On Wed, 19 May 1999 10:49:07 +0300 (IDT), Gavrie Philipson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 19-May-99 Udi Finkelstein wrote:
>> VNC is free and simple to configure, but is restricted. If the machine
>> crashes, you have to get there and fix it.
>
>Why? What's the problem with telnetting/sshing into the machine and
>rerunning the VNC server? That's just like an X client crashing.
telnet into what? Windows 95?? Windows NT??
I need to run the WinVNC server (notice that the VNC terminology is what you
think it is - opposite from the X terminology), and use a Solaris viewer,
which still doesn't solve my problems with bare X terminals (esp. when *I*
have one!).
>> It's also strictly one user per machine.
Which Windows server can run multiple user applications?
>Of course not. I've run multiple VNC servers on one machine -- every user
>just gets a different display number.
Again, I'm trying to make a remote Win32 app server. This option meant
installing VNC on the Win machine and using it from a remote X server.
>> Also, does VNC works with a simple X terminal? I know the original
>> version required a local client, but I remember hearing something
>> about the latest VNC being able to work with any X terminal. Is it
>> true?
>
>AFAIK, it still needs a local client.
You are right, I've just checked again. I was confused by hearing the name
"Xvnc" mentioned, but apparently it's only the unix version of the VNC server,
which is basically an XFree86 server, without the hardware dependent part, and
the VNC protocol implanted inside instead.
>> 4. Does the VMware Win32 display driver improve the speed when working
>> on a remote X terminal?
>
>No. I tried this, and it runs like molasses. I ran vmware itself on a
>strong computer (PII450, 512MB RAM) and displayed it remotely. It was
>completely unusable (compared to running it by itself on the remote
>machine).
Well, It was fast enough for me, and I ran it on 640x480. For the occasional
work I need it for, it would be enough.
>Gavrie.
udi
