Is Apple's VNC implementation reliable for other AI members? For some reason, I can only get it to work for a day or two and then it stops responding so that I have to either ssh or physically go to the computer and restart the service. I've not been able to get it work for several days for Tiger, Leopard or Snow Leopard.
The only time I've had trouble is when my internet connection goes down. Which is strange because all my Macs (only used it Mac-to-Mac) are on the same network, same side of the router, etc. So why do I need an internet connection to log into another Mac on my own network?
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman
How handy, means I will be able to provide a full computer desktop to multiple IPads without investing in an expensive virtualization solution. Wonder how software handles licensing, such as word etc across multiple users being logged in.
I've been thinking Apple's been heading that way for while now. An efficient, multi-user, remote graphical login would change the laptop vs desktop purchasing decision. You could get all the power of a Mac Pro with the portability of a MacBook Air.
It's about time! I've been wanting this for a while, and have grudgingly accepted that Windows Remote Desktop was far superior to what Apple had.
But now the playing field will be even here at last. And those who think Apple no longer cares about OS X and want it to turn it into iOS now have egg on their faces.
I wonder if this will FINALLY allow me to remote control a Mac without its local console being unlocked for any user to come along and mess with it. When I work from home I sometimes remote control my Mac at work, but ANYONE who happens to walk by my station can see everything I'm doing remotely, and even mess with the session if they wanted to. Being able to remote in while keeping the local console locked (like Windows) would finally resolve this.
There are VNC clients available for the iPad now. Try it and see.
Think about a trackpad, with tap-to-click. That works, so an iPad should work too. Sure, not ideal, but not that bad, either.
That's a good description. Jaadu, the one I currently use, also supports a two-fingered scrolling gesture, pinching/unpinching to scale the screen image (since there are usually many more pixels on the host's screen than on the client), dragging via double-tap-and-drag gesture, and has a little toolbar at the top for things like keyboard input or special keys not present on iOS' built-in keyboard. It'll never be quite as easy as using the Mac itself, directly, but that's to be expected when you're essentially using a translator between two different UI paradigms. It's not bad for the quick stuff, IMO.
There are VNC clients available for the iPad now. Try it and see.
Think about a trackpad, with tap-to-click. That works, so an iPad should work too. Sure, not ideal, but not that bad, either.
I would love to try but no iPad at moment. So the cursor moves with your finger as you drag your finger around the screen? Or does the cursor simply jump to where you touch instantly?
I think he's implying a simultaneous screen sharing feature already exists on Windows, although I don't think it does. It might have been added with Win7, but I remember that Vista still only allowed one user at a time.
Existed in Windows 2000 with Terminal Services in Remote Admin mode. Citrix on top would allow more users in desktop and/or application server mode.
I missed any mention of support for iOS. What would an iPad do with a Mac OS X desktop if it were possible?
Hmm, that's why I wrote will instead of can. It seemed from the article that a VNC client could access the service with the right user login not just the mac screen sharing application.
If VNC is the case there are a variety of apps available with varying quality that could do it. If not then we would have to wait/pay/write an iOS client for mac screen sharing.
Said computer would want a gigabit wired connection to a separate wireless network so the iPads didn't drain all the wireless bandwidth and the computer could feed them all peacefully.
I'd use it to provide access to office/open office which is IMHO still a weakness on iOS beyond simple text editing (tables, complex formatting).
It's about time! I've been wanting this for a while, and have grudgingly accepted that Windows Remote Desktop was far superior to what Apple had.
But now the playing field will be even here at last. And those who think Apple no longer cares about OS X and want it to turn it into iOS now have egg on their faces.
I wonder if this will FINALLY allow me to remote control a Mac without its local console being unlocked for any user to come along and mess with it. When I work from home I sometimes remote control my Mac at work, but ANYONE who happens to walk by my station can see everything I'm doing remotely, and even mess with the session if they wanted to. Being able to remote in while keeping the local console locked (like Windows) would finally resolve this.
Thank you Apple!
Yeah, I've been waiting for this too. I remote into my home MBP occasionally, but if my wife is at home using it, I either have to kick her off or wait till she is done. The main problem is the the remote connection is always and only into the console session. Once they have it like Citrix/TS it will be able to connect into any session. VNC is a good solution for remote admin, but it is worthless for a multiuser system. I wonder if they will be hooking VNC into background sessions as a separate process in each.
I am just curious how the OS X interface can be worked from an iPad given the OS X interface would have no ability to allow movement of a cursor intended for a mouse from iOS. Or am I missing something?
I expect it would be similar (but more polished) to what you can see using iOS apps for RDP, Citrix, VNC, etc. Touch resolves to clicks, UI is minimized, custom controls for UI widgets like menus, hotkeys, etc.
Does this mean that one computer would also be able to handle multiple local users? For many lab environments, even a low end modern computer has more power than is needed, so the idea is that one Mac mini could power two screens using two separate mice & keyboards with each one logged into a separate account, so they are essentially independent environments.
combine this with thunderbolt and it gets very interesting.
But I do think they need to put more interface smarts in the terminal end to draw windows quicker etc.
It's about time! I've been wanting this for a while, and have grudgingly accepted that Windows Remote Desktop was far superior to what Apple had.
But now the playing field will be even here at last. And those who think Apple no longer cares about OS X and want it to turn it into iOS now have egg on their faces.
I wonder if this will FINALLY allow me to remote control a Mac without its local console being unlocked for any user to come along and mess with it. When I work from home I sometimes remote control my Mac at work, but ANYONE who happens to walk by my station can see everything I'm doing remotely, and even mess with the session if they wanted to. Being able to remote in while keeping the local console locked (like Windows) would finally resolve this.
Thank you Apple!
Windows Remote Desktop also supports playing sound from the remote PC and printing from the remote PC to your local printer. These features are also available when you use Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection for Mac to control a Windows PC.
If you buy the paid version of Apple Remote Desktop, you can use Curtain Mode to lock the screen of the remote Mac while you are controlling it.
I think he's implying a simultaneous screen sharing feature already exists on Windows, although I don't think it does. It might have been added with Win7, but I remember that Vista still only allowed one user at a time.
I realize that this is a Mac biased forum, but come on... Did you really not know about Windows Terminal Services? It was even mentioned in this article as having been around since the Windows NT days.
I realize that this is a Mac biased forum, but come on... Did you really not know about Windows Terminal Services? It was even mentioned at the beginning of this article.
I hardly consider myself biased towards either OS... I use Mac OS X and Windows every day and don't really consider one better than the other.
But that aside, no, I honestly was not aware of such service, simply because I rarely use any screen sharing feature as it is. Not to mention I thought such things were limited to Windows Server editions.
I think there is a potential for some fairly massive implications around this that no one is picking up on.
Think a single Mac Pro running in a small business back office and anywhere up to around 10 very cheap ARM/iOS based iMac's that do nothing but boot up a remote session on the Mac Pro.
It would also have been a compelling use for a rack full of Xserves.
I thought such things were limited to Windows Server editions.
By default you can't have concurrent user sessions in Windows Vista/Windows 7.
Since Windows and Windows Server 2008 R2 are the same code base (and one retails for about 10 times more than the other!) I'm going to assume it's something Microsoft intentionally switched off to prevent Windows 7 being used in a server environment.
You can switch it back on... if you're willing to use a 3rd party hack. I'm not sure where this stands with the Windows 7 EULA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Haggar
It would also have been a compelling use for a rack full of Xserves.
True that. It's why I was thinking small business, not medium/large/enterprise.
To be fair, this kind of Apple product would probably be far more suited to small business than anything larger anyway.
It's possible that Apple could even be more suited to any business without their own I.T department than Microsoft is... if Apple put the work in.
The idea of a cheap, secure and reliable system that's easy to set up combined with maybe an Apple Store "Small Business Center" or at least priority access to the Genius Bar, would be pretty compelling for small businesses.
I recently noticed that using ssh to login to your account from the outside mounts your FileVault directory. It used to be that ssh bypassed this and you ended up logged in without access to your files.
Killing that ssh connection in one case left the FileVaulted home directory mounted as logging in regularly on the machine itself failed because there were FileVault problems. I only saw this once and haven't tried to reproduce. It required a restart to solve.
Yes, Xwindow has had the feature for ages, mostly on Unix/Linux systems, but also on openVMS, Macs, etc.
But there are actually 2 different behaviors.
1. The basic one is that every program can actually be started to display its windows remotely.
(I wonder whether this will be possible on the Mac -- Of course, using X11 we already can do this now).
2. The higher level one is where the whole login session uses a remote screen.
And there is more to it than just making the windows remote. For the remote session, also file storage ("floppies!" (This is 1 April after all), USB sticks, ...), printing, etc. should at least be an option to use at the client computer.
I do hope that the client on older systems will be able to use these new Lion features.
Good work, Apple. Finally!
(And it is not unlikely that Apple will show the others how to do it much better).
I would love to try but no iPad at moment. So the cursor moves with your finger as you drag your finger around the screen? Or does the cursor simply jump to where you touch instantly?
That depends on which client you use and what its settings are, I'd say. Mine is set to do the former, with a bit of a "momentum" effect which makes it easier to flick the cursor over a large distance. You could most likely find quite a few examples of iPad VNC apps in action on YouTube.
Comments
Is Apple's VNC implementation reliable for other AI members? For some reason, I can only get it to work for a day or two and then it stops responding so that I have to either ssh or physically go to the computer and restart the service. I've not been able to get it work for several days for Tiger, Leopard or Snow Leopard.
The only time I've had trouble is when my internet connection goes down. Which is strange because all my Macs (only used it Mac-to-Mac) are on the same network, same side of the router, etc. So why do I need an internet connection to log into another Mac on my own network?
How handy, means I will be able to provide a full computer desktop to multiple IPads without investing in an expensive virtualization solution. Wonder how software handles licensing, such as word etc across multiple users being logged in.
I've been thinking Apple's been heading that way for while now. An efficient, multi-user, remote graphical login would change the laptop vs desktop purchasing decision. You could get all the power of a Mac Pro with the portability of a MacBook Air.
But now the playing field will be even here at last. And those who think Apple no longer cares about OS X and want it to turn it into iOS now have egg on their faces.
I wonder if this will FINALLY allow me to remote control a Mac without its local console being unlocked for any user to come along and mess with it. When I work from home I sometimes remote control my Mac at work, but ANYONE who happens to walk by my station can see everything I'm doing remotely, and even mess with the session if they wanted to. Being able to remote in while keeping the local console locked (like Windows) would finally resolve this.
Thank you Apple!
Ok thanks. Even if it did and played Hallelujah at the same time it would still be crappy Windows.
Well, I suppose. I personally have no qualms with Windows but I do like to use Mac OS X whenever possible.
There are VNC clients available for the iPad now. Try it and see.
Think about a trackpad, with tap-to-click. That works, so an iPad should work too. Sure, not ideal, but not that bad, either.
That's a good description. Jaadu, the one I currently use, also supports a two-fingered scrolling gesture, pinching/unpinching to scale the screen image (since there are usually many more pixels on the host's screen than on the client), dragging via double-tap-and-drag gesture, and has a little toolbar at the top for things like keyboard input or special keys not present on iOS' built-in keyboard. It'll never be quite as easy as using the Mac itself, directly, but that's to be expected when you're essentially using a translator between two different UI paradigms. It's not bad for the quick stuff, IMO.
There are VNC clients available for the iPad now. Try it and see.
Think about a trackpad, with tap-to-click. That works, so an iPad should work too. Sure, not ideal, but not that bad, either.
I would love to try but no iPad at moment. So the cursor moves with your finger as you drag your finger around the screen? Or does the cursor simply jump to where you touch instantly?
I think he's implying a simultaneous screen sharing feature already exists on Windows, although I don't think it does. It might have been added with Win7, but I remember that Vista still only allowed one user at a time.
Existed in Windows 2000 with Terminal Services in Remote Admin mode. Citrix on top would allow more users in desktop and/or application server mode.
I missed any mention of support for iOS. What would an iPad do with a Mac OS X desktop if it were possible?
Hmm, that's why I wrote will instead of can. It seemed from the article that a VNC client could access the service with the right user login not just the mac screen sharing application.
If VNC is the case there are a variety of apps available with varying quality that could do it. If not then we would have to wait/pay/write an iOS client for mac screen sharing.
Said computer would want a gigabit wired connection to a separate wireless network so the iPads didn't drain all the wireless bandwidth and the computer could feed them all peacefully.
I'd use it to provide access to office/open office which is IMHO still a weakness on iOS beyond simple text editing (tables, complex formatting).
It's about time! I've been wanting this for a while, and have grudgingly accepted that Windows Remote Desktop was far superior to what Apple had.
But now the playing field will be even here at last. And those who think Apple no longer cares about OS X and want it to turn it into iOS now have egg on their faces.
I wonder if this will FINALLY allow me to remote control a Mac without its local console being unlocked for any user to come along and mess with it. When I work from home I sometimes remote control my Mac at work, but ANYONE who happens to walk by my station can see everything I'm doing remotely, and even mess with the session if they wanted to. Being able to remote in while keeping the local console locked (like Windows) would finally resolve this.
Thank you Apple!
Yeah, I've been waiting for this too. I remote into my home MBP occasionally, but if my wife is at home using it, I either have to kick her off or wait till she is done. The main problem is the the remote connection is always and only into the console session. Once they have it like Citrix/TS it will be able to connect into any session. VNC is a good solution for remote admin, but it is worthless for a multiuser system. I wonder if they will be hooking VNC into background sessions as a separate process in each.
I am just curious how the OS X interface can be worked from an iPad given the OS X interface would have no ability to allow movement of a cursor intended for a mouse from iOS. Or am I missing something?
I expect it would be similar (but more polished) to what you can see using iOS apps for RDP, Citrix, VNC, etc. Touch resolves to clicks, UI is minimized, custom controls for UI widgets like menus, hotkeys, etc.
Does this mean that one computer would also be able to handle multiple local users? For many lab environments, even a low end modern computer has more power than is needed, so the idea is that one Mac mini could power two screens using two separate mice & keyboards with each one logged into a separate account, so they are essentially independent environments.
combine this with thunderbolt and it gets very interesting.
But I do think they need to put more interface smarts in the terminal end to draw windows quicker etc.
It's about time! I've been wanting this for a while, and have grudgingly accepted that Windows Remote Desktop was far superior to what Apple had.
But now the playing field will be even here at last. And those who think Apple no longer cares about OS X and want it to turn it into iOS now have egg on their faces.
I wonder if this will FINALLY allow me to remote control a Mac without its local console being unlocked for any user to come along and mess with it. When I work from home I sometimes remote control my Mac at work, but ANYONE who happens to walk by my station can see everything I'm doing remotely, and even mess with the session if they wanted to. Being able to remote in while keeping the local console locked (like Windows) would finally resolve this.
Thank you Apple!
Windows Remote Desktop also supports playing sound from the remote PC and printing from the remote PC to your local printer. These features are also available when you use Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection for Mac to control a Windows PC.
If you buy the paid version of Apple Remote Desktop, you can use Curtain Mode to lock the screen of the remote Mac while you are controlling it.
I think he's implying a simultaneous screen sharing feature already exists on Windows, although I don't think it does. It might have been added with Win7, but I remember that Vista still only allowed one user at a time.
I realize that this is a Mac biased forum, but come on... Did you really not know about Windows Terminal Services? It was even mentioned in this article as having been around since the Windows NT days.
I realize that this is a Mac biased forum, but come on... Did you really not know about Windows Terminal Services? It was even mentioned at the beginning of this article.
I hardly consider myself biased towards either OS... I use Mac OS X and Windows every day and don't really consider one better than the other.
But that aside, no, I honestly was not aware of such service, simply because I rarely use any screen sharing feature as it is. Not to mention I thought such things were limited to Windows Server editions.
I think there is a potential for some fairly massive implications around this that no one is picking up on.
Think a single Mac Pro running in a small business back office and anywhere up to around 10 very cheap ARM/iOS based iMac's that do nothing but boot up a remote session on the Mac Pro.
It would also have been a compelling use for a rack full of Xserves.
Being able to remote in while keeping the local console locked (like Windows) would finally resolve this.
I thought such things were limited to Windows Server editions.
By default you can't have concurrent user sessions in Windows Vista/Windows 7.
Since Windows and Windows Server 2008 R2 are the same code base (and one retails for about 10 times more than the other!) I'm going to assume it's something Microsoft intentionally switched off to prevent Windows 7 being used in a server environment.
You can switch it back on... if you're willing to use a 3rd party hack. I'm not sure where this stands with the Windows 7 EULA.
It would also have been a compelling use for a rack full of Xserves.
True that. It's why I was thinking small business, not medium/large/enterprise.
To be fair, this kind of Apple product would probably be far more suited to small business than anything larger anyway.
It's possible that Apple could even be more suited to any business without their own I.T department than Microsoft is... if Apple put the work in.
The idea of a cheap, secure and reliable system that's easy to set up combined with maybe an Apple Store "Small Business Center" or at least priority access to the Genius Bar, would be pretty compelling for small businesses.
Killing that ssh connection in one case left the FileVaulted home directory mounted as logging in regularly on the machine itself failed because there were FileVault problems. I only saw this once and haven't tried to reproduce. It required a restart to solve.
But there are actually 2 different behaviors.
1. The basic one is that every program can actually be started to display its windows remotely.
(I wonder whether this will be possible on the Mac -- Of course, using X11 we already can do this now).
2. The higher level one is where the whole login session uses a remote screen.
And there is more to it than just making the windows remote. For the remote session, also file storage ("floppies!" (This is 1 April after all), USB sticks, ...), printing, etc. should at least be an option to use at the client computer.
I do hope that the client on older systems will be able to use these new Lion features.
Good work, Apple. Finally!
(And it is not unlikely that Apple will show the others how to do it much better).
I would love to try but no iPad at moment. So the cursor moves with your finger as you drag your finger around the screen? Or does the cursor simply jump to where you touch instantly?
That depends on which client you use and what its settings are, I'd say. Mine is set to do the former, with a bit of a "momentum" effect which makes it easier to flick the cursor over a large distance. You could most likely find quite a few examples of iPad VNC apps in action on YouTube.