Not sure but that might violate Microsoft's EULA. Doesn't mean much to home users but it is something companies worry about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remote Desktop only allows one user to be logged on remotely at a time. This would not violate the EULA since only one person could use Office at a time and it is running on only one machine at a time.
There is also 'rdesktop'. Which is a Unix version (I think it's open source too). It's 3rd party though. Sometimes it screws up the fonts and you have to log in and out until it gets it right, but this might only be a flaw in linux. I'm not sure how it runs in OSX with X-Windows installed.
Remote Desktop only allows one user to be logged on remotely at a time. This would not violate the EULA since only one person could use Office at a time and it is running on only one machine at a time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's not true, sorry not flaming or anything but i have 50 people connecting to one Windows2000 server everyday as of today (when i did the installs) and it works perfectly. The EULA question is sorted because you have to pay for a per seat license for each connecting user of the server and for any MS software installed. I'm not saying it's cheap ('cos it ain't) but it's NOT restricted to a sinlge user login.
Well that's not true, sorry not flaming or anything but i have 50 people connecting to one Windows2000 server everyday as of today (when i did the installs) and it works perfectly. The EULA question is sorted because you have to pay for a per seat license for each connecting user of the server and for any MS software installed. I'm not saying it's cheap ('cos it ain't) but it's NOT restricted to a sinlge user login.<hr></blockquote>
That's because what you are running is Terminal Services, not Remote Desktop, they are two different things. Remote Desktop only comes with Windows XP Professional, any only one user can be logged in at a time. Fortunately, the Remote Desktop Client works for both.
So is RDC better than Citrix and 3rd party clients on the whole? I don't understand why I'd want to buy those when this is free. (Sounds so familiar, hmm who are we talking about?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, while I'm at it, Citrix MetaFrame is WAY better than RDC. There's just no contest. Citrix is way faster and much nicer to your bandwith. It let's you do a bunch of cool things RDC doesn't too, like publishing apps (instead of the whole desktop [ok, if you really try you can do it with RDC]) anyway, you can publish apps to web pages, click a link and run word in your web browser! It let's you map and use local resources like drives and printers from the remote apps too.
That's because what you are running is Terminal Services, not Remote Desktop, they are two different things. Remote Desktop only comes with Windows XP Professional, any only one user can be logged in at a time. Fortunately, the Remote Desktop Client works for both.
This is a REALLY cool App not getting much attention. I'm surprised. Anyway..
An interesting point was raised about FireWire networking in regards to using RDC. Now that Apple is implementing FireWire networking officially in OS X, what's everyone's thoughts on this? Especially with FireWire 2, likely coming this year.
<strong>An interesting point was raised about FireWire networking in regards to using RDC. Now that Apple is implementing FireWire networking officially in OS X, what's everyone's thoughts on this? Especially with FireWire 2, likely coming this year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I connected my Compaq (celeron 800Mhz) to my iMac (G4 800Mhz) today with firewire (tcp/ip) and I have to say that RDC is very fast now. I will hide the Compaq under my desk and never use Virtual PC again!
We hooked up a couple of dedicated rendering machines to our company's LAN, and we log into these things remotely with this software. Nice idea, but terrible implementation. Sure, it can render the models nice and fast thanks to the hardware on the other end of the ethernet cable, but even drawing a menu in WinXP takes anywhere from several seconds to several minutes to draw. working with these machines through Remote desktop is a simple failure for use at this point. I'm sure it's better when you only have two machines connected, but any semblance of a network, and no pipe is fat enough to make it worthwhile right now.
This is exactly why David Pogue had such frustrations with the Smart Display he reviewed in the Ny times this past week. It's a nice idea in general, but it's just not really feasible yet from my experience. that will change over time, but as time goes on, apple and whoever else can implement this at a better time and not lose a step.
I connected my Compaq (celeron 800Mhz) to my iMac (G4 800Mhz) today with firewire (tcp/ip) and I have to say that RDC is very fast now. I will hide the Compaq under my desk and never use Virtual PC again!
Tell me - I'm currently using a 100Mb switch between my Windows PC and my Mac (so I only have to use one keyboard/mouse). How much better is firewire networking? And how was the setup on the PC side? I'm VERY interested in this.
<strong>Yes this IS BIG news. I expect this thread will become popular once more people try this out.
Question 1) Is/will there be support for multiple remote machines?
Question 2) How is it! Anyone used it yet? Do games work? I am considering getting a $200 shitbox (no Windows installed ) for use with this. I'll never have to touch a PC keyboard or mouse again! Yay!
I like something BrianMacOS once said, and I think it applies: "I used to use Windows once. Now I use it in MacOS X"</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't get it. 'Over the network' is the key phrase here. The frame rate over remote desktop is extremely sluggish. You can't play games over it! You can't even stream movies over it. The only thing this is useful for is for running office-type apps over the network.
There is no multiple machine support. I don't even think that windows has multiple remote desktop support, though I maybe wrong. Not many people use more than one remote desktop.
Hell, Remote Desktop even lags on the text scrolling in mIRC when I used to use it over RDP ( MS now calls it Remote Desktop Protocol, instead of Remote Desktop Client for some odd reason ). Granted this was only for when there was an extreme amount of text, but the point is that there is still no *real* substitute for running directly from a windows box for most things. Microsoft is not so retarded as to release a product that negates the use of Windows completely. Also, this release is not so significant as you try to make it seem. RDP had Unix apps that could access Terminal Servers before OSX or Windows XP even hit the streets. This also doesn't even take into account that VNC is also out there and is open. This release isn't as signficant as you think it is ... and this thread is a few months late at that.
Tell me - I'm currently using a 100Mb switch between my Windows PC and my Mac (so I only have to use one keyboard/mouse). How much better is firewire networking? And how was the setup on the PC side? I'm VERY interested in this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a point-to-point connection (i.e. exactly two devices) IP over FireWire might be a little faster in some cases - I never managed to get actual transfer rates in excess of 10MB/s when doing some tests with it, which is about the same 100Mb ethernet gets. But for anything involving more devices than that, a switched Ethernet will be the better solution.
<strong>It is interesting that MS did this, but it's nothing new. You could always do this with VNC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
With the best will in the world, not quite true!
VNC - as far as I understand it - runs in a similar way to Timbuktu or pcAnywhere delivering remote control of server's operating console or a remote PC.
RDC is a) a client for Microsoft's Terminal Services server which comes with Windows 2000 Server, thus facilitating both remote admin of a server and multiple clients to use products like Project and Visio without implementing Virtual PC and b) a client to control Windows XP's remote desktop service pretty much like pcAnywhere or VNC or Radmin.
Comments
<strong>
Not sure but that might violate Microsoft's EULA. Doesn't mean much to home users but it is something companies worry about.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Remote Desktop only allows one user to be logged on remotely at a time. This would not violate the EULA since only one person could use Office at a time and it is running on only one machine at a time.
<strong>
Remote Desktop only allows one user to be logged on remotely at a time. This would not violate the EULA since only one person could use Office at a time and it is running on only one machine at a time.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well that's not true, sorry not flaming or anything but i have 50 people connecting to one Windows2000 server everyday as of today (when i did the installs) and it works perfectly. The EULA question is sorted because you have to pay for a per seat license for each connecting user of the server and for any MS software installed. I'm not saying it's cheap ('cos it ain't) but it's NOT restricted to a sinlge user login.
[quote] <hr></blockquote>
Well that's not true, sorry not flaming or anything but i have 50 people connecting to one Windows2000 server everyday as of today (when i did the installs) and it works perfectly. The EULA question is sorted because you have to pay for a per seat license for each connecting user of the server and for any MS software installed. I'm not saying it's cheap ('cos it ain't) but it's NOT restricted to a sinlge user login.<hr></blockquote>
That's because what you are running is Terminal Services, not Remote Desktop, they are two different things. Remote Desktop only comes with Windows XP Professional, any only one user can be logged in at a time. Fortunately, the Remote Desktop Client works for both.
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Colby2000 ]
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Colby2000 ]</p>
<strong>
So is RDC better than Citrix and 3rd party clients on the whole? I don't understand why I'd want to buy those when this is free. (Sounds so familiar, hmm who are we talking about?)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok, while I'm at it, Citrix MetaFrame is WAY better than RDC. There's just no contest. Citrix is way faster and much nicer to your bandwith. It let's you do a bunch of cool things RDC doesn't too, like publishing apps (instead of the whole desktop [ok, if you really try you can do it with RDC]) anyway, you can publish apps to web pages, click a link and run word in your web browser! It let's you map and use local resources like drives and printers from the remote apps too.
Demo here--> <a href="http://demoroom.citrix.com/"; target="_blank">http://demoroom.citrix.com/</a>;
Then again, it's thousands of dollars.
<strong>
That's because what you are running is Terminal Services, not Remote Desktop, they are two different things. Remote Desktop only comes with Windows XP Professional, any only one user can be logged in at a time. Fortunately, the Remote Desktop Client works for both.
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Colby2000 ]
[ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Colby2000 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
aaaah simple misunderstanding, yes of course your right, i am indeed connecting to terminal server....sorry for any aggro!
[quote] <hr></blockquote>
An interesting point was raised about FireWire networking in regards to using RDC. Now that Apple is implementing FireWire networking officially in OS X, what's everyone's thoughts on this? Especially with FireWire 2, likely coming this year.
<strong>An interesting point was raised about FireWire networking in regards to using RDC. Now that Apple is implementing FireWire networking officially in OS X, what's everyone's thoughts on this? Especially with FireWire 2, likely coming this year.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I connected my Compaq (celeron 800Mhz) to my iMac (G4 800Mhz) today with firewire (tcp/ip) and I have to say that RDC is very fast now. I will hide the Compaq under my desk and never use Virtual PC again!
-Snowster
[ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: Snowster ]</p>
This is exactly why David Pogue had such frustrations with the Smart Display he reviewed in the Ny times this past week. It's a nice idea in general, but it's just not really feasible yet from my experience. that will change over time, but as time goes on, apple and whoever else can implement this at a better time and not lose a step.
<strong>
I connected my Compaq (celeron 800Mhz) to my iMac (G4 800Mhz) today with firewire (tcp/ip) and I have to say that RDC is very fast now. I will hide the Compaq under my desk and never use Virtual PC again!
-Snowster
[ 01-04-2003: Message edited by: Snowster ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tell me - I'm currently using a 100Mb switch between my Windows PC and my Mac (so I only have to use one keyboard/mouse). How much better is firewire networking? And how was the setup on the PC side? I'm VERY interested in this.
This looks so cool. I'm going to try this soon.
<strong>Yes this IS BIG news. I expect this thread will become popular once more people try this out.
Question 1) Is/will there be support for multiple remote machines?
Question 2) How is it! Anyone used it yet? Do games work? I am considering getting a $200 shitbox (no Windows installed
I like something BrianMacOS once said, and I think it applies: "I used to use Windows once. Now I use it in MacOS X"</strong><hr></blockquote>
You don't get it. 'Over the network' is the key phrase here. The frame rate over remote desktop is extremely sluggish. You can't play games over it! You can't even stream movies over it. The only thing this is useful for is for running office-type apps over the network.
There is no multiple machine support. I don't even think that windows has multiple remote desktop support, though I maybe wrong. Not many people use more than one remote desktop.
Hell, Remote Desktop even lags on the text scrolling in mIRC when I used to use it over RDP ( MS now calls it Remote Desktop Protocol, instead of Remote Desktop Client for some odd reason ). Granted this was only for when there was an extreme amount of text, but the point is that there is still no *real* substitute for running directly from a windows box for most things. Microsoft is not so retarded as to release a product that negates the use of Windows completely. Also, this release is not so significant as you try to make it seem. RDP had Unix apps that could access Terminal Servers before OSX or Windows XP even hit the streets. This also doesn't even take into account that VNC is also out there and is open. This release isn't as signficant as you think it is ... and this thread is a few months late at that.
<strong>
Tell me - I'm currently using a 100Mb switch between my Windows PC and my Mac (so I only have to use one keyboard/mouse). How much better is firewire networking? And how was the setup on the PC side? I'm VERY interested in this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
For a point-to-point connection (i.e. exactly two devices) IP over FireWire might be a little faster in some cases - I never managed to get actual transfer rates in excess of 10MB/s when doing some tests with it, which is about the same 100Mb ethernet gets. But for anything involving more devices than that, a switched Ethernet will be the better solution.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>It is interesting that MS did this, but it's nothing new. You could always do this with VNC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
With the best will in the world, not quite true!
VNC - as far as I understand it - runs in a similar way to Timbuktu or pcAnywhere delivering remote control of server's operating console or a remote PC.
RDC is a) a client for Microsoft's Terminal Services server which comes with Windows 2000 Server, thus facilitating both remote admin of a server and multiple clients to use products like Project and Visio without implementing Virtual PC and b) a client to control Windows XP's remote desktop service pretty much like pcAnywhere or VNC or Radmin.