On 26/10/2001 17:11:30 David Brodbeck wrote:
> Right now one of the major benefits of VNC is that it's *small*. ;)
I could have put it better but that's why I said
>... - (sledgehammers and walnuts ? )
A "load diagnostics/tuning version" for when you when you want to see if there
is a better w
D]
Subject: RE: jpeg or 8-bit faster
As end users, we are likely to assume characteristics and forget to allow
for other dominating factors;
with 20/20 hindsight, we could speculate about some useful automated support
for this.
In time, perhaps self-optimised with adaptive mechanisms - (sledgeh
On 26/10/2001 14:42:45 David Brodbeck wrote:
> The answer is "it depends". You really need to test settings and see what
> works best in your situation. ... Pay particular attention to whatever you think
>you'll be doing a lot
> over the connection. You should be able to get an idea of what's
files and so on.
Gerard Bendotti
> -Original Message-
> From: David Brodbeck [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 9:43 PM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: jpeg or 8-bit faster
>
> The answer is "it depends".
The answer is "it depends". You really need to test settings and see what
works best in your situation. For example, over a modem link, "Tight"
compression is much faster than "Hextile". But over Ethernet it's noticably
slower -- the extra compression overhead causes more of a delay than just
s
ok, maybe I should rephrase the question. What is the fastest
configuration, both server and client-side settings? I do have
backgrounds turned off. Has anyone tested whether the color of the
background has an effect?
Thanks,
Shawn
On Thu, 25 Oct 2001, Glenn Mabbutt wrote:
> depends what the
depends what the server-side display is like (complex graphics, plain
background, etc). From Const's notes, it appears jpeg compression is
designed to be used when the server side has more complex graphics.
-Original Message-
From: Shawn Clabough [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday
