Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1.    #1  
    I'm looking into VNC options on our network. I can't help thinking how cool the PalmVNC option would be. However, I get a little nervous when I see statements like this...


    taken from http://www.harakan.btinternet.co.uk/...ual/manual.htm

    The WinVNC server with scaling extensions requires more memory and has poorer performance than the standard WinVNC server provided by AT&T
    Obviously a palm to pc connection will yield slower access than a pc to pc connection but does anyone have any feedback on the 'poor' performance of PalmVNC against WinVNC? Or are Harakan simply being (over)informative?
  2. xjx
    xjx is offline
    xjx's Avatar
    Posts
    66 Posts
    #2  
    The so called "comparison of PalmVNC and WinVNC" doesn't make any sense, because PalmVNC is only a viewer, while WinVNC contains both a viewer and a server. The sentence you refered is talking about two WinVNC servers, with or without the scaling extension.

    If the VNC viewer runs on a desktop, the screen size is comparable to the machine where the VNC server runs. In this case, the VNC server with the scaling extension could yield poorer performance than the standard VNC server because it does some extra operations which are actually useless.

    If the VNV viewer runs on a Palm (e.g.PalmVNC), the screen size is much smaller than the machine where the VNC server runs. In this case, the VNC server with the scaling extension is much better because you can zoom out the screen so that you Palm's 160x160 screen can be functionally equivalent to a 320x320 (or larger but more difficult to read) screen.

    [Edited by xjx on 02-06-2001 at 02:43 AM]

Posting Permissions