Brad Campbell <lists2009@???> writes:
> On 08/03/16 04:41, Simon Hobson wrote:
>>
>> VNC is lousy over anything but a very fast link, it's just a remote
>> framebuffer - anything painted to the screen is bit copied to the
>> client which is bandwidth intensive.
>
> Whereas tightvnc works quite well over almost anything, and if you are
> willing to drop to a small colour pallete

Considering that tightvnc is Windows-only software it seems a bit out of
place here. I also seriously doubt this claim (but can't verify that)
because it uses the exact same protocol as VNC. I have some experience
with similar technology outside of the domain of "Windows freeware",
namely, SunRay thin clients. Sun used to recommend a dedicated, 100MBit
LAN for these, with 'using a VLAN of a non-dedicated LAN' as 'you can do
that if you really want to but be prepared to suffer' option.

Regardless of that, the "remote desktop access" model is also very
limiting/ annoying when compared with possibilty to enable applications
running on different computers to use a single display.