tests:
pchelpware screen quality little bit lower than SC (full colors)
pchelpware is faster than SC with msrc4 encryption
pchelpware is faster (encrypted) than SC not encrypted
hardware:
CPU Pentium3 650MHz
RAM 1GB PC100
GPU nvidia GeForce2 Ti
NET: ADSL 3500/300 kbit/s down/up
softwares:
vmware player 2.0.2 guest: windows xp pro sp2
host: windows xp pro sp2
repeater Europe: vserver.homeftp.org 5900 + 5500
vncviewer: 1.0.4
winvncsc: SC20.3 3 July 2005
dsmplugin: msrc4 1.2.2.0 +rc4.key
pchelpware viewer + server 1.0.1
Update: UltraVNC 1.4.3.6 and UltraVNC SC 1.4.3.6: viewtopic.php?t=37885
Important: Please update to latest version before to create a reply, a topic or an issue: viewtopic.php?t=37864
Join us on social networks and share our announcements:
- Website: https://uvnc.com/
- GitHub: https://github.com/ultravnc
- Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@ultravnc
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ultravnc1
- X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ultravnc1
- Reddit community: https://www.reddit.com/r/ultravnc
- OpenHub: https://openhub.net/p/ultravnc
Important: Please update to latest version before to create a reply, a topic or an issue: viewtopic.php?t=37864
Join us on social networks and share our announcements:
- Website: https://uvnc.com/
- GitHub: https://github.com/ultravnc
- Mastodon: https://mastodon.social/@ultravnc
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ultravnc1
- X/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ultravnc1
- Reddit community: https://www.reddit.com/r/ultravnc
- OpenHub: https://openhub.net/p/ultravnc
performance pchelpware versus SingleClick
performance pchelpware versus SingleClick
Last edited by redge on 2008-02-10 01:20, edited 2 times in total.
UltraVNC 1.0.9.6.1 (built 20110518)
OS Win: xp home + vista business + 7 home
only experienced user, not developer
OS Win: xp home + vista business + 7 home
only experienced user, not developer
Re: performance pchelpware versus SingleClick
Redge
We switched to PCHW about a year ago, because we heard SC had no plans to support Vista.
PCHW is definately slower than SC on XP, but at least on Vista it works (SC times out). I would say on an XP Pro - to - XP Pro session, PCHW is about 10-20% slower than SC.
We have repeater behind firewall.
Host session connects via aDSL internet - so internet speed is variable.
We never load the hook/drivers. We have the end user click the remote.exe and invite us in.
As UVNC keeps improving with new releases/patches, PCHW has never had any patches. We are considering dropping it for another product - many because it is too slow.
If PCHW was fast, we could live with missing the UAC prompts in Vista. We would have the end user click the UAC for us.
-Bill
We switched to PCHW about a year ago, because we heard SC had no plans to support Vista.
PCHW is definately slower than SC on XP, but at least on Vista it works (SC times out). I would say on an XP Pro - to - XP Pro session, PCHW is about 10-20% slower than SC.
We have repeater behind firewall.
Host session connects via aDSL internet - so internet speed is variable.
We never load the hook/drivers. We have the end user click the remote.exe and invite us in.
As UVNC keeps improving with new releases/patches, PCHW has never had any patches. We are considering dropping it for another product - many because it is too slow.
If PCHW was fast, we could live with missing the UAC prompts in Vista. We would have the end user click the UAC for us.
-Bill