Re: Feedback on latest TightVNC

2001-04-18 Thread Const Kaplinsky
> "GB" == Greg Breland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: GB> Wow, you now have binaries for Linux as well as Windows. GB> Question: GB> I downloaded(1.1p9) the source, compiled and started up a GB> Linux TightVNC server. I downloaded the Win32 client GB> binary(1.1p8c). When

RE: Feedback on latest TightVNC

2001-04-18 Thread Greg Breland
Wow, you now have binaries for Linux as well as Windows. Question: I downloaded(1.1p9) the source, compiled and started up a Linux TightVNC server. I downloaded the Win32 client binary(1.1p8c). When using this client against the newer server, none of the tight features seem to work. No m

Re: Feedback on latest TightVNC

2001-04-17 Thread Const Kaplinsky
> "JH" == James Hall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JH> The only complaint I can post is that I could only find JH> TightVNC on a russian site.. roughly 400k took me well over an JH> hour (more like an hour and a half) to download over that JH> connection. The primary download s

Re: Feedback on latest TightVNC

2001-04-17 Thread Jonathan Morton
>I also have a question about vnc's protocol tho.. when it handles text.. >does it just send it like anything else... or is there some kind of OCR >ability there? And if it isn't OCR... Why not? Fonts on a computer should be >able to easily be ocr'd.. or maybe there's a hack that will let windows

Re: Feedback on latest TightVNC

2001-04-17 Thread James Hall
I'm currently using TightVNC with a friend over a @home connection (we both have it).. Because @home marketing their service more toward the AOL rather than the power user, and the 'no servers' clause.. they have 128k uplink limits. (I can prolly assume that everyone here knows that already though