Re: [Unattended] UltraVNC vs. TightVNC

[Ben W. <bw...@ar...>]

My experience suggests that tightvnc is the way to go.  Ultravnc is a
great product and if used with the default vnc protocol would be fine
too.  Some of the 'extra' features like domain authentication instead of
just password restrict you to using a) ultravnc on windows, b) ultravnc
on windows and c) ultravnc on windows.  Because it's non-standard and
non-cross platform, you lose the ability to hit it from linux or mac
(unless things have changed in the last few months).

Stick with the standard protocol implementation if you ask me.

-Ben

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:33 -0800, Micah Croff wrote:
> Has anyone compared UltraVNC to TightVNC?  I=E2=80=99m just curious why
> tightVNC is the one that is supported.  UltraVNC seems to have some
> pretty cool features but I=E2=80=99m wondering if the reason that it isn=
=E2=80=99t
> supported is because there is something that I=E2=80=99m not seeing.
>=20
> =20
>=20
> Ideas?
>=20
> Micah
>=20
> =20
>=20
>=20
--=20
Ben Walton
Systems Programmer
Office of Planning & IT
Faculty of Arts & Science
University of Toronto
Cell: 416.407.5610
PGP Key Id: 8E89F6D2