> Thanks for the suggestion. I don't think that's what's going on though - I > examined CPU/RAM usage. While doing a VNC screen refresh with zonealarm > enabled there is still tons of free RAM and the CPU was always at least > 60% idle (the ZoneAlarm processes took about 8% CPU and VNC about 15%). So > it doesn't seem to be overstretching the CPU at all. Without zonealarm > running VNC only consumed slightly higher % CPU (less than 20%). > > seb > > On Sat, 29 Sep 2001, Glenn Mabbutt wrote: > > > Although I personally haven't used ZoneAlarm, a general suggestion is that > > VNC (and most "remote control" apps) are fairly processor/RAM intensive. By > > the description, I'm assuming the Win98 box has VNC and ZoneAlarm. I would > > suggest finding a shareware prog that will let you monitor CPU/RAM usage > > (they exist, just can't remember a name off-hand), and then try it with > > ZoneAlarm enabled/disabled. My hunch is that ZoneAlarm is simply putting > > the processor "over the edge" in terms of usage, as it's examining every > > packet that leaves/enters the box.
ZoneAlarm probably introduces a lot of latency. VNC is especially sensitive to the latency of your network. So it may be that your machine is fast enough, but that updates happen more slowly because of the per-packet latency in ZoneAlarm - don't forget that your system is having to switch between VNC and ZoneAlarm before the packets get processed and sent. This could make things very slow, especially if the packets are small. Cheers, Wez --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the line: 'unsubscribe vnc-list' in the message BODY See also: http://www.uk.research.att.com/vnc/intouch.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------
