Preface

Vnc Servers For Linux
X11vnc Vs Tigervnc X
X11vnc Vs Vnc

Dec 01, 2009 VNC Comparison and Review: TightVNC vs UltraVNC vs RealVNC. Virtual Network Computing (VNC) requires a client (viewer) to connect to the remote computer. There are mainly three popular candidates for clients: RealVNC, TightVNC, and UltraVNC. Smith & wesson combat masterpiece. We’ll do a simple comparison here and choose the best one.

Here you can see how new Tight-1.1 encoder operates as compared to older Hextile and Zlib encoders. Zlib encoder was obtained from the TridiaVNC source archive for Unix. Results for older version of the Tight encoder are also shown here ('Tight-1.0' column). The 'Tight-1.1L' abbreviation means Tight-1.1 encoder with new 'gradient' filter turned off (this can be done with -lazytight Xvnc command-line option). Main competitor is Zlib encoder, and that is why improvements in compression ratio for the Tight-1.1 encoder against Zlib are emphasized using red color for text.

X0tigervncserver is a TigerVNC Server which makes any X display remotely accessible via VNC, TigerVNC or compatible viewers. Unlike Xvnc(1), it does not create a virtual display. Instead, it just shares an existing X server (typically, that one connected to the physical screen). In my case on Ubuntu 18.04.04 is very fast (90% form console performance) on xorg X11 and laggy on VNC (tigervnc-standalone-server). I'm using xrdp-0.9.5-2 x64 Copy link.

In the bottom of this page you can find more information on testing and other related issues. Note that all test sessions as well as complete source code for testing utility are freely available for everybody. But you should be aware that some of test sessions are huge downloads and they may reside behind a very slow Internet connection.

The results

Hello everyone, I am thinking to deploy VNC to my network for quick support, I have 90 workstations, i found two open-source software's: 1. Can anybody suggest me which is better VNC for me and difference between TightVNC and ultraVNC (Priority open-source). X0vncserver is a TigerVNC Server which makes any X display remotely accessible via VNC, TigerVNC or compatible viewers. Unlike Xvnc(1), it does not create a virtual display. Instead, it just shares an existing X server (typically, that one connected to the physical screen).

	Raw	Hextile	Zlib	Tight-1.0	Tight-1.1L	Tight-1.1
Test session 1: bugzilla-16.rfb (bzip2-compressed: 439,285 bytes)	Encodings
Data size in screen updates, bytes	32,729,254	1,590,721	652,572	518,112	499,140	499,140
Bandwidth savings, Tight-1.1 vs. others	98.47%	68.62%	23.51%	3.66%	-	-
Compression time, seconds	-	1.3	25.8	18.9	14.8	14.9

Description:	This is 16-bit-color test session, presenting operations in Netscape Navigator window on KDE desktop. Browser is showing Bugzilla Web site. Original session is available from the rfbproxy Web pages.
Explanations:	Test shows good compression performance achieved by the Tight Encoder on typical session where not many full-color areas can be found on the screen. Most improvement in both compression ratio and compression time is caused by replacing true-color RGB samples with indexed colors before compression. Due to the problem found in the Tight-1.0 encoder, the compression ratio achieved by Tight-1.1 (where the problem has been fixed) is a little better than for version 1.0 of the encoder. Compression time has been decreased for Tight-1.1 vs. Tight-1.0 due to speed optimizations in 1.1 release. Results for Tight-1.1L and Tight-1.1 do not differ because the latter encoder has not found any areas suitable for preprocessing with the 'gradient' filter.
More details:	Here you can find original test results for this session, where you can see compressed data sizes separately for each rectangle of screen updates: bugzilla-16-logs.tar.bz2 (download size: 144,024 bytes).

	Raw	Hextile	Zlib	Tight-1.0	Tight-1.1L	Tight-1.1
Test session 2: compilation-16.rfb (bzip2-compressed: 252,800 bytes)	Encodings
Data size in screen updates, bytes	111,178,662	2,788,259	1,836,495	476,738	454,748	454,748
Bandwidth savings, Tight-1.1 vs. others	99.59%	83.69%	75.24%	4.61%	-	-
Compression time, seconds	-	5.2	231.5	29.7	21.5	21.3

Description:	This 16-bit-color session shows Xvnc compilation process started in xterm window maximized to occupy almost full screen. The window manager is IceWM.
Explanations:	This test session is prepared in order to show Tight Encoder efficiency on compressing two-color (monochrome) screen areas. We see that compression ratio on such data may be four times (!) better than it stands for pure Zlib compression. Compression speed improvement is even more impressive: Tight encoder is about ten times faster on this session as compared to Zlib encoder. Also note raw data size: it's about 106 MBytes, and it's only 444 KBytes for Tight-1.1 encoding (compression ratio is 244.48). Such improvement in both compression ratio and speed is caused by replacing 16-bit true-color pixel values with 1-bit indices in 2-color palette. So the input stream size for final zlib compressor may be up to 16 times smaller. This allows zlib library to use its small (32K) dictionary much more efficiently. And compression speed is increased dramatically just because there is much less data to compress.
More details:	Original test results for this session: compilation-16-logs.tar.bz2 (download size: 12,392 bytes).

	Raw	Hextile	Zlib	Tight-1.0	Tight-1.1L	Tight-1.1
Test session 3: bars-16.rfb (bzip2-compressed: 4,746,651 bytes)	Encodings
Data size in screen updates, bytes	32,880,890	11,812,296	3,632,612	3,852,823	3,482,707	3,191,666
Bandwidth savings, Tight-1.1 vs. others	90.29%	72.98%	12.14%	17.16%	8.36%	-
Compression time, seconds	-	2.6	74.7<

X11vnc Vs Tigervnc