Is XP's Remote Desktop the only option???
Discussion
As you may know, I've been playing "let's lose the wires and the noise" game last week.
Moved the big PC upstairs and use my new Shuttle Zen silent PC in a cupboard downstairs to wirelessly Remote Desktop to it when I need to access all the power hungry stuff.
Its a 54Mbps wireless line with an 'excellent' connection at 54Mbps. Seeing as all its doing is sending screen display information, I'm struggling to understand why it appears relatively slow in operation. A friend told me it was not the connection speed, but the Remote Desktop s/w not being very good.
So are there any other tools around that might be better and quicker? Any thoughts as always, greatfully received.
Thanks for reading
LB
Moved the big PC upstairs and use my new Shuttle Zen silent PC in a cupboard downstairs to wirelessly Remote Desktop to it when I need to access all the power hungry stuff.
Its a 54Mbps wireless line with an 'excellent' connection at 54Mbps. Seeing as all its doing is sending screen display information, I'm struggling to understand why it appears relatively slow in operation. A friend told me it was not the connection speed, but the Remote Desktop s/w not being very good.
So are there any other tools around that might be better and quicker? Any thoughts as always, greatfully received.
Thanks for reading
LB
RDP is good when you have enough horsepower. I have used it from here to run machines in Australia and it was perfectly useable. Don't forget that an RDP client runs another VM, so you do need good hardware.
VNC is excellent for a freebie, but you might want to explore Timbuktu as well. It's commercial, but worked surprisingly well in "conference mode" the other day. A colleageu in NY was controlling a machine in Sacramento at the same time as I and we collaborated quite happily over the net.
Upstairs shouldn't be a problem if you have enough horsepower to do the job
VNC is excellent for a freebie, but you might want to explore Timbuktu as well. It's commercial, but worked surprisingly well in "conference mode" the other day. A colleageu in NY was controlling a machine in Sacramento at the same time as I and we collaborated quite happily over the net.
Upstairs shouldn't be a problem if you have enough horsepower to do the job
There must be more to VNC than meets the eye ..
from the webpage it sounds like you can run anyone else's computer remotely from your own .. presumably the *other* person at the remote computer would have to somehow grant you access/permission or what's to stop someone running someone else's computer remotely without permission?
I've obviously missed something vital ... there's obviously no software to install in the remote computer otherwise their example of son-loading-software remotely for mother in another country wouldn't work ..
so how's it do it then? ..
from the webpage it sounds like you can run anyone else's computer remotely from your own .. presumably the *other* person at the remote computer would have to somehow grant you access/permission or what's to stop someone running someone else's computer remotely without permission?
I've obviously missed something vital ... there's obviously no software to install in the remote computer otherwise their example of son-loading-software remotely for mother in another country wouldn't work ..
so how's it do it then? ..
joospeed said:
There must be more to VNC than meets the eye ..
from the webpage it sounds like you can run anyone else's computer remotely from your own .. presumably the *other* person at the remote computer would have to somehow grant you access/permission or what's to stop someone running someone else's computer remotely without permission?
I've obviously missed something vital ... there's obviously no software to install in the remote computer otherwise their example of son-loading-software remotely for mother in another country wouldn't work ..
so how's it do it then? ..
You need to install the VNC server software on the machine you want to control. There is password restrictions that you can add. Like all remote access, it's a security hole, the difference is how you manage it. A common example is to tunnel VNC over SSH so you have SSH authentication as well and the VNC authentication.
Steve
There are two parts, a server and a client, both of which have to be installed. (A full install usually includes both.) It's easy enough to talk anyone with more than two fingers through installing it though.
Once the server end is installed, you use the VNC viewer to remote control the server end. (It's only a server in the fact that it dishes up the graphics to the viewer and recieves mouse and keystroke information) It's not overly secure, but you can set the service startup to manual so you only run it when you need it.
Once the server end is installed, you use the VNC viewer to remote control the server end. (It's only a server in the fact that it dishes up the graphics to the viewer and recieves mouse and keystroke information) It's not overly secure, but you can set the service startup to manual so you only run it when you need it.
BliarOut said:Thanks everyone for your help so far.....when it comes to horsepower, how much is enough?
RDP is good when you have enough horsepower. I have used it from here to run machines in Australia and it was perfectly useable. Don't forget that an RDP client runs another VM, so you do need good hardware.
VNC is excellent for a freebie, but you might want to explore Timbuktu as well. It's commercial, but worked surprisingly well in "conference mode" the other day. A colleageu in NY was controlling a machine in Sacramento at the same time as I and we collaborated quite happily over the net.
Upstairs shouldn't be a problem if you have enough horsepower to do the job
Upstairs is 3GHz with 2Gb Ram, downstairs is 2.4GHz Celeron with 512Mb Ram....enough?
LB
TS will never be desktop fast,but it should be 'close'
We use it here to manage our Fileserver at home, and its only about a second off the pace over wifi...
you need to remember, its pulling ALOT of data over the wifi, every image, picture, window etc..
alot of it gets cached, and to be fair, it does try and use local API calls where possible, I certainly find it faster than VNC..
Just make sure you have enouge spare ram (2gb, but how much is free?) ditto CPU.
what exactly is it that you are trying to do over RDP, its only intended as an Admin tool, not as a desktop replacement (ie no game playing / nothing using video etc)
We use it here to manage our Fileserver at home, and its only about a second off the pace over wifi...
you need to remember, its pulling ALOT of data over the wifi, every image, picture, window etc..
alot of it gets cached, and to be fair, it does try and use local API calls where possible, I certainly find it faster than VNC..
Just make sure you have enouge spare ram (2gb, but how much is free?) ditto CPU.
what exactly is it that you are trying to do over RDP, its only intended as an Admin tool, not as a desktop replacement (ie no game playing / nothing using video etc)
Not expecting to play games, or watch video.
Planning to use Photoshop and stuff over the wireless connection....so not that much screen intensive activity.
Not sure how much free RAM there is, but there is not a huge amount running at a time, although I can have a fair few photos open in PS at a time.
Regards Terminal Server.....Never used that before, so asking some more very dumb questions. Is it part of XP, or a separate application....is it easy to use, and how do I access it?
Thanks again,
LB
Planning to use Photoshop and stuff over the wireless connection....so not that much screen intensive activity.
Not sure how much free RAM there is, but there is not a huge amount running at a time, although I can have a fair few photos open in PS at a time.
Regards Terminal Server.....Never used that before, so asking some more very dumb questions. Is it part of XP, or a separate application....is it easy to use, and how do I access it?
Thanks again,
LB
Terminial Server is a windows 2000 service, its a heavy duty version of Remote Desktop, which can be used to provide 'thin client' style access (people in remote pcs log in to sessions on a main server to execute their applications)
the issue with photoshop is that the images you load have to be downloaded over the wifi to your local pc, if they are large, they will obviosuly take a while to copy over the WiFi (54g will only give 2MB/sec ish real transfer speeds)
Might be fastest to run it locally
the issue with photoshop is that the images you load have to be downloaded over the wifi to your local pc, if they are large, they will obviosuly take a while to copy over the WiFi (54g will only give 2MB/sec ish real transfer speeds)
Might be fastest to run it locally
Thanks Jamie, do you know if there's an XP Pro equivalent?
With regard to using remote on Photoshop, its actually alright...as the CPU intensive stuff, like noise reduction doesn't make any difference at all.
Strangely though, I find scrolling through Explorer a frustratingly slow experience.
Despite some of the slow downs, I can't go back now, as I bought the new PC and am thoroughly enjoying having a quiet downstairs, and with no great big box in the room.....so I'll have to persevere.
So, should I be happy with the speed Remote Desktop gives me? Or should I look to another program, (I'll try TS, if its on XP)
Also, one other quick question that's related....
Wireless router, Big PC, little PC, all run at 54Mbps (ie. the 802.11g speed), but the Squeezebox runs at 802.11b speed. I think I read somewhere, that the slower device may slow the whole network down to the 802.11b speed.....any thoughts?
LB
With regard to using remote on Photoshop, its actually alright...as the CPU intensive stuff, like noise reduction doesn't make any difference at all
. Strangely though, I find scrolling through Explorer a frustratingly slow experience.
Despite some of the slow downs, I can't go back now, as I bought the new PC and am thoroughly enjoying having a quiet downstairs, and with no great big box in the room.....so I'll have to persevere.
So, should I be happy with the speed Remote Desktop gives me? Or should I look to another program, (I'll try TS, if its on XP)
Also, one other quick question that's related....
Wireless router, Big PC, little PC, all run at 54Mbps (ie. the 802.11g speed), but the Squeezebox runs at 802.11b speed. I think I read somewhere, that the slower device may slow the whole network down to the 802.11b speed.....any thoughts?
LB
XP is a desktop OS, 2000 is a Server OS, as such there is no realalternative.
Remote Desktop is intended to let you login to you PC from a mates house, it logs you out locally when you do.
TS runs in 2 modes, Admin mode and Application Server mode.
Admin mode lets you have 1 local and 2 concurrent remote sessions, so, 3 active desktops at once.
Application mode lets you have 10/100's/1000's of desktops (so long as you pay for the licensing!) and have a powerful enough machine
Remote Desktop is intended to let you login to you PC from a mates house, it logs you out locally when you do.
TS runs in 2 modes, Admin mode and Application Server mode.
Admin mode lets you have 1 local and 2 concurrent remote sessions, so, 3 active desktops at once.
Application mode lets you have 10/100's/1000's of desktops (so long as you pay for the licensing!) and have a powerful enough machine
If they are all on the same channel, they should operate at the speeds they connect at.
Simple way to tell is see what speed task manager lists you as connected at..
obviously if you're trying to connect to the 802.11b it will only run at 11mbit (600k/s realistic speed)
I have seen 108mbit turbo devices kicked down to 54g when slower devices are attached tho.
Simple way to tell is see what speed task manager lists you as connected at..
obviously if you're trying to connect to the 802.11b it will only run at 11mbit (600k/s realistic speed)
I have seen 108mbit turbo devices kicked down to 54g when slower devices are attached tho.
Gassing Station | Computers, Gadgets & Stuff | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff