Bandwidth: ARD, Timbuktu, VNC

badtzbadtz
Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
I'm currently trying to deploy a remote desktop solution and was wondering if anyone has had experience with the various products out there for OS X to connect to other machines (VNC, Apple Remote Desktop, Timbuktu) ....



I'm wondering how much bandwidth each requires as they all have their own ways of drawing screen movements.



From what I"ve read, i believe it would go in this order ....



Apple Remote Desktop [lowest bandwidth needed]

Timbuktu

VNC [highest, since it basically sends images]







is this correct? any additional explanations and help would be GREATLY appreciated!!! Thanks!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 3
    dstranathandstranathan Posts: 1,717member
    I am researching LANDesk, Altrius, and ARD and VNC now for my company
  • Reply 2 of 3
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    I have no experience with Timbuktu, but I know that ARD and VNC should use almost exactly the same bandwidth. Any difference would only be due to different compression algorithms. They both transmit live images of the screen. There is nothing for Aqua that acts like a remote X-Windows session that would let ARD just transmit key numbers like coordinates.
  • Reply 3 of 3
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Brad

    I have no experience with Timbuktu, but I know that ARD and VNC should use almost exactly the same bandwidth. Any difference would only be due to different compression algorithms. They both transmit live images of the screen. There is nothing for Aqua that acts like a remote X-Windows session that would let ARD just transmit key numbers like coordinates.



    Hey brad, have you happened to have played around with ARD? Are there limitations in ARD that VNC has? and vise versa?



    Disregarding price and timbuktu, which one of the two would be a better choice?
Sign In or Register to comment.