| |||||||||||||
Bad and complex architectureBad and complex architecturePosted Jul 26, 2009 18:01 UTC (Sun) by astrand (guest, #4908)In reply to: Bad and complex architecture by sbergman27 Parent article: Google releases Neatx NX server
There are a lot of things which can affect performance. TightVNC, for example, still ships a very old VNC 3.X based version. Its client is very slow especially on Windows.
When you say "2047kb", are you referring to the "kbit/s" measurement available in the client? This is not a good measurement of how much bandwidth VNC "require".
""
Video playback (Youtube, mplayer), custom OpenGL applications for CAD/CAM/visualisation, Catia etc.
(Log in to post comments)
Bad and complex architecture Posted Jul 27, 2009 14:22 UTC (Mon) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]
"""
When you say "2047kb", are you referring to the "kbit/s" measurement available in the client? This is not a good measurement of how much bandwidth VNC "require". """
I'm saying that 2047kb was the bandwidth that TigerVNC reported that it had to work with over that connection, which should presumably be the same that NX had to work with over that same connection. And for business desktop use, VNC was pretty clunky and unresponsive compared to NX. As we have no legitimate business need for video on our business desktops, we don't allow it. So I don't have a base of experience as to how well or poorly NX performs relative to *vnc for that use.
BTW, I tried TigerVNC rather than TurboVNC specifically to avoid the excuse that VNC sever/client Q still uses the old 3.X protocols. Tiger uses V4.
|
|||||||||||||