Amazing. Is citrix the only tech company on the planet that doesn't realize that all this can be done with the standard single shipping flavor of OS X?
You can use Leopard Screen Sharing for FREE to connect to Macs.
Except you have to use VNC, which is very slow. In addition, for proper security, you need to access screen sharing through SSH, port forwarding is also required and you would probably want to set up dynamic DNS to increase the setup's robustness.
Why would you want to use this THIRD Party software when you can get the same thing and supprted by Apple with a MobileMe account using back to my Mac? Works extremely well and I have never had a problem.
BTMM only works if you are not double-NATted (among other requirements). Due to the reluctance of ISPs to move to ipv6, an increasing number of internet users might be facing a situation where they are double-NATted at the ISP level (so NAT-PMP and UPNP won't help).
It has nothing to do with stuck programs. You need to be able to send Ctrl-Alt-Del to bring up the password box for logging in.
I love the Mac but one thing that Windows and Linux have all over the Mac is the capability to have multiple live GUI desktops. With the Mac there can only be one active at a time. So if I need to remote into my home Mac and my wife happens to be on it, she'll have to stop what she's doing as I take over, switch to my account and do what I need. On Linux or Windows the person sitting at the keyboard would never even know I was there.
That depends on what you need to do while remote - for example if you only needed to get or put files you could use ssh - telnet - ftp - etc - of course those require some extra setup and configuration etc.
I use a combination of Timbuktu (which is cross platform), Mac OS screen sharing, and logmein free to remotely support about 60 computers - including Mac, Windows and virtual machines. THe choice of which to use when generally depends on whether the machines are truly remote via on my network and if i need to move files - which is not often and can be done via FTP etc - or in one office that I support I can get the files onto a server there and then go from there with remote control that does not include direct file transfer.
I'm not sure I understand why someone would invest in this with cloud computing all the rage these days (e.g., Google Docs). In either case you're sending information over a connection, requiring encryption for sensitive stuff. I don't know why I would pay when there are cheaper (free in some cases) options available. This seems a venture following the same demise that AOL went down years ago for the same reasons.
Not directly related to this story, but it would be interesting to use a small mobile device (oh, I don't know, maybe if Apple made a tablet or something) and use screen sharing to my Mac at home. Imagine having the power of a Mac Pro while sitting at Starbucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1
Obviously this is not needed for Mac to Mac users since OS X 10.5/6 has Remote Desktop already built in for free. But I guess it's good if you need to remotely connect to a Windows machine.
Regardless, I wouldn't pay that $19.95 a month to connect to any machine. I would do without.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gt1948
Why would you want to use this THIRD Party software when you can get the same thing and supprted by Apple with a MobileMe account using back to my Mac? Works extremely well and I have never had a problem.
Bonus, you can get a MobileMe subscription at discount on Amazon
I use the Mac's built-in screen sharing all the time to control my HTPC Mac mini. It's useful, but has its limitation. First, it's horribly slow. Unless you are on a LAN/WAN it's far to slow to be really useful. And there is no sound. Windows Desktop Connection is much faster, even over a slow network connection over the internet, and includes sound. I use that all the time to work from home and log into my work computer. It's nearly as good as sitting at my desk at the office.
I love the Mac but one thing that Windows and Linux have all over the Mac is the capability to have multiple live GUI desktops. With the Mac there can only be one active at a time. So if I need to remote into my home Mac and my wife happens to be on it, she'll have to stop what she's doing as I take over, switch to my account and do what I need. On Linux or Windows the person sitting at the keyboard would never even know I was there.
Are you sure about that? I didn't think you could have multiple active desktops in Windows, but I'm not an expert on that end for sure. I would think the same mechanism that allows for remote desktops in unix variants would work for OS X, albeit not an x-server. Most of the implementations on Windows I have seen involved running multiple virtualized sessions.
I was actually looking into Citrix yesterday. Things like RSA authentication/encryption are nice if you are using it for accessing the finance systems in your business. However, I simply hate subscription software.
Not directly related to this story, but it would be interesting to use a small mobile device (oh, I don't know, maybe if Apple made a tablet or something) and use screen sharing to my Mac at home. Imagine having the power of a Mac Pro while sitting at Starbucks.
I use the Mac's built-in screen sharing all the time to control my HTPC Mac mini. It's useful, but has its limitation. First, it's horribly slow. Unless you are on a LAN/WAN it's far to slow to be really useful. And there is no sound. Windows Desktop Connection is much faster, even over a slow network connection over the internet, and includes sound. I use that all the time to work from home and log into my work computer. It's nearly as good as sitting at my desk at the office.
in addition the portable device would not have to be all that powerful or expensive - say a 10" table - and if it was lost or stolen or damaged it would not be quite as disruptive or expensive to recover. it may actually be a step towards cloud - more people getting used to the idea of your data being somewhere other than on the device in your hands.
and one of my personal favorites: teamviewer.com, has a great interface, it's Free for personal use and supports Mac or PC. Why pay $20 a month when you don't have to and if you already have a MobileMe account, well heck, your covered then.
sounds like they are just trying squeeze as much cash out of this GoToMyPC thing as much as they can. They used to advertise like crazy on TV, Radio and with talk-radio personalities advertising it.
and one of my personal favorites: teamviewer.com, has a great interface, it's Free for personal use and supports Mac or PC. Why pay $20 a month when you don't have to and if you already have a MobileMe account, well heck, your covered then.
sounds like they are just trying squeeze as much cash out of this GoToMyPC thing as much as they can. They used to advertise like crazy on TV, Radio and with talk-radio personalities advertising it.
FREE cross-platform collaboration, presentation, management, and tech support software!
that may have an advantage over logmein - with logmein I have to install the software on the remote computer by first logging in with my account - or by making someone at the remote site a user under my account - looks like the teamviewer allows the remote user to run the software and it generates the required connection security info that allows the connection - on the other hand for some of the machines I remotely manage the local users would be challenged to even do that much - or in a few cases the machines are unattended or I work on them after everyone has gone home.
I used one of their previous remote connection products about a year and a half ago, on several Macs, connecting to multiple remote Macs and Windows computers around the world. So we were managing the process from two Mac laptops (though only one at a time ).
It sort of worked, and sometimes didn't, was a nightmare to tweak and babysit, and was not intuitive -- nor did we ever want to use it after that.
My guess is that this new design will be addressing some of our experiences and complaints. Which really is a Good Thing (tm).
But personally, I have used both LogMeIn and TeamViewer on a number of one-to-one connection scenarios (Mac to mac, Win to mac, Mac to win, and Win to win), and both products have worked reasonably well for me, at no cost.
Though each has its little quirks to get familiar with. One of the differences being that the LogMeIn process seems to feed through the LogMeIn server network, and requires the remote user to create a registration through LogMeIn. While TeamViewer seems to work just via installation of the host and client application programs on the desired computers.
These free versions do require that there be a person at the remote computer to generate/provide a security key code to the logging-in person, and to give it an OK to allow to proceed once the connection is made.
See my comment just above -- I have used TeamViewer and LogMeIn to access a remote Mac (and its desktop and mouse...) from a Windows XP PC successfully.
I think most Mac users differentiate themselves from the PC:
Mac: Mac OS on Mac hardware.
PC: Windows, Linux, Windows under BootCamp on a Mac.
Gray area: Hackintosh.
No. PC is a generic term that refers to any personal computer, regardless of the hardware or the OS running on it. An example of it's correct usage is this recent AI headline:
Unfortunately, many people incorrectly use the term PC to mean a PC made by someone other than Apple, running Windows. It's even sillier now that Mac hardware is essentially identical to that of all other PCs.
No. PC is a generic term that refers to any personal computer, regardless of the hardware or the OS running on it. An example of it's correct usage is this recent AI headline:
Unfortunately, many people incorrectly use the term PC to mean a PC made by someone other than Apple, running Windows. It's even sillier now that Mac hardware is essentially identical to that of all other PCs.
I knew someone would mention those ads. Those ads are the most well known example of the misuse of the term PC.
You seem to be suggesting that a Mac is not a personal computer, which is clearly absurd. It's like suggesting that a MacBook is not a laptop.
Perception is the reality. It's in the vernacular. Whether you like it or not, regardless of the form factor most people think of a "Mac" as a Mac and a" PC" as a Windows computer.
Perception is the reality. It's in the vernacular. Whether you like it or not, regardless of the form factor most people think of a "Mac" as a Mac and a" PC" as a Windows computer.
So what do you call a Mac that only has Windows installed on it?
Comments
I think most Mac users differentiate themselves from the PC:
Mac: Mac OS on Mac hardware.
PC: Windows, Linux, Windows under BootCamp on a Mac.
Gray area: Hackintosh.
I think most Linux users differnetiate themselves from the PC:
by saying they run RedHat, Ubuntu, etc.
To me (and most others) PC generally means MS Windows.
You can use Leopard Screen Sharing for FREE to connect to Macs.
Except you have to use VNC, which is very slow. In addition, for proper security, you need to access screen sharing through SSH, port forwarding is also required and you would probably want to set up dynamic DNS to increase the setup's robustness.
But what about accessing our Macs from PCs?
Turn on sharing on the Mac, use a VNC client from the Windows machine. I have done this from Windows, not to mention from an iPod Touch and a Palm TX.
Why would you want to use this THIRD Party software when you can get the same thing and supprted by Apple with a MobileMe account using back to my Mac? Works extremely well and I have never had a problem.
BTMM only works if you are not double-NATted (among other requirements). Due to the reluctance of ISPs to move to ipv6, an increasing number of internet users might be facing a situation where they are double-NATted at the ISP level (so NAT-PMP and UPNP won't help).
It has nothing to do with stuck programs. You need to be able to send Ctrl-Alt-Del to bring up the password box for logging in.
I love the Mac but one thing that Windows and Linux have all over the Mac is the capability to have multiple live GUI desktops. With the Mac there can only be one active at a time. So if I need to remote into my home Mac and my wife happens to be on it, she'll have to stop what she's doing as I take over, switch to my account and do what I need. On Linux or Windows the person sitting at the keyboard would never even know I was there.
That depends on what you need to do while remote - for example if you only needed to get or put files you could use ssh - telnet - ftp - etc - of course those require some extra setup and configuration etc.
I use a combination of Timbuktu (which is cross platform), Mac OS screen sharing, and logmein free to remotely support about 60 computers - including Mac, Windows and virtual machines. THe choice of which to use when generally depends on whether the machines are truly remote via on my network and if i need to move files - which is not often and can be done via FTP etc - or in one office that I support I can get the files onto a server there and then go from there with remote control that does not include direct file transfer.
I'm not sure I understand why someone would invest in this with cloud computing all the rage these days (e.g., Google Docs). In either case you're sending information over a connection, requiring encryption for sensitive stuff. I don't know why I would pay when there are cheaper (free in some cases) options available. This seems a venture following the same demise that AOL went down years ago for the same reasons.
Not directly related to this story, but it would be interesting to use a small mobile device (oh, I don't know, maybe if Apple made a tablet or something) and use screen sharing to my Mac at home. Imagine having the power of a Mac Pro while sitting at Starbucks.
Obviously this is not needed for Mac to Mac users since OS X 10.5/6 has Remote Desktop already built in for free. But I guess it's good if you need to remotely connect to a Windows machine.
Regardless, I wouldn't pay that $19.95 a month to connect to any machine. I would do without.
Why would you want to use this THIRD Party software when you can get the same thing and supprted by Apple with a MobileMe account using back to my Mac? Works extremely well and I have never had a problem.
Bonus, you can get a MobileMe subscription at discount on Amazon
I use the Mac's built-in screen sharing all the time to control my HTPC Mac mini. It's useful, but has its limitation. First, it's horribly slow. Unless you are on a LAN/WAN it's far to slow to be really useful. And there is no sound. Windows Desktop Connection is much faster, even over a slow network connection over the internet, and includes sound. I use that all the time to work from home and log into my work computer. It's nearly as good as sitting at my desk at the office.
I love the Mac but one thing that Windows and Linux have all over the Mac is the capability to have multiple live GUI desktops. With the Mac there can only be one active at a time. So if I need to remote into my home Mac and my wife happens to be on it, she'll have to stop what she's doing as I take over, switch to my account and do what I need. On Linux or Windows the person sitting at the keyboard would never even know I was there.
Are you sure about that? I didn't think you could have multiple active desktops in Windows, but I'm not an expert on that end for sure. I would think the same mechanism that allows for remote desktops in unix variants would work for OS X, albeit not an x-server. Most of the implementations on Windows I have seen involved running multiple virtualized sessions.
I was actually looking into Citrix yesterday. Things like RSA authentication/encryption are nice if you are using it for accessing the finance systems in your business. However, I simply hate subscription software.
Not directly related to this story, but it would be interesting to use a small mobile device (oh, I don't know, maybe if Apple made a tablet or something) and use screen sharing to my Mac at home. Imagine having the power of a Mac Pro while sitting at Starbucks.
I use the Mac's built-in screen sharing all the time to control my HTPC Mac mini. It's useful, but has its limitation. First, it's horribly slow. Unless you are on a LAN/WAN it's far to slow to be really useful. And there is no sound. Windows Desktop Connection is much faster, even over a slow network connection over the internet, and includes sound. I use that all the time to work from home and log into my work computer. It's nearly as good as sitting at my desk at the office.
in addition the portable device would not have to be all that powerful or expensive - say a 10" table - and if it was lost or stolen or damaged it would not be quite as disruptive or expensive to recover. it may actually be a step towards cloud - more people getting used to the idea of your data being somewhere other than on the device in your hands.
sounds like they are just trying squeeze as much cash out of this GoToMyPC thing as much as they can. They used to advertise like crazy on TV, Radio and with talk-radio personalities advertising it.
I'll stick with free!
and one of my personal favorites: teamviewer.com, has a great interface, it's Free for personal use and supports Mac or PC. Why pay $20 a month when you don't have to and if you already have a MobileMe account, well heck, your covered then.
sounds like they are just trying squeeze as much cash out of this GoToMyPC thing as much as they can. They used to advertise like crazy on TV, Radio and with talk-radio personalities advertising it.
I'll stick with free!
Absolutely! FREE Teamviewer rocks!
FREE cross-platform collaboration, presentation, management, and tech support software!
Absolutely! FREE Teamviewer rocks!
FREE cross-platform collaboration, presentation, management, and tech support software!
that may have an advantage over logmein - with logmein I have to install the software on the remote computer by first logging in with my account - or by making someone at the remote site a user under my account - looks like the teamviewer allows the remote user to run the software and it generates the required connection security info that allows the connection - on the other hand for some of the machines I remotely manage the local users would be challenged to even do that much - or in a few cases the machines are unattended or I work on them after everyone has gone home.
And they have a beta of a Pro versions for Mac that blows Citrix out of the water.
https://secure.logmein.com/welcome/pro4mac/.
Citrix is two years late and $20.00/month short.
It sort of worked, and sometimes didn't, was a nightmare to tweak and babysit, and was not intuitive -- nor did we ever want to use it after that.
My guess is that this new design will be addressing some of our experiences and complaints. Which really is a Good Thing (tm).
But personally, I have used both LogMeIn and TeamViewer on a number of one-to-one connection scenarios (Mac to mac, Win to mac, Mac to win, and Win to win), and both products have worked reasonably well for me, at no cost.
Though each has its little quirks to get familiar with. One of the differences being that the LogMeIn process seems to feed through the LogMeIn server network, and requires the remote user to create a registration through LogMeIn. While TeamViewer seems to work just via installation of the host and client application programs on the desired computers.
These free versions do require that there be a person at the remote computer to generate/provide a security key code to the logging-in person, and to give it an OK to allow to proceed once the connection is made.
But what about accessing our Macs from PCs?
See my comment just above -- I have used TeamViewer and LogMeIn to access a remote Mac (and its desktop and mouse...) from a Windows XP PC successfully.
I think most Mac users differentiate themselves from the PC:
Mac: Mac OS on Mac hardware.
PC: Windows, Linux, Windows under BootCamp on a Mac.
Gray area: Hackintosh.
No. PC is a generic term that refers to any personal computer, regardless of the hardware or the OS running on it. An example of it's correct usage is this recent AI headline:
Apple captures 7.4% of US PC market on 31% Mac sales growth
Unfortunately, many people incorrectly use the term PC to mean a PC made by someone other than Apple, running Windows. It's even sillier now that Mac hardware is essentially identical to that of all other PCs.
Michael.
No. PC is a generic term that refers to any personal computer, regardless of the hardware or the OS running on it. An example of it's correct usage is this recent AI headline:
Apple captures 7.4% of US PC market on 31% Mac sales growth
Unfortunately, many people incorrectly use the term PC to mean a PC made by someone other than Apple, running Windows. It's even sillier now that Mac hardware is essentially identical to that of all other PCs.
Michael.
LOL! Tell it to these guys!
LOL! Tell it to these guys!
I knew someone would mention those ads. Those ads are the most well known example of the misuse of the term PC.
You seem to be suggesting that a Mac is not a personal computer, which is clearly absurd. It's like suggesting that a MacBook is not a laptop.
Michael.
I knew someone would mention those ads. Those ads are the most well known example of the misuse of the term PC.
You seem to be suggesting that a Mac is not a personal computer, which is clearly absurd. It's like suggesting that a MacBook is not a laptop.
Perception is the reality. It's in the vernacular. Whether you like it or not, regardless of the form factor most people think of a "Mac" as a Mac and a" PC" as a Windows computer.
Perception is the reality. It's in the vernacular. Whether you like it or not, regardless of the form factor most people think of a "Mac" as a Mac and a" PC" as a Windows computer.
So what do you call a Mac that only has Windows installed on it?