- #Splashtop vs teamviewer install
- #Splashtop vs teamviewer driver
- #Splashtop vs teamviewer full
- #Splashtop vs teamviewer software
- #Splashtop vs teamviewer code
They probably have all sorts of fancy hooks to detect screen changes along with extremely fast XOR image comparisons.
For example, they split large packets to just under the MTU size and never waste a trip. My thoughts are, first of all, that TeamViewer has very fine network control.I'm hoping there's a TeamViewer developer somewhere here on StackOverflow. The answers will be somewhat complicated and intricate, so please don't post your $0.02 if you're only going to say it's because they use UDP instead of TCP (would you believe they actually do use TCP just as successfully though). During my tree Command Prompt test, TeamViewer was receiving inbound data at a rate of 1 Mbps and still running 5-6 fps.
#Splashtop vs teamviewer software
I've used a network monitor, and TeamViewer is still lagless at speeds of 500 Kbps and 1 Mbps (VNC software lag for a few seconds at that transfer rate). Somehow, TeamViewer completes this entire process to get roughly 20-25 frames per second. Large-size images take no time to compress, but take a long time to get through. Again, small-size images might be highly compressed, but take at least tens of milliseconds to compress. I simply don't understand how TeamViewer has optimized their screen transfer so well. And that number goes up if the host's computer runs an Atom processor.
#Splashtop vs teamviewer full
High-quality JPG compression takes 175 milliseconds for a full 1920 by 1080 screenshot for me. And that libjpeg-turbo compression would take time to compress. Even using libjpeg-turbo (one of the fastest JPG compression libraries used by large corporations), compressing it down to 30KB (let's be extremely generous), would take time to route through TeamViewer's servers (TeamViewer bypasses corporate Symmetric NATs by simply proxying traffic through their servers). If you've got 1920 by 1080 resolution at even 24 bit depth (16 bit depth would be noticeably ugly), thats still 6,220,800 bytes raw. My question is, how is TeamViewer so fast? It must not be possible.
#Splashtop vs teamviewer install
There is an option to install one, and it gets just a bit faster. I've streamed DirectX 3D games with TeamViewer (at 1 fps, but Windows Remote Desktop doesn't even allow DirectX to run).īy the way, TeamViewer does all this without a mirror driver. I mean, it's actually faster than Windows Remote Desktop. People have read it and said that Version 2 is useless - that it's just a few improvements over VNC with automatic NAT traversal.īut Version 7.it's ridiculously fast now.
#Splashtop vs teamviewer code
Apparently, they released their source code for Version 2 (TeamViewer is Version 7 as of February 2012). Now TeamViewer is a complete mystery to me. And it uses something called the RDP protocol. That's quite brilliant, because it can just send simple text (draw this rectangle at this coordinate and color it with this gradient)! Remote Desktop really is pretty fast - and it's the standard way of working from home. I heard, from somewhere on StackOverflow, that Windows Remote Desktop doesn't send screen bitmaps, but actual drawing commands. Microsoft Windows Remote Desktop apparently goes one step higher than VNC. And they use something called the RFB protocol.
#Splashtop vs teamviewer driver
At their best, they use a mirror driver like DFMirage. VNCs use poll-based hooks for detecting screen change and brute force screen capturing/comparing at their worst. Think about how robust TeamViewer's screen-transfer solution must be to accomplish all this. Scrolling code vertically in Visual Studio has 50 ms lag time. I can browse the web just a few milliseconds slower than on my laptop. I ran a tree command on Command Prompt and it updated with 20 ms delay. Not quite sure about CrossLoop, LogMeIn - I haven't used them, but TeamViewer is insanely fast.
It's just as slow as VNC (btw, I don't use the VNC protocol, just a custom amateur protocol).įrom the slowest remote desktop software to the fastest, the list usually begins at all VNC-like implementations, then climbs up to Microsoft Windows Remote Desktop.and then.TeamViewer. Things are looking pretty good, but it's not fast enough. Then I compress the screen region as a PNG and send it off from the server to my client. Regarding screen transfer/sharing, thanks to the mirror driver, I'm automatically notified of changed screen regions and I can simply marshal the mirror driver's ever-changing screen bitmap to my own bitmap.
I've gotten through basic obstacles: I have a robust UDP messaging system, relatively clean program design, I've got a mirror driver (the free DFMirage mirror driver from DemoForge) up and running, and I've implemented NAT traversal for all NAT types except Symmetric NATs (present in corporate firewall situations). I'm developing a remote desktop software (just for fun) in C# 4.0 for Windows Vista/7. Sorry about the length, it's kinda necessary.
0 kommentar(er)
