
but it doesn't seem to be because it's sleeping - the SSH session is
still responsive. It always seems to work with the lid open, whether it
was initially sleeping or not. InsomniaX sometimes seems to stop ithe
problem, sometimes not. Connecting to the built-in VNC before RealVNC
sometimes helps, sometimes not.
One of those things that's probably best to work out by using it, rather
than by deliberately troubleshooting.
-zoara-
--
BttM
0 new messages