faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
|
vnc comparison?
by Ian Monroe on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @09:58
|
Any word on how this compares or is different then *VNC? Outside of the cooler domain name of course.
We use a couple of VNC servers at my .edu and they work really great.
Downloading eval NX client now... |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Ian Monroe on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @10:15
|
To answer my own question, NX appears to actually be some sort of wrapper around VNC and X Windows. And the sound server, which I was impressed by. It appears to have some sort of support for file and print sharing as well.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Ian Monroe on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @11:01
|
You get the selection of Unix, VNC and Windows as your Desktop. I assume Unix means X11? But I dunno really. Their test servers are swamped, as to be expected.
For some reason running with multimedia support and Amarok conflicts, even though they're both using artsd.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Anonymous on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @12:20
|
From http://www.nomachine.com/faq.php: "NX is about building the next web on top of remote execution and tunneling of arbitrary protocols (X, RDP, SMB, HTTP, IPP, RSYNC, Audio, Video) in a peer-to-peer network."
So you can tunnel VNC through NX too but it's not needed/used to tunnel X.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by MacBerry on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @12:49
|
NX is NOT a wrapper around VNC. NX (for unix) has nothing to do with VNC. NX is "just" a compressing proxy for X protocol, that means it only uses the X primitives and compresses them.
You would never get such a performance (70:1 compression and almost no round-trips) with VNC...
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Kurt Pfeifle on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @14:23
|
NX itself is based on X11. NX adds
-- extremely efficient compression (better than generic ZLIB, with less CPÜ cycles burned) to X-based traffic;
-- a very intelligent caching mechanism (click for first time on the "K"- or any other menu and watch the delay -- then click on the same menu a second time and notice the difference);
-- elimination of the dreaded round-trips (composed of "X-request" and "X-reply" pairs) which make X over lo-bandwidth/hi-latency links so slow, even if you switch on the "-C" (for compression) in your "ssh -X" (X-forwarding) connection).
That, of course, makes NX the prime choice to tunnel X connections through. In the highest compression level (select "Modem") the avarage efficiency increase for an office productivity session (running KDE as a desktop, Konqueror as the file manager, KMail as your mail client, OpenOffice as your word processor and Mozilla as your browser) you can get as much as 60:1 effective compression on avarage (and if you stick to "pure KDE" (use KWord for word processing, and Konqui for web browsing too), it may even be more...
But NX (and based on this, kNX Cclient and FreeNX Server) can do even more: it can also convert RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol, used by Windows Terminal Servers) and RFB (used by VNC servers) to NX and thereby increase efficiency of these two protocols by 2- to 10-fold across slow links (even if you compare it to TightVNC!).
So to call NX a "wrapper around VNC" would be entirely wrong even if you use it to access a TightVNC server: a mere wrapper would never give you a 2- to 10-fold speed boost....
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Ian Monroe on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @19:45
|
Ok, that makes sense. I was just going on the fact that you had a choice between Windows, Unix and VNC.
I'm using it to connect to my computer at home. It uses a upload-capped cable modem (so its set to ISDN), so its squeaking by. Response to some input seems delayed. I would call it usable, which couldn't be said for VNC.
I notice that cacheing your talking about when browsing a web page. Its faster to scroll up and down in areas of a page I've already looked at.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Café, pô! on Tuesday 29/Jun/2004, @03:21
|
> It uses a upload-capped cable modem (so its set to ISDN), so its squeaking by.
I take you're saying your monthly quota is 100% used and the service is making difficult to upload things.
I say this because, even if your "up" connection is limited to, say, 33Kbps, you would still have an usable experience with NX (I've use ICA in this situation and NX is said to equal or better than it).
Could someone in-the-know throw some 2¢ here?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Ian Monroe on Wednesday 30/Jun/2004, @13:26
|
No its capped at about 15-20 kpbs (the supposed minimum upload is 32 kbps second, but it seems to be more like thats the max), there isn't a quota. ISPs with quotas are un-American. Like I said, its usable but sometimes unresponsive. With VNC its easy to gauge if its being responsive enough since the mouse cursor is drawn remotely, but the cursor with NX is always responsive.
I know your overall internet connection can be hosed by using all your upload bandwidth. It could be a situation where limiting the amount of bandwidth available to NX would make things more reliable.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
Re: vnc comparison?
by Anonymous on Monday 28/Jun/2004, @10:49
|
It has much better compression (average 70:1).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
