Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops. To have a remote
connection with the other pc's and laptops I use RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but
since last year I have to pay for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a
few connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it can't make a
connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
On 8/1/25 7:11 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11
laptops. To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I
use RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to
pay for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes
it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
Paid:
zoho assist
any desk
Free:
help wire
RDP that comes with Win Pro
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
"J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
Huh? --------.
... |
But isn't there something built-in to Windows, from 7 or 10 onwards?--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...
Tbird, or many an extension, screwed up where it positioned the
signature delimiter (-- \n). Went at the end of a non-blank line
instead of at column 1 of an otherwise blank line. Normally I hide sigblocks, but yours was not properly delineated.
... |
But isn't there something built-in to Windows, from 7 or 10 onwards?--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...
On 8/1/25 10:11 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
I've always used Teamviewer. You can get the remote if you are the only one wanting to
control machines, and then there is a quick support for those who you support (your other
PCs).
On 8/1/25 10:11 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11
laptops. To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I
use RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to
pay for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes
it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
I've always used Teamviewer. You can get the remote if you are the
only one wanting to control machines, and then there is a quick support
for those who you support (your other PCs).
I like it cause I'm on Linux and there is a version for it. I have a login/account and I can save all you remote connections in my account,
like an addressbook. Handy to a quick dial.
Sounds asinine but I used to connect to my wife's pc, 3 ft next to me.
It was easier than unplugging her laptop, handing over the end table,
along with the mouse, putting my laptop down etc etc. just for a 1
minute fix.
Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11
laptops. To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I
use RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to
pay for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes
it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
I've used tightvnc from <https://www.tightvnc.com/>
It works between computers on my LAN, and to any remote computer that I
have configured for access using a LAN-to-LAN VPN.
Fokke Nauta <[email protected]> wrote:
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it
can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
TightVNC
Free, open source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TightVNC
https://www.tightvnc.com/
I haven't used any VNC variant for well over a decade. I wasn't
connecting just between intranetwork hosts, but mostly wanted access
across the Internet, like remoting to my home desktop PC with a laptop
while on vacation. Had to punch a hole in the router's firewall to
forward incoming connects to my home PC running a VNC server. I had
dynamic IP addresses, so I had to use a DDNS (Dynamic DNS) service, like No-IP, OpenDNS, DynDNS, to do the DNS lookup to use a hostname for my
home PC instead, and a DNS updater client to keep the DDNS service
updated with whatever was my current dynamic IP address. I got a free
DDNS account at OpenDNS and used their DNS updater client. Too much
work overall.
TeamViewer is easier to setup. No having to punch through firewalls,
and no DDNS setup. Despite employing for personal use, sometimes Team
Viewer flags you as a commericial user, and can disable your account.
If you're using Chrome for your web browser, there is Chrome Remote
Desktop. I've never used it. While I use Edge which is a Chromium
variant, I don't have Chrome, so no experience with this. I'm guessing
you will need a Google account.
https://remotedesktop.google.com
Helpwire has a free tier.
https://www.helpwire.app/pricing/
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 16:11:14 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
I haven't used it myself, but have you tried NoMachine?
<https://www.nomachine.com/>
"J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
Huh? --------.
... |
But isn't there something built-in to Windows, from 7 or 10 onwards?--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Eve had an Apple, Adam had a Wang...
Tbird, or many an extension, screwed up where it positioned the
signature delimiter (-- \n). Went at the end of a non-blank line
instead of at column 1 of an otherwise blank line. Normally I hide sigblocks, but yours was not properly delineated.
I use Chrome, but I don't know its remote desktop.
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
Have you though of using Ultra VNC? It is
free and not a lot different from Real VNC.
http://www.uvnc.com/downloads/ultravnc.html
WARNING: Lots of JUNKWARE !!
I use UVNC to help friends when I can't use Quick Assist.
WARNING: Lots of JUNKWARE !!
I used Teamviewer for a person on a distance. It worked well. Perhaps I should use it for the pc's and laptops in my house? I'll give it a try!
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 12:15:56 +0100, Philip Herlihy wrote:
I use UVNC to help friends when I can't use Quick Assist.
I've use UltraVNC in the past, but then switched to TeamViewer, because
it was simply easier to let the other party download QuickSupport and
tell me the ID and password over the phone. I've downloaded QuickSupport
to their desktop and placed it in the right corner, same everywhere.
I recently stumbled upon RustDesk which is similar, so I'll give that a
go in the future.
On Fri, 1 Aug 2025 20:45:10 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
I used Teamviewer for a person on a distance. It worked well. Perhaps I
should use it for the pc's and laptops in my house? I'll give it a try!
FYI it's possible you get blocked for using too many connections or
staying connected for too long.
I second TeamViewer (free for non-commercial use). As VLH says, it
sometimes flags you as a commercial user, but if you follow their instructions you can appeal and they'll unblock you.
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
On 01/08/2025 18:19, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I second TeamViewer (free for non-commercial use). As VLH says, it
sometimes flags you as a commercial user, but if you follow their
instructions you can appeal and they'll unblock you.
The flagged-as-commercial restriction is a right PITA. I use TeamViewer
to access my Mum's PC to help her with any problems she may have. Every
6-12 months, it gets flagged as commercial usage and I have to go
through the appeals process yet again. It seems to start working again
properly, but there is no proper response when I certify that it's not commercial access, to confirm that they have received my request and
that normal service should have resumed, so I have to take it on trust
them, even if both client and server are on the same LAN; to remove that restriction and the three-computers restriction, you need to pay.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
8< selective snip >8
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
IIRC you can create that server yourself with RustDesk. I remember
something about using Docker and place that somewhere online (for a
fee). There's YT vids about it.
On 2025/8/2 16:30:7, s|b wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:I just don't understand (I don't really know a lot about the subject)
8< selective snip >8
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
IIRC you can create that server yourself with RustDesk. I remember
something about using Docker and place that somewhere online (for a
fee). There's YT vids about it.
why you need a third-party server (or whatever you call it) at a third location _at all_ (whether at e. g. TeamViewer HQ, or somewhere _you_
pay to run);
I don't understand why it can't be done with just a direct
connection between the two computers. Obviously you have to set up the connection in the first place, and this (IP addresses, intermediate
servers, etc.) is likely to change _between sessions_; maybe this
setting-up _is_ the hard part.
On 2025/8/2 16:30:7, s|b wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:I just don't understand (I don't really know a lot about the subject)
8< selective snip >8
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
IIRC you can create that server yourself with RustDesk. I remember
something about using Docker and place that somewhere online (for a
fee). There's YT vids about it.
why you need a third-party server (or whatever you call it) at a third location _at all_ (whether at e. g. TeamViewer HQ, or somewhere _you_
pay to run); I don't understand why it can't be done with just a direct connection between the two computers. Obviously you have to set up the connection in the first place, and this (IP addresses, intermediate
servers, etc.) is likely to change _between sessions_; maybe this
setting-up _is_ the hard part.
On 01/08/2025 16:11, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it
can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
Thanks for your suggestions.
I installed TightVNC. It worked well for the other pc's, but not for the
wifi laptops. It asked for a password which I didn't know. I filled in
the password for the user of the laptop but that didn't work.
I uninstalled it.
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve
again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in
in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
So - I haven't got a clue.
Fokke
Fokke Nauta <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 16:11, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops. >>> To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it >>> can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
Thanks for your suggestions.
I installed TightVNC. It worked well for the other pc's, but not for the
wifi laptops. It asked for a password which I didn't know. I filled in
the password for the user of the laptop but that didn't work.
I uninstalled it.
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve
again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in
in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
So - I haven't got a clue.
Fokke
The VNC clients connect to a VNC server. You have a VNC client
installed on the remote host, and a VNC server on the local host. For example, you'd have a VNC client on host-A, and a VNC server on host-B.
When you connect the client to the server, the client needs to specify
the login password at the server.
https://www.tightvnc.com/doc/win/TightVNC_for_Windows-Installation_and_Getting_Started.pdf
Installation
Register TightVNC Server as a system service (recommended)
By default, TightVNC Server is installed as a Windows service and
starts immediately after installation. At the end of the
installation you will be asked about passwords for TightVNC
Server as a service, in order to protect it from unauthorized
access.
You SHOULD use a password at the server to ensure that intruders don't
get access to your host running the VNC server.
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve
again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in
in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
On 03/08/2025 02:56, VanguardLH wrote:
Fokke Nauta <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 16:11, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops. >>>> To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay >>>> for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it >>>> can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
Thanks for your suggestions.
I installed TightVNC. It worked well for the other pc's, but not for the >>> wifi laptops. It asked for a password which I didn't know. I filled in
the password for the user of the laptop but that didn't work.
I uninstalled it.
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve
again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in
in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
So - I haven't got a clue.
Fokke
The VNC clients connect to a VNC server. You have a VNC client
installed on the remote host, and a VNC server on the local host. For
example, you'd have a VNC client on host-A, and a VNC server on host-B.
When you connect the client to the server, the client needs to specify
the login password at the server.
I know that. You can choose to not using passwords. As this is all in
our home, I choosed for that.
https://www.tightvnc.com/doc/win/TightVNC_for_Windows-Installation_and_Getting_Started.pdf
Installation
Register TightVNC Server as a system service (recommended)
Ofcourse I did.
By default, TightVNC Server is installed as a Windows service and
starts immediately after installation. At the end of the
installation you will be asked about passwords for TightVNC
Server as a service, in order to protect it from unauthorized
access.
I choosed for not using passwords.
You SHOULD use a password at the server to ensure that intruders don't
get access to your host running the VNC server.
We don't have intruders in our home.
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
and cheaper for those providing the solution.
I think there _is_
something built into Windows, from 7 or 10 on, but the existence of all
these alternatives suggest it's not very good;
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve
again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in
in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
With UltraVNC, you install the server as a service on the machine you
want to support. If you right-click the server icon (system tray) I
seem to remember there are two options to configure settings - in one of these you can set a password. This is useful if you want to control
access to a machine where the connection is initiated from the client application (particularly if you're traversing the Internet to do this).
Try setting up two machines on your local network: one server, one
client, and fool around with it before you try opening ports and
allowing full remote access. If you haven't set a password, try the
"null" password (just hit Enter).
With the arrangement I described above, connections are initiated from
the server end, to a client running at my end. See my post for full
details of this.
Note that I'd normally use Quick Assist between Windows machines (10 and above). But non-technical friends have coped well with both Quick
Assist and my way of using UltraVNC, where I talk them through right- clicking the server icon and entering my address.
--
Phil, London
Fokke Nauta <[email protected]> wrote:
On 03/08/2025 02:56, VanguardLH wrote:
Fokke Nauta <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/08/2025 16:11, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops. >>>>> To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay >>>>> for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it >>>>> can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
Thanks for your suggestions.
I installed TightVNC. It worked well for the other pc's, but not for the >>>> wifi laptops. It asked for a password which I didn't know. I filled in >>>> the password for the user of the laptop but that didn't work.
I uninstalled it.
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve >>>> again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in >>>> in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
So - I haven't got a clue.
Fokke
The VNC clients connect to a VNC server. You have a VNC client
installed on the remote host, and a VNC server on the local host. For
example, you'd have a VNC client on host-A, and a VNC server on host-B.
When you connect the client to the server, the client needs to specify
the login password at the server.
I know that. You can choose to not using passwords. As this is all in
our home, I choosed for that.
https://www.tightvnc.com/doc/win/TightVNC_for_Windows-Installation_and_Getting_Started.pdf
Installation
Register TightVNC Server as a system service (recommended)
Ofcourse I did.
By default, TightVNC Server is installed as a Windows service and
starts immediately after installation. At the end of the
installation you will be asked about passwords for TightVNC
Server as a service, in order to protect it from unauthorized
access.
I choosed for not using passwords.
You SHOULD use a password at the server to ensure that intruders don't
get access to your host running the VNC server.
We don't have intruders in our home.
Then maybe when prompted for a password, you leave it blank, and hit
Enter. The expectation when choosing not to use passwords is that you
don't get prompted for them, but maybe not using password with TightVNC
means you just click through the password prompt. A user reported
"TightVNC site claims there is no default password", like blank or "password", also verified at:
https://www.tightvnc.com/winst.php
"In the default configuration, each user can have his/her own separate
WinVNC password, bit also there is a special default password used when
no user password is available (e.g when nobody is logged in, or if no
user password was set). Note: there is no any predefined default
password in TightVNC, machine-wide password is called "default" just
because it's used when there are no user-specific passwords available."
(They need to use a grammar and spelling checker for their docs.)
Either there is no default password, and you have to specify one, or
maybe they're trying to say the default password is "default".
It was unclear you would use VNC only with your intranetwork hosts
versus having access to one of your intranet hosts from outside your
network, like from the Internet. That's highly likely why there is
password protect on login. When you get a prompt to enter a password,
can you click OK to ignore the prompt?
Just not specifying a password at the server may not mean you don't need
one to log into the server.
https://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/31281/tightvnc-to-windows-7-password
The respondent there said a password is required.
https://www.tightvnc.com/vncpasswd.1.php
"Each password has to be longer than five characters". I can't see how
a blank passwword could be longer than 5 chars.
I have configured UltraVNC, that wasn't difficult. But it still didn't work. >So I uninstalled UltraVNC. I now use TightVNC for the two local pc's.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>
wrote:
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
and cheaper for those providing the solution.
As others have said, it's primarily to be able to work around a nearly universal problem that would otherwise occur when establishing a
connection across the Internet. The target PC is quite often behind a
router. That router commonly performs Network Address Translation (NAT)
and it usually has a stateful firewall (Stateful Packet Inspection,
SPI). NAT translates between the WAN IP address of the router and the
LAN IP address of the target PC, and SPI is responsible for blocking unsolicited inbound traffic, which would include this remote connection.
Add a requirement to configure port forwarding, as well. The router can
be manually configured to allow a remote connection, but the addition of
the third party server makes all of that moot.
I think there _is_
something built into Windows, from 7 or 10 on, but the existence of all
these alternatives suggest it's not very good;
Remote Desktop client is included in every version of Windows from XP
onward, while Remote Desktop server/host is only included in the Pro and Enterprise versions. The problem with RD isn't that it's not very good,
it's simply that it's not always available, such as when you want to
connect to a PC running a Home version. Home can be a client, but not a server.
I've been using RD as a permanent method of accessing a headless PC on
my LAN for well over 10 years now, maybe closer to 20 years. I think it
works just fine for how I use it. I could use it over the Internet,
which is something I've done just to see how well it works, but my
normal use case is strictly within my LAN.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>
wrote:
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
and cheaper for those providing the solution.
As others have said, it's primarily to be able to work around a nearly universal problem that would otherwise occur when establishing a
connection across the Internet. The target PC is quite often behind a
router. That router commonly performs Network Address Translation (NAT)
and it usually has a stateful firewall (Stateful Packet Inspection,
SPI). NAT translates between the WAN IP address of the router and the
LAN IP address of the target PC, and SPI is responsible for blocking unsolicited inbound traffic, which would include this remote connection.
Add a requirement to configure port forwarding, as well. The router can
be manually configured to allow a remote connection, but the addition of
the third party server makes all of that moot.
the thing is, TeamViewer make it hard enough for _me_
to find the QS download on their website - I give those I'm wanting to
help the direct link to it when I find it (or actually send them - or
put it somewhere and point them to it - the executable).
I recently stumbled upon RustDesk
Do you know of any third parties that host
Rust Desk for you?
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. Don't use passwords and
it works well. With my wife's W11 laptop it won't connect. It didn't ask
for a password. I get an error message, saying that the connection has failed.
With my W11 laptop, it asks for a password. I didn't set a password.
With a secons attempt I did set a password, but it still didn't work.
The password was not accepted.
So I won't use TightVNC for the W11 wifi connected laptops.
On 03/08/2025 22:07, Philip Herlihy wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve
again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in
in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
With UltraVNC, you install the server as a service on the machine you
want to support. If you right-click the server icon (system tray) I
seem to remember there are two options to configure settings - in one of
these you can set a password. This is useful if you want to control
access to a machine where the connection is initiated from the client
application (particularly if you're traversing the Internet to do this).
Try setting up two machines on your local network: one server, one
client, and fool around with it before you try opening ports and
allowing full remote access. If you haven't set a password, try the
"null" password (just hit Enter).
With the arrangement I described above, connections are initiated from
the server end, to a client running at my end. See my post for full
details of this.
Note that I'd normally use Quick Assist between Windows machines (10 and
above). But non-technical friends have coped well with both Quick
Assist and my way of using UltraVNC, where I talk them through right-
clicking the server icon and entering my address.
--
Phil, London
Thanks.the password is for the app not the connected PCs
I have configured UltraVNC, that wasn't difficult. But it still didn't
work.
So I uninstalled UltraVNC. I now use TightVNC for the two local pc's.
Fokke
On 2025/8/4 2:41:39, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2025 15:46:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>
wrote:
It puzzles me why so many of these solutions involve a third-party
server; surely direct connection between the machines would be simpler,
and cheaper for those providing the solution.
As others have said, it's primarily to be able to work around a nearly
universal problem that would otherwise occur when establishing a
connection across the Internet. The target PC is quite often behind a
router. That router commonly performs Network Address Translation (NAT)
and it usually has a stateful firewall (Stateful Packet Inspection,
SPI). NAT translates between the WAN IP address of the router and the
LAN IP address of the target PC, and SPI is responsible for blocking
unsolicited inbound traffic, which would include this remote connection.
Blocking unsolicited is good, but in these cases, we're talking about >_wanted_ traffic.
Add a requirement to configure port forwarding, as well. The router can
be manually configured to allow a remote connection, but the addition of
the third party server makes all of that moot.
I guess getting round the problem of getting the connection set up in
the first place is a significant part.>
I think there _is_
something built into Windows, from 7 or 10 on, but the existence of all
these alternatives suggest it's not very good;
Remote Desktop client is included in every version of Windows from XP
onward, while Remote Desktop server/host is only included in the Pro and
Enterprise versions. The problem with RD isn't that it's not very good,
it's simply that it's not always available, such as when you want to
connect to a PC running a Home version. Home can be a client, but not a
server.
Ah, so it _isn't_ really part of (the Home versions of) Windows.>
I've been using RD as a permanent method of accessing a headless PC onInteresting, thanks. (How well _did_ you think it worked?)
my LAN for well over 10 years now, maybe closer to 20 years. I think it
works just fine for how I use it. I could use it over the Internet,
which is something I've done just to see how well it works, but my
normal use case is strictly within my LAN.
On Mon, 4 Aug 2025 11:55:01 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]>
wrote:
Blocking unsolicited is good, but in these cases, we're talking about
_wanted_ traffic.
Wanted by the human, yes, but not wanted by the router's firewall that
sits out front and acts as a gatekeeper. Until you configure that
firewall, and likely the firewall on the PC itself, it's all going to be treated as 'unwanted', which means it'll be blocked.
Remote Desktop client is included in every version of Windows from XP
Ah, so it _isn't_ really part of (the Home versions of) Windows.>
I've been using RD as a permanent method of accessing a headless PC onInteresting, thanks. (How well _did_ you think it worked?)
my LAN for well over 10 years now, maybe closer to 20 years. I think it
works just fine for how I use it. I could use it over the Internet,
which is something I've done just to see how well it works, but my
normal use case is strictly within my LAN.
It worked fine, if you just think about the Remote Desktop connection
itself, limited to the ability to log into a remote PC and do everything
you could do as if you were sitting right there in front of it. I wasn't comfortable with some of the security aspects, however, including the requirement to punch a permanent hole in the router's firewall and
configure port forwarding there, as well as punching a permanent hole in
the PC's firewall. Normally, you'd also want to keep track of the target
IP address, but in my case it hasn't changed since I moved to this area
over 6 years ago.
Fokke Nauta <[email protected]> wrote:
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. Don't use passwords and
it works well. With my wife's W11 laptop it won't connect. It didn't ask
for a password. I get an error message, saying that the connection has
failed.
With my W11 laptop, it asks for a password. I didn't set a password.
With a secons attempt I did set a password, but it still didn't work.
The password was not accepted.
So I won't use TightVNC for the W11 wifi connected laptops.
Instead of newsgroups or web forums, TightVNC has mailing lists. See:
https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php
or
https://sourceforge.net/projects/vnc-tight/lists/vnc-tight-list
Maybe some users there can help with password issues if no one here
comes up with a resolution for you. Sourceforge has become increasingly
slow to respond at their web site. No idea if their mailing lists
suffer the same issue.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
I have configured UltraVNC, that wasn't difficult. But it still didn't work. >> So I uninstalled UltraVNC. I now use TightVNC for the two local pc's.
All I can say is that I've installed UltraVNC on numerous machines over
many years and never had any problems with it. It may perhaps be that
it's not as clear how to set it up successfully as it might be?
--
Phil, London
On 8/4/2025 5:24 AM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
On 03/08/2025 22:07, Philip Herlihy wrote:the password is for the app not the connected PCs
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
I installed UltraVNC. It didn't work. It is asking for a password. Onve >>>> again I filled in the password for the user of the laptop but that
didn't work. I installed a password in the server, but filling this in >>>> in the viewer didn't work as well. So I unstalled this as well.
With UltraVNC, you install the server as a service on the machine you
want to support. If you right-click the server icon (system tray) I
seem to remember there are two options to configure settings - in one of >>> these you can set a password. This is useful if you want to control
access to a machine where the connection is initiated from the client
application (particularly if you're traversing the Internet to do this). >>> Try setting up two machines on your local network: one server, one
client, and fool around with it before you try opening ports and
allowing full remote access. If you haven't set a password, try the
"null" password (just hit Enter).
With the arrangement I described above, connections are initiated from
the server end, to a client running at my end. See my post for full
details of this.
Note that I'd normally use Quick Assist between Windows machines (10 and >>> above). But non-technical friends have coped well with both Quick
Assist and my way of using UltraVNC, where I talk them through right-
clicking the server icon and entering my address.
--
Phil, London
Thanks.
I have configured UltraVNC, that wasn't difficult. But it still didn't
work.
So I uninstalled UltraVNC. I now use TightVNC for the two local pc's.
Fokke
I recently stumbled upon RustDesk
Michael Logies wrote:<Missing attribution line omitted by sb.>
VanguardLH said:
https://remotedesktop.google.com
It is very reliable and fast.
It's Google. I tried RustDesk today and my impression was that it's
faster than TeamViewer. It also didn't let me perform administrator
functions without the other party's permission which imo is a good
thing.
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11 laptops.
To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I use
RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to pay
for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
On 01/08/2025 15:11, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11
laptops. To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I
use RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to
pay for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes
it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
I'm told https://www.tightvnc.com/ is good.
On 04/08/2025 11:50, Philip Herlihy wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
I have configured UltraVNC, that wasn't difficult. But it still didn't work.
So I uninstalled UltraVNC. I now use TightVNC for the two local pc's.
All I can say is that I've installed UltraVNC on numerous machines over
many years and never had any problems with it. It may perhaps be that
it's not as clear how to set it up successfully as it might be?
--
Phil, London
It wasn't difficult to set it up.
But it did not work for the two wifi laptops.
Fokke
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
On 04/08/2025 11:50, Philip Herlihy wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
I have configured UltraVNC, that wasn't difficult. But it still didn't work.
So I uninstalled UltraVNC. I now use TightVNC for the two local pc's.
All I can say is that I've installed UltraVNC on numerous machines over
many years and never had any problems with it. It may perhaps be that
it's not as clear how to set it up successfully as it might be?
--
Phil, London
It wasn't difficult to set it up.
But it did not work for the two wifi laptops.
Fokke
I see my previous "diplomatic language" missed the mark. You have
something misconfigured. If it asks for a password and you haven't set
one, try just hitting Enter.
Otherwise, make sure the Windows firewall
is set to allow this app on both private and public networks.
(For
securer ways of operating over the Internet, rather than your LAN, see
my previous posts.
On 01/08/2025 15:11, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11
laptops. To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops I
use RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have to
pay for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a few
connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and sometimes
it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
I'm told https://www.tightvnc.com/ is good.
On 06/08/2025 20:55, Brian Gregory wrote:
On 01/08/2025 15:11, Fokke Nauta wrote:
Hi all,
At home I have my own W10 pc and two other W10 pc's and two W11
laptops. To have a remote connection with the other pc's and laptops
I use RealVNC Viewer. U used it for years, but since last year I have
to pay for it (about 250 euro's per year). It's limited for just a
few connections. I'm not happy with it. It's too expensive, and
sometimes it can't make a connection.
Can you advice me an alternative that is cheaper and works well?
Many thanks in advance.
With kind regards,
Fokke Nauta
I'm told https://www.tightvnc.com/ is good.
Or I guess if you just want something that's dead simple to use which requires no expertise to secure it, then go with Chrome Remote Desktop, especially if you already have the Chrome browser installed.
https://remotedesktop.google.com
https://remotedesktop.google.com
It is very reliable and fast.
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.
If you're still without a solution for the W11 laptops, try running the
UVNC server on one (running as a service), and a "listening client" on
the other. On the latter, open port 5500 via your firewall, and run the listening client. On the server, right-click the system tray icon and
pick "new connection" (forget exact words, but it's obvious) and give
the local IP address of the machine running the client. That should
work, and give you a basis to work from. If it doesn't work for you,
I'd suggest using an AI research tool like Perplexity or ChatGPT to help
you diagnose the problem. Good luck!
--
Phil, London
I have scaled RealVNC down to two clients, which is much cheaper. I
now use it for the laptops.
Fokke Nauta <[email protected]> wrote:
I have scaled RealVNC down to two clients, which is much cheaper. I
now use it for the laptops.
Since you pay for it, some support is included. They have their FAQs
and help pages, their web-based forums, and a web form to submit an
online request for help. Sometimes FAQs and forums aren't sufficient.
It has been so long since I last using VNC that, I think, when I long
ago tested several variant RealVNC was free back then.
Free is nice,
but support can be critical when you need it. I don't care for subscriptionware, though: $8.95/mo, billed annually ($99/yr) for an Essentials license with 1 user over 3 devices.
They probably went to
that model to afford providing support; else, a one-time purchase with lifetime support has diminishing ROI over time; however, once you have everything working, often you no longer need support, but then you're
paying yearly for support you no longer need.
Free is nice, but sometimes paid is better. Over decades of using free Usenet, I eventually decided to pay for it but wanted something cheap
(10 euro/yr, ~$12 USD/yr) with high up-time. I tried LibreOffice for
over a year, but there were too many workarounds or missing functions,
so I went back to MS Office, but got the standalone 2021 Pro Plus for
real cheap ($35) from a known, trustworthy, and reliable seller.
I used
to pay for eM Client (I gave up on Thunderbird after 6 trials with the
last one lasting 6 months), but now I'm back to MS Outlook (the client,
not their webapp).
Sometimes free can be great. I have lots of
freeware. Sometimes payware is a better choice. The effort you expend
in setting up, debugging, and maintaining freeware can be offset by
something that works straight out of the box. However, I'd rather pay
for a one-time lifetime license, but I don't see RealVNC offers one for personal use.
Depends if you like challenges. For me, I'd probably go with a
different and freeware VNC variant, especially only for only
intranetwork hosts. Getting secure external access requires much more
setup. For me, the wifi hosts not working would be a challenge, and I'm stubborn, er, determined enough to make it work. Wifi adds more
complication to the networking than wired Ethernet connections.
TightVNC has their mailing lists (https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php) to
get help. UltraVNC has their forums (https://forum.uvnc.com/). I can't
say if either would prove fruitful to resolve problems since I've never visited there. I'd first prefer newsgroups,
secondly web forums, and
lastly mailing lists, but help is help. However, maybe you already paid
for the RealVNC subscriptionware license,
and figure you're done with
all the hassle.
I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.
TightVNC has their mailing lists (https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php) to
get help. UltraVNC has their forums (https://forum.uvnc.com/). I can't
say if either would prove fruitful to resolve problems since I've never visited there. I'd first prefer newsgroups, secondly web forums, and
lastly mailing lists, but help is help. However, maybe you already paid
for the RealVNC subscriptionware license, and figure you're done with
all the hassle.
On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:
[]
I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.
[]
I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).
It works fine under W10-64, and I've yet to find _anything_ I want that
needs any features in later versions (and yet to find anything that
needs me to save in one of the .???x formats, either). [In fact, I
probably would have been happy with Office 97, 1998 ("Burgundy")
edition; the only difference between that and 2003 that I actually _use_
is more flexible cell alignment in Word tables. But I don't know if that would run on later Windows.]
(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using
that too.)
On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:
[]
I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.
[]
I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).
(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using
that too.)
When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product
activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.
Fokke
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.
I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.
I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of TeamViewer.
On 2025/8/10 18:33:38, Fokke Nauta wrote:
On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:
[]
I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.
[]
I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).
[]
(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using >>> that too.)
When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product
activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.
Fokke
Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did
actually buy it
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.
I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.
I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of TeamViewer.
On 10/08/2025 20:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did
actually buy it
Fully agree.
- I think it might have been through an employee scheme.
?
Fokke
s|b wrote:
Fokke Nauta wrote:
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.
I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer.
Is RustDesk free?
J. P. Gilliver wrote:
Fokke Nauta wrote:
When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product
activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.
Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of
Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did
actually buy it
Fully agree.
- I think it might have been through an employee scheme.
"J. P. Gilliver" <[email protected]> wrote:
s|b wrote:
I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer.
Is RustDesk free?
Yes, for personal-use only (https://rustdesk.com/pricing); however,
their comparison page doesn't mention the limitations. The other
editions mention the number of logged in users, and number of managed devices, but no mention of a limit for the free plan. While their free version is OSS, their other versions are not.
Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has
you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server.
VanguardLH wrote:
their comparison page doesn't mention the limitations. The other
editions mention the number of logged in users, and number of
managed devices, but no mention of a limit for the free plan. While
their free version is OSS, their other versions are not.
Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk
has you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC
server.
Is that on your own machine?
Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has
you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server.
BTW, I learned more about Rustdesk by having to research it more. No, I don't use it, and never have used it. With Teamviewer, all I had to doI don't remember seeing it, but then I probably would have avoided it
was install their client on each endpoint host no matter if it was an intranet or accessed across the Internet. Actually, for Teamviewer, you don't have to install anything as you can use web browsers at each
endpoint to do a remote connect. Up to you to choose between their
desktop client or web app. However, I don't recall if you get to use
their web client with their free service tier.
I've used Teamviewer in the past. You don't setup a server. They
provide that. It is only to coordinate handshaking between the endpoint clients. Once they are connected, the server is no longer involved.
For Rustdeak, just change their fluffy terminology of self-hosted server
to just server, just like you have to do with a VNC server. You have to provide your own server, just like with VNC.
I fear, if I need remote desktop in the future, I'll probably be back on TeamViewer - or one of the other similar. Or, possibly, nothing.
I'm afraid you lost mr pretty early on - which is no criticism of your >answer, more of my ageing ability to absorb.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:31:43 +0100, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
I fear, if I need remote desktop in the future, I'll probably be back on
TeamViewer - or one of the other similar. Or, possibly, nothing.
I've been using TeamViewer for ages, but at one point it accused me of commercial use or I left the connection open for too long. Recently, I
used RustDesk and my impression is that it's faster than TeamViewer.
Setting it up is a no brainer: you download the portable EXE and run it.
The other party does the same and provides you with an ID and password, exactly as in TeamViewer. RustDesk is also a bit smaller than
TeamViewer's QuickSupport.
RustDesk also allows you to set up favourites, so I'm assuming ID and password stay the same.
I've been using TeamViewer for ages, but at one point it accused me of commercial use or I left the connection open for too long. Recently, I
used RustDesk and my impression is that it's faster than TeamViewer.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 13:03:33 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
I've used Teamviewer in the past. You don't setup a server. They
provide that. It is only to coordinate handshaking between the endpoint
clients. Once they are connected, the server is no longer involved.
For Rustdeak, just change their fluffy terminology of self-hosted server
to just server, just like you have to do with a VNC server. You have to
provide your own server, just like with VNC.
Nope. Simply open the (portable) EXE, other party does the same and
provides ID and password, so you can connect with it. If you don't trust
the RustDesk servers, then you can choose to set up your own server.
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 08:53:03 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has
you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server.
I saw a YouTube vid about that days ago and IIRC you can choose: either
you use their servers or you set one up yourself. All I know is it works
the same as TeamViewer. There's no setting up a server. You download the portable EXE and run it. The other party does the same and provides an
ID and password, so you can connect with it.
As I noted using their own stats page, Rustdesk's public rendezvous
server does not have high reliability (aka high uptime) per their own
specs.
https://rustdesk.github.io/uptime/history/rust-desk-public-rendezvous-server
26% uptime seems high to you? 114 ms latency (sometimes up to 300 ms)
seems low to you?
I suspect if you paid for their closed-source versions that you get to connect to better servers with better load balancing and redundancy (aka
a larger server farm).
On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the
two wifi W11 laptops.
I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and
password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.
I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better
results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of
TeamViewer.
version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think
you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?)
That could be due to where you are, and where is the public rendezvous Rustdesk server to which you connect. I found rs-ny.rustdesk.com
mentioned, and my traceroute to it shows a huge jump in delay most
likely caused by having to go over the undersea cable to connect the
hosts across the pond.
tracert rs-ny.rustdesk.com
...
9 21 ms {myISP}
10 21 ms ae8.cr9-chi1.ip4.gtt.net [63.141.223.245]
11 115 ms ae2.cr2-ams13.ip4.gtt.net [141.136.106.174]
12 114 ms ip4.gtt.net [154.14.36.78]
13 * Request timed out.
14 * Request timed out.
15 115 ms 209.250.254.15.vultrusercontent.com [209.250.254.15]
Even though the nodes on each side of the pond are with gtt.net, their
own network spans the ocean across their data centers. GTT is global.
The added latency impinges on every packet across the pond.
You could do a traceroute on the Teamview rendezvous server to see if
you going the other way across the pond.
By the way, vultrusercontent.com resolves to 127.0.0.1. Odd it resolves
to localhost. Likely they don't want you directly using that hostname
since it is a frontend to redirect to their farm of actual servers.
On 2025/8/12 2:35:18, VanguardLH wrote:
[]
As I noted using their own stats page, Rustdesk's public rendezvous
server does not have high reliability (aka high uptime) per their own
specs.
https://rustdesk.github.io/uptime/history/rust-desk-public-rendezvous-server >>
26% uptime seems high to you? 114 ms latency (sometimes up to 300 ms)
seems low to you?
I suspect if you paid for their closed-source versions that you get to
connect to better servers with better load balancing and redundancy (aka
a larger server farm).
1 in 4 chance of it working sounds pretty useless - unless (a) its
uptime distribution is spread, i. e. it's up for say 1 second in 4, or
maybe as long as 5 seconds in 20 AND (b) it's only needed to help the
two ends establish connection. If it needs to be up throughout your connection, then 26% isn't usable, and the latency would also come into consideration.
So - _does_ the server need to be there throughout your connection, or
just to establish it? And if the latter, and it's only up 26% of the
time, how long do you usually have to wait for it?
(For that matter, does a TeamViewer connection use the server all the
time or just initially? The fact that they know how long you stay
connected [and allegedly decide you're commercial if you stay on too
long] suggests it is a continuous thing, though that could be just it
looks say once an hour, minute, whatever to see if you still are.)
On 2025-08-12 02:20, VanguardLH wrote:
That could be due to where you are, and where is the public rendezvous
Rustdesk server to which you connect. I found rs-ny.rustdesk.com
mentioned, and my traceroute to it shows a huge jump in delay most
likely caused by having to go over the undersea cable to connect the
hosts across the pond.
This interpretation in the last sentence is wrong, see below ...
'The pond' is crossed by optical fibres, which by definition carry
signals at the speed of light for that medium, ...
"Some real-world data: The IEX stock exchange routes their traffic
through 61km of wound up fiber as a speed bump for traders, which
introduces 350 �s delay.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/80043/how-fast-does-light-travel-through-a-fibre-optic-cablethat should be 61km/c = 204 µs.They do not specify where the additional 146 µs delay comes from (e.g. reduced speed of light inside the fiber, longer travel distance, maybe even delay from the electric components that send and receive the signal). –
"Some real-world data: The IEX stock exchange routes their traffic through 61km of wound up fiber as a speed bump for traders, which introduces 350 µs delay. See exchange.iex.io/about/speed-bump and youtu.be/d8BcCLLX4N4?t=159. The minimal delay from
Java Jive <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 2025-08-12 02:20, VanguardLH wrote:
That could be due to where you are, and where is the public rendezvous
Rustdesk server to which you connect. I found rs-ny.rustdesk.com
mentioned, and my traceroute to it shows a huge jump in delay most
likely caused by having to go over the undersea cable to connect the
hosts across the pond.
This interpretation in the last sentence is wrong, see below ...
Satellites also incur jumps in latency.
Mobile networks can be even worse for latency.
'The pond' is crossed by optical fibres, which by definition carry
signals at the speed of light for that medium, ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable
Yes, the core are optical fibers. You can see a map of them at:
https://www.submarinecablemap.com/
Unfortunately the map doesn't specify the type of submarine cable for a particular route. For example, hover over the Atlantic Crossing-1 cable (purple), click on it, and the info panel shows some info, but not the
type of cable.
"Some real-world data: The IEX stock exchange routes their traffic
through 61km of wound up fiber as a speed bump for traders, which
introduces 350 µs delay.
Based on that example, the Atlantic Crossing-1 fiber cable would incur
350 microseconds x (14301 km / 61 km) = 82 ms. However, repeaters are required for the transatlantic cables, and add further delay.
https://www.submarinenetworks.com/en/component/tags/tag/trans-atlantic
Unforunately "low latency" doesn't provide an actual value. Some of the cables listed have latencies mentioned: 68 ms for AEConnect, 60 to 120
ms for Ellalink, 56 ms for EXA Express (between New York and London).
With AEConnect with its 5200 km span as another example, 68 ms x (14301
km / 5200 km) = 187 ms for the AC-1 cable.
I did find other info at:
https://www.iptp.net/wp-content/uploads/IPTPMap_2017_1000x700-small.pdf
which shows some latencies, like 64 ms from New York to London (scroll
down to the bottom showing the concentric circles for major cities, and latencies to other cities). Worse is New York to Singapore at 252 ms.
Theoreticals rarely equal actuals. For those using Rustdesk's or Teamviewer's public rendezvous servers, they need to measure latency for THEIR route to the server.
the delays are caused by other things, such as how the intervening
systems are configured and/or how busy they are at the time.
VanguardLH wrote:
Mobile networks can be even worse for latency.
Yes, but we're discussing undersea fibre-optic cables.
Theoreticals rarely equal actuals. For those using Rustdesk's or
Teamviewer's public rendezvous servers, they need to measure latency for
THEIR route to the server.
All of which exactly supports my statement ...
No, the rendezvous server is just to handle the initial handshaking
between the endpoint hosts.
If all you are connecting are your intranet hosts, both Teamviewer and Rustdesk will require your intranet hosts to connect outside to theThat makes sense. (Though do TeamViewer at least have a look, maybe
Internet to get at their public rendezvous servers. That connection is
only short-lived for the server to facilitate one host finding another.
After the server gets the endpoints connected, the server [should] steps
out of the circuit. Those services do not want to pay for the bandwidth resources to pipe all your inter-host traffic through their network.
Java Jive <[email protected]d> wrote:
VanguardLH wrote:
Mobile networks can be even worse for latency.
Yes, but we're discussing undersea fibre-optic cables.
Um, who brought mobile networks into the discussion? Oh, yeah, that was
you. "Whereas for me in Scotland, using a mobile broadband connection".
Theoreticals rarely equal actuals. For those using Rustdesk's or
Teamviewer's public rendezvous servers, they need to measure latency for >>> THEIR route to the server.
All of which exactly supports my statement ...
Um, who said to measure latency? That was me first.
You brought in
thereotical calculations (which were way off), and an example.
I
brought more examples.
Yep, all of that supported my claim that the
ocean cabling incurs a big jump in latency.
Thanks for agreeing.
On 8/11/2025 9:09 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >>>> two wifi W11 laptops.
I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and
password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a
list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.
I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better
results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of
TeamViewer.
version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think
you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?)
I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
Windows 10 (fully up to date)
Windows 11 (fully up to date)
Anduin Linux(fully up to date)
Arch Linux (fully up to date)
Fedora 41 (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 25.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 2510 LTS (fully up to date)
Mint 21-3 (fully up to date)
Mint 22 (fully up to date)
nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
it on my home lan: no internet access even though they support it. YMMV
but it works perfectly for my use case and I haven't found any 'edge'
cases.
Richard
On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:
On 8/11/2025 9:09 AM, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote:
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote:Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial
I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >>>>> two wifi W11 laptops.
I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than
TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and >>>> password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a >>>> list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is
searching for clients/guests within the home network.
I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better >>>> results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of >>>> TeamViewer.
version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think
you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?)
I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
Windows 10 (fully up to date)
Windows 11 (fully up to date)
Anduin Linux(fully up to date)
Arch Linux (fully up to date)
Fedora 41 (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 24.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 25.04 LTS (fully up to date)
Ubuntu 2510 LTS (fully up to date)
Mint 21-3 (fully up to date)
Mint 22 (fully up to date)
nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
it on my home lan: no internet access even though they support it.
YMMV but it works perfectly for my use case and I haven't found any
'edge' cases.
Richard
Presumably
- https://www.nomachine.com/
On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:
On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:
I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
Presumably
- https://www.nomachine.com/
I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.
Fokke
On 2025/8/13 10:39:30, Fokke Nauta wrote:
On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:
On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:
[]
I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
[]
nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
[]
Presumably
- https://www.nomachine.com/
I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.
Fokke
Please tell us how usable/reliable/whatever you find it.
I have installed it on a W10 Pro pc.
I would advice not to use it. It's not user friendly, and it doesn't
work with a client and a server, as other VNC programs work. It has its
own network. I didn't like it and didn't go any further.
I uninstalled it.
With your setup, you are using their rendezvous server to connect the endpoint hosts. Self-hosted servers means you create your own
rendezvous server. Upon first reading, I thought Rustdesk required you
to setup your own self-host server simply because they didn't make it
obvious they had publicly accessible rendezvous servers (well, I only
found one, and it appears they have a problem with the ever increasing workload on their "demo" server).
Setting it up is a no brainer: you download the portable EXE and run it. The other party does the same and provides you with an ID and password, exactly as in TeamViewer. RustDesk is also a bit smaller than
TeamViewer's QuickSupport.
Ah. If you read the VLH post to which I was replying, you'll see why I
was losing the will to live thinking about it. If it's really as simple
as you say, I was worrying unnecessarily.>
RustDesk also allows you to set up favourites, so I'm assuming ID and password stay the same.
Presumably those are stored on their server.
VanguardLH wrote:
With your setup, you are using their rendezvous server to connect the
endpoint hosts. Self-hosted servers means you create your own
rendezvous server. Upon first reading, I thought Rustdesk required you
to setup your own self-host server simply because they didn't make it
obvious they had publicly accessible rendezvous servers (well, I only
found one, and it appears they have a problem with the ever increasing
workload on their "demo" server).
They refer to this site for a free server: <https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/self-host/rustdesk-server-oss/>
If you are familiar with installing and configuring a VNC server, along
with punching holes in firewalls, defining port forwarding rules, and
using DDNS if your endpoint hosts don't get static IP addresses, then
you have the wherewithall to figure out how to use Rustdesk's
self-hosted rendezvous server.
Think of someone asking how to view image files. They could use
Irfanview, XnView, FastStone, etc. They weren't asking how to edit
image files using Paint.NET, GIMP, Photoshop, etc. They don't need nor
want a plethora of features they won't use. They want quick and easy
viewing only.
On 13/08/2025 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/8/13 10:39:30, Fokke Nauta wrote:
On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:
On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:
[]
I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
[]
nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only use
[]
Presumably
- https://www.nomachine.com/
I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.
Fokke
Please tell us how usable/reliable/whatever you find it.
I have installed it on a W10 Pro pc.
I would advice not to use it. It's not user friendly, and it doesn't
work with a client and a server, as other VNC programs work. It has its
own network. I didn't like it and didn't go any further.
I uninstalled it.
Fokke
On 8/13/2025 12:33 PM, Fokke Nauta wrote:
On 13/08/2025 13:13, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
On 2025/8/13 10:39:30, Fokke Nauta wrote:
On 13/08/2025 10:26, wasbit wrote:
On 12/08/2025 12:49, rsutton wrote:
[]
I have recently switched to free nomachine for all my systems:
[]
nomachine was easy to install and has given me no problems. I only >>>>>> use
[]
Presumably
- https://www.nomachine.com/
I've just downloaded it. I'm gonna have a look at it.
Fokke
Please tell us how usable/reliable/whatever you find it.
I have installed it on a W10 Pro pc.
I would advice not to use it. It's not user friendly, and it doesn't
work with a client and a server, as other VNC programs work. It has
its own network. I didn't like it and didn't go any further.
I uninstalled it.
Fokke
Fokke,
You don't have to use their 'network' if you confine it to just your
lan. That's what I do. I don't allow these company servers to have my info, either. I just use it as a more reliable program that runs
equally well on my linux desktops on my lan. I don't remember if you
needed remote internet access.
Richard
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 157:02:15 |
| Calls: | 12,093 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,746 |