VNC or PC anywhere or ???

[amdskip]

My brother's school is limiting his bandwidth to 1gb a day useage and they simply turn you off when you go over. He runs a fantasy league website for basketball and he needs to upload files all the time to update it. He is worried about running over because you only get so many chances and then your port gets turned off permanently.

At home we have cable internet hooked up to a LINKSYS WRT54G. I also have a Dell SC420 server with a trial version of server 2k3 installed currently. I think I would need to use something like http://www.dyndns.com for our dynamic IP and from there I'm not sure what to do.

What would be the best way so that he uses the least amount of bandwidth as possible? I guess he would like to use and modifying files on the computer at home from his computer at school. If worse comes to worse he could always just run to a lab with a jumpdrive and upload them there I suppose but it would be nice to have something setup at home.

 

[ktwebb]

I prefer Remote Desktop to either of those solutions. Just forward port 3389 and setup RD accordingly on the machine the port is getting forwarded to. VNC and/or PCAnywhere would work similarly, using different ports. Weaker products however IMO with mouse and keyboard lag as the primary detractor. The remote part is pretty easy. How the college monitors and polices outbound traffic is another thing.

 

[JackMDS]

May be this can Help.

Link to: Set Up Remote Desktop Web Connection with Windows XP.

Link to: How to use remote Desktop Access in Windows XP.

Otherwise I use Ultr@VNC (free program). Its provides: Remote Control, File Transfer, and Chat between LAN computers or over the Internet. It takes only few minutes to set it.

Link to: How to connect to Computer/Server through this Internet?

:sun:

 

[Joemonkey]

I too agree with UltraVNC as the weapon of choice here

 

[slunk]

UltraVNC!!!

 

[ktwebb]

If I read the original post correctly, this user would be logging into a 2k3 server? If that is the case then RD is a superior solution to any VNC variant. Only reason to use VNC or PCAnywhere type app instead of RD would be your not running an OS that supports it server side.

 

[Rilex]

++ RDC

RDP is a more efficient protocol than VNC/PCA. And if you need the console session you can grab it using mstsc /console.

 

[Joemonkey]

Originally posted by: Rilex
++ RDC

RDP is a more efficient protocol than VNC/PCA. And if you need the console session you can grab it using mstsc /console.

wow i can't believe i didn't know that, thanks!

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: Rilex
++ RDC

RDP is a more efficient protocol than VNC/PCA. And if you need the console session you can grab it using mstsc /console.

Link?

 

[Rilex]

By the very fact that RDP only updates geometry and not pixel-by-pixel, similar to Citrix ICA which is hearlded as the fastest thin client? Along with bitmap caching and virtual drivers (sound, video).

Run both over a 56K link, the difference is very apparent. Even with a 3Mbps the difference is pronounced.

 

[JackMDS]

RDP is a good choice, and VNC is a good choice too.

As usual, there is No Best or right and wrong, it depends on what specifically need to be done, LAN, or Internet, how often it is used, and who is on the other side.

If the main goal is just to start an FTP client and upload files, Ultr@VNC might be a better choice.

:sun:

 

[cmetz]

ultravnc

 

[ssbpgsr]

Originally posted by: cmetz
ultravnc

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: ssbpgsr

Originally posted by: cmetz
ultravnc

Why would someone want to use VNC or its derivatives? RDC/RDP is vastly faster. What advantage does VNC have in this day and age, assuming XP Pro as the target desktop, and single-user login being OK and acceptable?

 

[JackMDS]

Well theory aside try to do what the OP needs to do, and see which method works functionally better.

:sun:

 

[dclive]

Originally posted by: amdskip
My brother's school is limiting his bandwidth to 1gb a day useage and they simply turn you off when you go over. He runs a fantasy league website for basketball and he needs to upload files all the time to update it. He is worried about running over because you only get so many chances and then your port gets turned off permanently.

At home we have cable internet hooked up to a LINKSYS WRT54G. I also have a Dell SC420 server with a trial version of server 2k3 installed currently. I think I would need to use something like http://www.dyndns.com for our dynamic IP and from there I'm not sure what to do.

What would be the best way so that he uses the least amount of bandwidth as possible? I guess he would like to use and modifying files on the computer at home from his computer at school. If worse comes to worse he could always just run to a lab with a jumpdrive and upload them there I suppose but it would be nice to have something setup at home.

Does he *just* need to upload files to a certain directory on the server? If so, a simple FTP server will not suck up any additional bandwidth, and lots of FTP clients let you track how much uploading the client is doing (and you can track it on the server too, but it's not as obvious or easy).

 

[Rilex]

Well, screen speed in the console is significantly faster with RDP, I'm not sure why, given the above, RDP wouldn't be the better solution.

It appears that Win2K3 would be the target box, so RDP is definately the better solution. Independant consoles, and if console access is critical for some reason, mstsc /console.

VNC really isn't needed, at least in this situation, nor is it ideal for bandwidth reasons.

 

[ssbpgsr]

Originally posted by: dclive
Why would someone want to use VNC or its derivatives? RDC/RDP is vastly faster. What advantage does VNC have in this day and age, assuming XP Pro as the target desktop, and single-user login being OK and acceptable?

Actually UltraVNC with the Video Hook Driver is about the same speed as RDP. It is very useable over dial-up. Nonetheless, RDP is a nice implementation. Not forgetting about the encryption plug-in.

Not directly relating to the OP's needs, but I like the VNC implementation better due to the fact that I provide for support on other OS's besides WinXP Pro. It allows me to only have to work with one system. I also like the way that UltraVNC shares the console session with the current user and makes it easier to show someone how to do something.

 

[Rilex]

Actually UltraVNC with the Video Hook Driver is about the same speed as RDP. It is very useable over dial-up.

I've had that very driver flake out over a 100Mbps LAN. Not refreshing the screen properly, black screen only ... and this is on more than a single machine.

For Windows to Windows, RDP is the way to go. Yes, VNC is great for inter-OS. But I can also share a console session on Windows using unsolicted Remote Assistance (which again is RDP). On 2003, simply using the shadow command will do the same.

Plus you get encryption without SSH

 

[cmetz]

dclive, VNC is cross-platform. I know folks who use PDA phones to VNC into servers.

VNC uses less resources and is better for system security, in my opinion. I normally disable the RDP service on XP systems - it's a pig and it's a possible security problem that people can have remote access without knowing it. For XP systems, I'll have someone run the VNC server if I need to get in. For servers, then I run it all the time, but I still don't trust RDP.

VNC is open and full source. RDP, well, Microsoft says it's secure. Which do I allow in from outside? Decisions, decisions.

Rilex, RDP can be encrypted, but it is not always encrypted. And if you go look at the protocol carefully, you'll find that RDP is encrypted - but secure is open to debate. There's some very amateurish looking crypto in there.

 

[borosp1]

ultravnc is my choice as well. It the best VNC client because of built in file transfer which is a big deal especially when you dont have to setup another FTP connection.

VNC also works with linux, pocketpc, windows, and probably Apple OS as well.

 

[Rilex]

Originally posted by: cmetz
dclive, VNC is cross-platform. I know folks who use PDA phones to VNC into servers.

There are also RDP clients.

VNC uses less resources and is better for system security, in my opinion.

RDP is a far superior solution if you don't know how to implement SSH. RDP is automatically secured, with 2003 where you can adjust the level of encryption.

I normally disable the RDP service on XP systems - it's a pig

Evidence? Or is this a case of faster == pig?

and it's a possible security problem that people can have remote access without knowing it.

Problem solved by not being enabled by default.

Rilex, RDP can be encrypted, but it is not always encrypted.

RDP is always encrypted. Always. Even Win2K3 doesn't allow you the option of going to no security.

There's some very amateurish looking crypto in there.

I'm not sure what you mean by that, unless RC4-128 is ameraturish. Or RC4-128 with TLS 1.0 certificate is ameraturish. Or a FIPS 140-1 compliant encryption is ameraturish. Or FIPS bound with a TLS cert.

You may want to go read some documentation on Terminal Services before knocking the RDP implementation within Windows.

And as it has been shown time and time and time again, OSS doesn't mean "more secure". Otherwise the sendmail decade old vulnerability wouldn't have happened in the early part of this century. Or FireFox wouldn't have vulnerabilities for 6+ months, etc.

 

[cmetz]

Rilex, I get my information from reading the source code to an RDP client and reading MSDN's documentation on the subject. Clearly, your sources disagree with mine.

 

[Rilex]

Strange, my sources are MSDN:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/defau...v/termserv/remote_desktop_protocol.asp

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodte...d8eb9-f53d-4e86-ac9b-29fd6146977b.mspx