PDA

View Full Version : Apple Remote Desktop 2.0


MacBytes
Jun 21, 2004, 08:16 AM
Category: Apple Software
Link: Apple Remote Desktop 2.0 (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20040621091620)
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)

Approved by Mudbug

MacsRgr8
Jun 21, 2004, 09:13 AM
Looks gr8!

Especially the "scheduling" options for software distribution.

:)

BTW... another announcement rom Apple before the WWDC?
We've had the new G5, now ARD 2.....

Tiauguinho
Jun 21, 2004, 09:31 AM
Already placed my order for it. The new GUI looks very nice :)

musicpyrite
Jun 21, 2004, 09:54 AM
Yup, I'm really surprized they didn't relece this at WWDC.

Updates are always good though.

Mord
Jun 21, 2004, 09:55 AM
you guys are quick i looked at page 1 submited that it had been relesed and by the time i went back to page 1 it had been updated and there were two comments

Mudbug
Jun 21, 2004, 10:01 AM
you guys are quick i looked at page 1 submited that it had been relesed and by the time i went back to page 1 it had been updated and there were two comments

early bird gets the worm ;)

This software upgrade for remote desktop looks very sweet, and seems to be quite a substantial step up from the previous version. The basic functionality seems to be the same, with the addition of all sorts of new toys and gizmos for network admins that will be sure to make them quite happy.

xtbfx
Jun 21, 2004, 10:05 AM
Can someone tell me why Windoze has this for free and we have to pay $500? ($300 edu discount).

Is there a big difference in what either can do? I just never understood why Apple makes us pay big for it.

Freg3000
Jun 21, 2004, 10:10 AM
Well, not really available now, it's available in July.

And there seems to be no upgrades? :confused: :confused: :confused:

t300
Jun 21, 2004, 10:10 AM
Can someone tell me why Windoze has this for free and we have to pay $500? ($300 edu discount).

Is there a big difference in what either can do? I just never understood why Apple makes us pay big for it.

I'd say that that is a very good point...although some people around here will dig and dig until they can find a smart aleck answer to prove you wrong.

grabberslasher
Jun 21, 2004, 10:10 AM
With all these releases before WWDC it makes you wonder what could possibly be left to show off (apart from Tiger).

As to above poster - why don't you read all the info about Remote Desktop? It's not the same as the windows tool (If you just want that just download OSXVnc). It provides an administrator a complete network monitoring and assistance tool.

SpamJunkie
Jun 21, 2004, 10:11 AM
Can someone tell me why Windoze has this for free and we have to pay $500? ($300 edu discount).

Is there a big difference in what either can do? I just never understood why Apple makes us pay big for it.

I don't understand this either. XP Pro comes with all Dell's corporate desktops. I'm using it to get some windows-y goodness from my mac, entirely free.

This seems like one of the few areas that XP has an edge in.

ClimbingTheLog
Jun 21, 2004, 10:14 AM
This gets a positive from me just for VNC support. This may be another showcase Apple/Open Source synergy, ala Safari. We'll have to see if they give back a bunch of great code to the VNC projects. If they gave back any remote file transfer/script execution code there would be VNC users worshiping at the Alter Apple.

noverflow
Jun 21, 2004, 10:31 AM
Can someone tell me why Windoze has this for free and we have to pay $500? ($300 edu discount).

Is there a big difference in what either can do? I just never understood why Apple makes us pay big for it.

VNC is free for the mac also
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/16699

MacAztec
Jun 21, 2004, 10:33 AM
Wait, is this update a require-to-pay update? Can it be updated for free in Software Update? I can't seem to get it to update via. Software Update.

whenpaulsparks
Jun 21, 2004, 10:33 AM
i think it is well worth the money. look at Microsoft Office versus OpenOffice.org. do they do the same thing? yes. but Microsoft Office is infinitely easier to use, more compatible, and "just works", atleast most of the time.

If i were a teacher, for example, and i had a lab full of eMacs. And i wanted to remote manage them from the head of the class, i would gladly pay the (relatively) measly price of $299 (educational, unlimited) to have a well-working solution. XP Pro's remote features are neither good-looking, reliable, or well-working, much less standards compatible, and wouldnt work with mac. and if my computer lab had windows and/or linux machines, i would gladly pay for the upgrade even, so that they could be managed as well.

i think it is well worth the price, and upgrading would be well worth the price if you use it in an environment that would benefit from VNC and new software management. it "just works". find another similar software solution where to enable a client for remote desktop, takes just a number of clicks on system preferences, where setting up a new client is as easy as finding it on rendezvous, where you have such a common user interface and ease of use... find one, that's cheaper, and i'll eat my hat.

oh yeah, and if you are upset because $500 is too much to pay for managing 11 or more machines around your house, use VNC. there's nothing stopping you. but Apple isn't catering to your needs. they're catering to the needs of their enterprise and education customers, who need macho remote management. hence the reason why this software isnt sold as a consumer software package.

nsb3000
Jun 21, 2004, 10:34 AM
Yup, I'm really surprized they didn't relece this at WWDC.

Updates are always good though.

Perhaps because schools are placing their orders *now* for new computers for the fall, and they want them to be as enticing as possible.

BornAgainMac
Jun 21, 2004, 10:34 AM
I recently purchased a copy about 3 weeks ago. Bummed out there isn't an upgrade price. So basically if I want it, it will cost me $600 dollars if I include what I just paid for the older version.

I might just wait until Remote Desktop 3 comes out. I have used it to connect to a Mac over the internet and take it out of Sleep mode. It's a great product.

jchapman
Jun 21, 2004, 10:36 AM
This update should bring Mac OS X up to par with Windows XP Pro when it comes to free remote screen-sharing. Any (free) VNC client should now work for sharing a Mac screen, just like the free microsoft client allows sharing an XP Pro screen. The $500 is for the other administration tools (remote reporting, installation, scheduled events, configuration, and apple's VNC client that allows up to 50 simultaneous connections).

Note that an update to the ARD client will be required to add VNC support, so this will only work for Macs that have the client update installed.

DGFan
Jun 21, 2004, 10:37 AM
Can someone tell me why Windoze has this for free and we have to pay $500? ($300 edu discount).

Is there a big difference in what either can do? I just never understood why Apple makes us pay big for it.

Do all the clients need to be XP Pro or just the server?

The reason I ask is that XP Pro isn't cheap. And if you're doing admin on 50 machines, I'd rather pay an extra $10 per machine for ARD2 than pay the extra money for XP Pro on each computer.

DGFan
Jun 21, 2004, 10:38 AM
I recently purchased a copy about 3 weeks ago. Bummed out there isn't an upgrade price. So basically if I want it, it will cost me $600 dollars if I include what I just paid for the older version.

I might just wait until Remote Desktop 3 comes out. I have used it to connect to a Mac over the internet and take it out of Sleep mode. It's a great product.

Why not call and complain? Within 30 days is a reasonable time to be given a free upgrade.

nsb3000
Jun 21, 2004, 10:39 AM
VNC is free for the mac also
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/16699

Right VNC is free for both Mac and Windows (as well as Linux and a number of other OS's) but I think the previous poster was referring to Microsoft Terminal services, that come standard with Windows XP profession. Running a terminal server is quite a bit more full featured than VNC, and much easier to set up in a secure fashion. There is a free OS X client from Microsoft, but (obviously) no sever software. I wonder whether Remote desktop 2.0 supports it?

jchapman
Jun 21, 2004, 10:41 AM
XP Home does not allow remote desktop connections to be made. User-initiated remote sessions still work, but you can't just connect to an XP Home box from another machine. This is one the big features that was removed from XP Pro to create XP "Home" (the other being support for active directories and domains).

iJon
Jun 21, 2004, 10:44 AM
well last time i checked with the windoes copy, you can only connect to one machine at a time, cant text to them, cant do scheduled software updates, cant lock the screen, cant have 50 people at once, the list goes on. microsoft's is just good for connecting to one person and taking over their screen, not really convienent for an administrator controlling a whole bunch of macs. but like i said, i dont use microsofts remote desktop much, so if my statements are wrong please correct me.

iJon

Lancetx
Jun 21, 2004, 10:47 AM
Of course, Windows XP Pro retails for $170 more than Panther does and you must have it installed on each client in order to connect using Windows remote desktop.

Postal
Jun 21, 2004, 10:48 AM
As was pointed out, this isn't just a VNC app - you can get that sort of thing easily for free. ARD 2 is an administration tool that lets you see details about other computers on the network and perform functions that simply aren't options in a VNC-style program like XP Pro's Remote Desktop Connection. You can wake a Mac from sleep, for example, or check on its free hard drive and RAM resources.

If you're an IT manager on a predominantly Mac-oriented network, this is exactly the sort of thing you want.

york2600
Jun 21, 2004, 10:52 AM
well last time i checked with the windoes copy, you can only connect to one machine at a time, cant text to them, cant do scheduled software updates, cant lock the screen, cant have 50 people at once, the list goes on. microsoft's is just good for connecting to one person and taking over their screen, not really convienent for an administrator controlling a whole bunch of macs. but like i said, i dont use microsofts remote desktop much, so if my statements are wrong please correct me.

iJon

Exactly! While it's true that we are paying for the functionality that is free in Windows XP Pro we're also paying for a product that goes much much further. 90% of the features of ARD are not available in Windows XP Pro. Some can be had via third party apps such as the management programs in Norton Ghost and ImageCast, but that's not free (in fact it's a damn lot more than ARD). ARD is really an amazing app. I wish there was an affordable app that was as easy to use back when I was admining Windows boxes. It would have saved me hours of work.

Stewie
Jun 21, 2004, 10:59 AM
Right VNC is free for both Mac and Windows (as well as Linux and a number of other OS's) but I think the previous poster was referring to Microsoft Terminal services, that come standard with Windows XP profession. Running a terminal server is quite a bit more full featured than VNC, and much easier to set up in a secure fashion. There is a free OS X client from Microsoft, but (obviously) no sever software. I wonder whether Remote desktop 2.0 supports it?

Terminal Server may be more full featured as you say, but there are some things that you can't do via terminal services. Some Software updates state that you CAN NOT use teminal services to run them. I go throught that once a month on the Win2K servers where we have to do some software updates via VNC, since Terminal Services is a no-no.

crenz
Jun 21, 2004, 11:08 AM
I'm quite surprised at the pace of upgrades at Apple right now... this is a good month for Apple, I guess. I'm curious to see what will be presented at WWDC. I think Steve Jobs could already fill a keynote with just rehashing what was new in the last two months, let alone previewing Tiger.

birdFEEDER
Jun 21, 2004, 11:09 AM
Notice how there isn't any single client license available? It wouldn't surprize me if Apple plans on including a single client version of this within Tiger (10.4). I mean, the XP version is only single client anyway. Would be a nice addition to 10.4 methinks... :)

SWC
Jun 21, 2004, 11:09 AM
cant text to them

Winpopup has been coming with windows for years

cant lock the screen

winkey +L or shutdown logout -> switch user

As for the other stuff you can do it in terminal server (which comes with server) I'm 99% sure with the exception of scheduling updates and unsure of number os connection be it 50 or 5 or whatever. But with the built in solution to xp pro you can do the above.

I am by no means saying XP has a superior product, just saying it has some of the same features as ARD that some people dont realise. I work in a place that has a whole floor of macs (approx 400) and we use ARD to control all the machines and keep track of what people are doing.

crenz
Jun 21, 2004, 11:17 AM
I recently purchased a copy about 3 weeks ago. Bummed out there isn't an upgrade price.

Just contact Apple and complain. Three weeks is a reasonable time frame to expect a free upgrade.

The Red Wolf
Jun 21, 2004, 11:30 AM
Notice how there isn't any single client license available? It wouldn't surprize me if Apple plans on including a single client version of this within Tiger (10.4). I mean, the XP version is only single client anyway. Would be a nice addition to 10.4 methinks... :)

Panther already has a higher version of ARD client, 1.2.4 over ARD 1.2 Admin, which is part of the system. I'm sure ARD 2.0 will work with Panther as it does with OS 9 clients. Where 2.0 will surpass 1.2 Admin is what I'm looking forward to. Especially being able to check in on the SAN servers I deal with.

SiliconAddict
Jun 21, 2004, 11:32 AM
Do all the clients need to be XP Pro or just the server?

The reason I ask is that XP Pro isn't cheap. And if you're doing admin on 50 machines, I'd rather pay an extra $10 per machine for ARD2 than pay the extra money for XP Pro on each computer.

Remote access is in every version of XP. Both Pro and Home. From what I'm hearing SP2, that will be released sometime this fall, will allow 3 concurrent connections to an XP system allowing you not only remote control another box but actually create up to 3 virtual sessions (Which is what terminal services and fast user switching is.) The remote software on Windows blows away anything Apple or VNC has. This is for all intents and purposes a slimmed down version of MS's terminal server which in and of itself is a very powerful utility. VNC is nice but it's purely remote control in that what is going on onscreen is what the user on the other end sees. Terminal server allows virtual sessions on a system.
Apple dang well better add this functionality to Tiger because in this case MS has a serious lead.

wdlove
Jun 21, 2004, 11:42 AM
Is this going to be a software program that would allow the Apple Help Desk person to view the callers desktop? If so it would certainly make it easier for both parties.

Anticipat3
Jun 21, 2004, 11:51 AM
UGH.

You guys are not listening. I use Apple RDC to manage a couple dozen computers at work, and Microsoft's RDC is NOTHING LIKE IT.

Microsoft lets you do one thing: remote visual logon to a computer. that's it.

Apples lets you do MUCH MORE - deploy updates and installers to dozens of compuers at once being the most important IMO, but also to LOCK ALL CLIENT SCREENS (labs), generate software and hw reports for your whole network, run shell scripts, share screen... etc. etc.

Microsoft has NOTHING ON APPLE when it comes to advanced remote management.

Rower_CPU
Jun 21, 2004, 11:54 AM
winkey +L or shutdown logout -> switch user.

That's a completely different functionality than ARD's, which cannot be bypassed with a valid login - it's completely locked until the ARD admin unlocks it, or the computer is hard reset.

-----------------------------

As a lab admin I have to step in here and clear up some misconceptions...

ARD is a lab management tool for multiple workstations, not a point-to-point remote control function like what comes with XP - sure you can achieve similar functionality with a bunch of free/cheap tools on the Windows side, but you have to a lot of work yourself to achieve anywhere near the same level of administrative capability as you have with ARD.

Funny how people forget about similar software on the PC side (Timbuktu, pcAnywhere, etc.) and jump at the chance to rail against Apple for "ripping people off".

jsw
Jun 21, 2004, 12:00 PM
Is this going to be a software program that would allow the Apple Help Desk person to view the callers desktop? If so it would certainly make it easier for both parties.

It doesn't do that per se, but something like that would be a very nice touch for broadband-connected users, and nice if it were included with OS X to ensure all customers (at least all up-to-date customers) had it.

Assuming, of course, it could be secure and would require the customer to accept each and every attempt. I could see it turning into a massive security hole.

DGFan
Jun 21, 2004, 12:02 PM
Remote access is in every version of XP. Both Pro and Home. From what I'm hearing SP2, that will be released sometime this fall, will allow 3 concurrent connections to an XP system allowing you not only remote control another box but actually create up to 3 virtual sessions (Which is what terminal services and fast user switching is.) The remote software on Windows blows away anything Apple or VNC has. This is for all intents and purposes a slimmed down version of MS's terminal server which in and of itself is a very powerful utility. VNC is nice but it's purely remote control in that what is going on onscreen is what the user on the other end sees. Terminal server allows virtual sessions on a system.
Apple dang well better add this functionality to Tiger because in this case MS has a serious lead.

Are you talking about Remote Desktop? It seems that Remote Desktop is nothing like ARD2.

I also found this on Microsoft's site (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/evaluation/features/remoteaccess.mspx) :

The Remote Desktop feature is not available in Windows XP Home Edition. However, a computer running Windows XP Home Edition, or any version since Windows 95, can use the client software and Internet access to remotely control a computer that runs Windows XP Professional with Remote Desktop enabled.

So every "client" machine (using Apple's terminology) would have to be running XP Pro. Yikes.

If you're not talking about Remote Desktop, then what are you talking about?

Doctor Q
Jun 21, 2004, 12:12 PM
I'm certainly going to recommend ARD2 to our computer classroom teacher.

The feature to let you share one client's screen with other clients has a nice benefit for a lab teacher. With ARD1, the teacher can demonstrate something form the teacher's Mac, but this feature adds a new possibility. Suppose one student in a Photoshop lesson has run into a problem, say not knowing how to use a certain Photoshop filter. The teacher can broadcast that student's Mac screen while explaining the answer to everyone, so that all students see the problem and solution, rather than the teacher having to recreate it on the teaacher's Mac. Nifty!

dizastor
Jun 21, 2004, 12:23 PM
I recently purchased a copy about 3 weeks ago. Bummed out there isn't an upgrade price. So basically if I want it, it will cost me $600 dollars if I include what I just paid for the older version.

I might just wait until Remote Desktop 3 comes out. I have used it to connect to a Mac over the internet and take it out of Sleep mode. It's a great product.

There is an "up to date" program for recent purchases of ARD on the right hand column of the page... I'm guessing you must qualify... it's a 19.95 upgrade I believe.

w00tmaster
Jun 21, 2004, 12:33 PM
I recently purchased a copy about 3 weeks ago. Bummed out there isn't an upgrade price. So basically if I want it, it will cost me $600 dollars if I include what I just paid for the older version.

I might just wait until Remote Desktop 3 comes out. I have used it to connect to a Mac over the internet and take it out of Sleep mode. It's a great product.
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=111813&cid=9485948

nicely
Jun 21, 2004, 12:34 PM
It doesn't do that per se, but something like that would be a very nice touch for broadband-connected users, and nice if it were included with OS X to ensure all customers (at least all up-to-date customers) had it.

Apple Remote Desktop Client is included in every 10.3 Panther installation. It's under the sharing tab in system prefs...

And it already works over IP right? I don't think you have to be on the same subnet. You just have to make sure the right ports are open on both firewalls... I could be wrong...

SiliconAddict
Jun 21, 2004, 01:02 PM
Are you talking about Remote Desktop? It seems that Remote Desktop is nothing like ARD2.

I also found this on Microsoft's site (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/evaluation/features/remoteaccess.mspx) :



So every "client" machine (using Apple's terminology) would have to be running XP Pro. Yikes.

If you're not talking about Remote Desktop, then what are you talking about?


Nope.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/features.mspx

Provides you with the ability to invite a trusted friend or support professional also running Windows XP to be your remote assistant. Through an Internet connection, your assistant can chat with you, observe your working screen, and, with your permission, remotely control your computer.

SeanMcg
Jun 21, 2004, 01:06 PM
Apple Remote Desktop is more akin to Systems Management Server, which has a remote control component. But Systems Management Server also does what the name implies and that is the comparison people should make with this latest version of Apple Remote Desktop.

Remote Desktop Connection on Windows XP (both home and Professional) is Terminal Services based. The executable is named MSTSC.EXE (Microsoft Terminal Services Client). While faster by a longshot than SMS remote control, my experience with it has been that you cannot watch the screen of the far-end user. It is valuable for troubleshooting systems remotely or installing some software when user head-gap errors are not an issue.

Ironically, Microsoft even made a MacOS X version of the client. I had fun using my Mac to manage XP Pro machines at one site.

Other companies have made software that allows for inventory of Macs in a mixed environment (Altiris, for example) but I haven't seen anything for systems management until Apple released ARD.

Can anyone tell me if it is possible to start up a Finder shell that is logged into another machine? I'm not that *nix savvy, but this would seem to be the better comparison with RDC.

DGFan
Jun 21, 2004, 01:14 PM
Nope.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/features.mspx

If I understand correctly, that's not nearly the same thing as Remote Desktop which is not nearly the same thing as Apple Remote Desktop.

Sure, it would be nice if OS X had it. No, I can't think of a single possible use for it outside of circumstances which also warrant the features in ARD.

rdowns
Jun 21, 2004, 01:18 PM
I wish they had a cheap, single user version. Would make supporting my mom and dad much easier. Then again, $299 might be worth it to handle their problems.

gekko513
Jun 21, 2004, 01:23 PM
Can anyone tell me if it is possible to start up a Finder shell that is logged into another machine? I'm not that *nix savvy, but this would seem to be the better comparison with RDC.
I'm not sure what you mean by a Finder shell. But you can easily log in to another machine and get a bash shell if you enable SSH in Sharing.

When logged in with a shell, you can do exactly the same things as if you had a terminal open on your own machine. (Not GUI stuff of course).

SeanMcg
Jun 21, 2004, 01:41 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by a Finder shell. But you can easily log in to another machine and get a bash shell if you enable SSH in Sharing.

When logged in with a shell, you can do exactly the same things as if you had a terminal open on your own machine. (Not GUI stuff of course).

Well, the Finder runs on top of the Unix core and is itself a program, right? You can restart the Finder with other programs running and the machine doesn't crash. So, if it is a program running on top of the Unix core, could it be executed in a similar manner if SSH were turned on, giving you a GUI to that remote machine? I know that is basically what X-windows does, but I like the Mac interface better.

uzombie
Jun 21, 2004, 01:43 PM
I recently purchased a copy about 3 weeks ago. Bummed out there isn't an upgrade price. So basically if I want it, it will cost me $600 dollars if I include what I just paid for the older version.

I might just wait until Remote Desktop 3 comes out. I have used it to connect to a Mac over the internet and take it out of Sleep mode. It's a great product.

I agree. I couldn't find an upgrade price (I bought the $500 version last year). I can't justify another $500 this year. Or next.

Oh well...

chabig
Jun 21, 2004, 02:14 PM
Is this going to be a software program that would allow the Apple Help Desk person to view the callers desktop? If so it would certainly make it easier for both parties.

Yes. This is exactly what this is, and much more.

Jonathan Amend
Jun 21, 2004, 02:17 PM
i think it is well worth the money. look at Microsoft Office versus OpenOffice.org. do they do the same thing? yes. but Microsoft Office is infinitely easier to use, more compatible, and "just works", atleast most of the time.

If i were a teacher, for example, and i had a lab full of eMacs. And i wanted to remote manage them from the head of the class, i would gladly pay the (relatively) measly price of $299 (educational, unlimited) to have a well-working solution. XP Pro's remote features are neither good-looking, reliable, or well-working, much less standards compatible, and wouldnt work with mac. and if my computer lab had windows and/or linux machines, i would gladly pay for the upgrade even, so that they could be managed as well.

i think it is well worth the price, and upgrading would be well worth the price if you use it in an environment that would benefit from VNC and new software management. it "just works". find another similar software solution where to enable a client for remote desktop, takes just a number of clicks on system preferences, where setting up a new client is as easy as finding it on rendezvous, where you have such a common user interface and ease of use... find one, that's cheaper, and i'll eat my hat.

oh yeah, and if you are upset because $500 is too much to pay for managing 11 or more machines around your house, use VNC. there's nothing stopping you. but Apple isn't catering to your needs. they're catering to the needs of their enterprise and education customers, who need macho remote management. hence the reason why this software isnt sold as a consumer software package.

In Windows XP, Remote Desktop is indeed a consumer feature, and a very nice one at that. For example, if you have a pc (or a few) and a laptop in the house with a wireless network then you can just take the laptop and keep the same desktop and running programs no matter which computer you're at or where you are. I think using remote desktop to connect to a real PC is also a lot faster than using Virtual PC on a Mac because then there is no emulation involved. Remote Desktop is very fast and I've even used it over 56K a few times when I wasn't at home. As far as reliability, I have had no issues with it. If I accidentally cover an antenna or go out of range then after I get a signal again I can simply log back in to the remote computer and everything will be as it was. It's also a lot simpler than you think; enabling it is also just a few clicks away and it also has a browser of available computers to connect to. The only drawback is that in XP's version there can only be one active session at a time (either physically at the pc or via remote desktop), but this will be resolved with Service Pack 2. Windows 2000 Server/Server 2003 also has an extra tool for easily connecting to many computers at once and it itself can handle 3 concurrent sessions without extra licensing. The number of client connections is only limited by the client's system resources, and they don't take much of a hit anyways since it's pretty much just a window into another computer. Whether it looks good or not is subjective and irrelevant since all you really ever see of it is the bar at the top (considering you don't hide it, or you don't use it in full-screen mode). A common user interface is also subjective to the user; it depends on what their preference is and what they use most.

As for "compatibility with standards", VNC is not a standard. It's just an open source protocol, and a slow one at that in my opinion. As far as I can tell, it just transmits all visual activity like a streamed movie, whereas XP's Remote Desktop sends the windowing instructions which is a lot faster. I think Microsoft's client is also just as compatible as Apple's, considering Microsoft's runs on both Macs and Windows while Apple's only runs on Macs (unless I misunderstood something and Apple's is just VNC with extras). There are also a few open source clients for NT/2000/XP's Terminal Services/Remote Desktop that run on Linux and other Unixes.

Edit: Oh, and it's also useful if you use Tablet PCs since that's pretty much what they're for.

dguisinger
Jun 21, 2004, 02:30 PM
Some of you guys don't get it. You keep complaining that RDC on Windows doesn't do what ARD does. In many ways, ARD is a combination of RDC and MS-SMS. But here is what ARD is NOT:

A simple remote control program for a single user to log in remotely or to share their desktop to receive assistance. This is HUGE on the Windows platform.

I go home every day, fire up RDC on my Mac, connect to my Windows desktop at work, and continue where I left off. I DONT NEED TO LOOK AT 20 SCREENS SIMULTANIOUSLY. For those of you saying thats why its worth the $300 or $500, fine, good for you. Me? I don't need that, I need a single user version of the capabilities and I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT. I am not going to use a horrible hack like VNC either, so don't tell me to download it. Remote control is a feature of many OS's. Linux/BSD have it for a remote shell terminal....... Windows has RDC for remote graphical....and yes, it is very low level, its not taking a screen shot every few seconds like VNC does. All I can say is Tiger BETTER have a single-user version of ARD built in otherwise its still not worth the annual upgrade because that is one of the only features I keep getting upset about Apple not including, there is a big leap between consumer level remote desktop and network management remote desktop. Apple needs a consumer level solution built into Tiger / OSX.

DGFan
Jun 21, 2004, 02:54 PM
Some of you guys don't get it. You keep complaining that RDC on Windows doesn't do what ARD does. In many ways, ARD is a combination of RDC and MS-SMS. But here is what ARD is NOT:

A simple remote control program for a single user to log in remotely or to share their desktop to receive assistance. This is HUGE on the Windows platform.


That's fine. I agree that this feature would be neat to have. But it's stupid to say that ARD should be included for free simply because Windows XP includes a few of ARD's features by default. That's why people have been pointing out that ARD goes far beyond RDC.

GoBlue
Jun 21, 2004, 02:59 PM
For those persons finding a comparison to ARD please think of SMS on windows (as previous posts have mentiond) and Netoctopus on the Mac/Win. Both applications perform the tasks that the Apple engineers have promised us since last years WWDC - Software Distribution, Asset Management, and Remote Configuration. We need to know if a harddrive is about to fail, if hardware has changed on a machine (potentially due to theft). We also need to schedule changes or software updates as to not bog down the network and much much more. Keep in mind that these are all ENTERPRISE solutions. Not "taking care of Mom" or a small k12 lab. Enterprise solutions must work for over 500 machines both desktops and mobile units. This is not a simple task. Remember, a software update or system configuration must be done to 500+ machines. Some are attached to the network, some aren't (laptops). Some need the update, some don't. All of these variables and many more make Enterprise solutions difficult. This is Apple's first solution for enterprise management. The first ARD was insufficient for large organizations.

As for cost - my NetOctopus/Timbuktu license was over 20k (educational). SMS is $400 (educational) + MS Server + MS SQLServer + client access licenses (we know MS screws you on CAL's), Client Access Points (more servers). So Apple is charging $299 for unlimited use (educational - $499 Retail) with no need for an extra database or CAL's. Do the math and suck it up.

ARD is now a enterprise solution and, if they deliver on promises, a cheaper comparable solution. No more "taking care of Mom" one-on-one application.

GregA
Jun 21, 2004, 05:05 PM
Yes. This is exactly what this is, and much more.I'd like to be able to tell my father to turn on iChat, and then take over his machine. That would be very useful. Though that's NOT listed as an option for finding machines. Ahh well.

[edit] Yeah I know this product isn't aimed at supporting the family.
That's a good point. Apple DOESN'T HAVE a product to support the family.

tychay
Jun 21, 2004, 05:58 PM
I'd like to be able to tell my father to turn on iChat, and then take over his machine. That would be very useful. Though that's NOT listed as an option for finding machines. Ahh well.

Umm isn't that what Timbuktu (http://www.netopia.com/) (commercial) and VNC (http://sourceforge.net/projects/cotvnc/) (free) are for? Granted you can't initiate it over iChat but (assuming you've set up his forwarding correctly) it could be as easy as telling him to double click on Share My Desktop (http://www.bombich.com/software/smd.html) and he can IM you the lan IP and port numbers. (You'd also need some sort of DNS Updater program (free) so you can connect in.)

Hope that helps.

AirUncleP
Jun 21, 2004, 06:01 PM
June 21st is a little late to have schools order this for next year. I'm a teacher and we had to have our PO's in a month ago.

ARD is a must for every mac lab in the country. Makes life so much easier. If you don't think so please send suggestions on how to get 30 middle school students to stop touching their computers and listen to you.

Trowaman
Jun 21, 2004, 06:11 PM
I will never have a need for ARD but I will say this:

I Love the new box!!!

I hope this black box setup becoems more comon in more of the stuff Apple makes (Panther, iPods, ARD, PowerMacs, and Powerbooks, who gets black next???)

ingenious
Jun 21, 2004, 06:19 PM
Can someone tell me why Windoze has this for free and we have to pay $500? ($300 edu discount).

Is there a big difference in what either can do? I just never understood why Apple makes us pay big for it.

ARD can control Macs as well as all VNC capable computers as far as I understand.

dguisinger
Jun 21, 2004, 06:41 PM
Umm isn't that what Timbuktu (http://www.netopia.com/) (commercial) and VNC (http://sourceforge.net/projects/cotvnc/) (free) are for? Granted you can't initiate it over iChat but (assuming you've set up his forwarding correctly) it could be as easy as telling him to double click on Share My Desktop (http://www.bombich.com/software/smd.html) and he can IM you the lan IP and port numbers. (You'd also need some sort of DNS Updater program (free) so you can connect in.)

Hope that helps.

Some people just don't get it. Yes, thats not what ARD was designed for.. but Apple should have a built in solution. Windows has had a built in solution since 2000....us Windows users are in our 5th year of having remote desktop support built into the OS for single client usage. 99% of Mac OSX users don't care about remote installs, or monitoring 20-200 computers at once. They care about logging into their work or home machine, pulling up their financials or their latest word document, and continuing where they left off, without having to touch that machine. That is what Windows Remote Desktop is all about. ARD is the wrong name for what it does, ARD is more of a workgroup management system. Yes VNC does that....as do the other computers you have, but who the hell wants a 3rd party program?! It should be built into the OS. Hell, look at RDC on Windows. It is much faster than VNC, EVERY machine that runs Windows 2000 or XP Pro can handle it, and Home can handle "Remote Assistance" requests, which is basically a Remote Desktop connection where the process is started in reverse.

This isn't about the free programs. Its the fact that other OS's, mainly windows, but UNIX varients as well, have remote control abilities for atleast 1 person built in...... and Apple would not lose sales of ARD in anyway if they included a very scaled down version that could be used for what I just described. Most people here seem to be in agreement with this statement. MOST USERS do not NEED, or WANT massive network monitoring/software installation. I think thats an established fact. The other established fact, is starting with the XServe Apple has really been focussing on the Enterprise, and this helps their enterprise offering. MS started with Terminal Services the same way, but the fact also remains that MS has had an alternative for nearly 5 years now for consumers that is included free with the OS, and Apple needs to wake up and follow suit.

hamishb
Jun 21, 2004, 07:59 PM
Like a number here, I have multiple Macs (dekstop, webserver, laptop) connected via a wireless router sharing an internet connection.

I use Microsoft's RDC to log into a Windows Terminal Server at my Dad's place in relation to a business we run http://www.vetsown.com.au

My webserver has no keyboard or monitor, so I control it remotely using Haxial's KDX http://www.haxial.com/products/kdx/index2.html

I found VNC to flakey to establish connections, but maybe just ignorance on my part.

Questions:

- is there an equivalent to Terminal Service on the Mac? (I am not aware of any)

- would Apple's RD 2.0 be overkill for monitoring just one or two machines (in which case Apple, if you are listening, we need a "consumer" or "home" version (i.e. an "iMovie" version to the "Final Cut Express" or "FC Pro") which deals with the situations described above (e.g. helping out a friend, relative far away)

Thanks for your answers

tychay
Jun 21, 2004, 10:10 PM
Some people just don't get it. Yes, thats not what ARD was designed for.. but Apple should have a built in solution. Windows has had a built in solution since 2000....us Windows users are in our 5th year of having remote desktop support built into the OS for single client usage.

Well not really, in 2000, RDC was WTS and was only built in to Windows 2k, not 98 or ME. Also, I don't think anything less than 2k "Server" could be run as a client (nee server in the Windows world). Also, to this day you can't run Windows XP Home as a client either, you need XP Pro for that which means that the difference in price for CALs will pay for a copy of Apple Remote Desktop after about 5 machines.

Before 2000 we'd use PCAnywhere or Cytrix just as in the Mac world you use Timbuktu.

Not that I don't hope that a future operating system can't have a limited, non-enterprise version Apple Remote Desktop. Remember, until Panther, the Apple Remote Desktop client wasn't bundled with the operating system. Of course, then the people at Netopia would screaming bloody hell and talk about trampling on developers. There are consequences for both companies when they bundle an application into the operating system--one isn't a monopoly, however.

In the meantime, you have VNC for free, which I might add, is finally supported in Apple Remote Desktop 2.0.

Take care,

terry

JLL
Jun 22, 2004, 09:46 AM
This isn't about the free programs. Its the fact that other OS's, mainly windows, but UNIX varients as well, have remote control abilities for atleast 1 person built in...... and Apple would not lose sales of ARD in anyway if they included a very scaled down version that could be used for what I just described. Most people here seem to be in agreement with this statement. MOST USERS do not NEED, or WANT massive network monitoring/software installation. I think thats an established fact. The other established fact, is starting with the XServe Apple has really been focussing on the Enterprise, and this helps their enterprise offering. MS started with Terminal Services the same way, but the fact also remains that MS has had an alternative for nearly 5 years now for consumers that is included free with the OS, and Apple needs to wake up and follow suit.

I'm almost certain that 10.4 will contain some sort of ARD Lite.

The ARD 1.2 client is included with the system, and 2.0 should be included with 10.4 (and probably provided as a download for 10.3).

The ARD 2.0 client allows others to connect to that machine through VNC (if enabled), which means that anyone with a VNC client can connect to a Mac with the ARD 2.0 client installed.

That's why I think that Apple will include some sort of built in VNC client in 10.4 so other Mac users can connect to your Mac without installing any software.

Toe
Jun 22, 2004, 11:51 AM
Big difference between "Available" and "Announced."

Otherwise, I'd be using ARD2 right now.

Rower_CPU
Jun 22, 2004, 12:33 PM
Big difference between "Available" and "Announced."

Otherwise, I'd be using ARD2 right now.

It's available for order. The story title doesn't say it's "in stores now".

solvs
Jun 23, 2004, 01:33 AM
Funny how people forget about similar software on the PC side (Timbuktu, pcAnywhere, etc.) and jump at the chance to rail against Apple for "ripping people off".
As a person who uses pcAnywhere and tinyterm at work ( often at 9600bps :eek: ), I wish they were as elegant as what I've seen of ARD 1. ARD 2 looks even better.

I've used MS' RD. It's ok. Does what it does. I guess it would be nice if Apple had something like this. Something simple. Haven't used VNC, but I've heard it has issues. It is free. Well, here's hoping Tiger has something.

I do wish they had better upgrade options. I don't see any upgade pricing. We shall see.

Gee4orce
Jun 23, 2004, 03:59 AM
I'd like to be able to tell my father to turn on iChat, and then take over his machine. That would be very useful. Though that's NOT listed as an option for finding machines. Ahh well.

[edit] Yeah I know this product isn't aimed at supporting the family.
That's a good point. Apple DOESN'T HAVE a product to support the family.


I did this with my sister - I sent her OSXvnc over iChat, told her to double click the file that appeared on the desktop, tell me the ip address and - SHAZAM! - I was remotely controlling her Mac. OK, it was a little slow, but we did have a voice chat running at the same time over 256k uplink.

Point is - it may not be optimal, but you can so this today, and do it easily.

centauratlas
Oct 11, 2004, 08:54 PM
Remote Desktop 2.1 is out.

Info is here:
http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n108086

and
http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/

Rower_CPU
Oct 11, 2004, 11:35 PM
Remote Desktop 2.1 is out.

Info is here:
http://www.info.apple.com/kbnum/n108086

and
http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/

I meant to comment on this earlier today...

It seems to have fixed up some errors I've seen with updating client software remotely, but there are still some quirks with some of my stations not authenticating and/or timing out.

GregA
Oct 13, 2004, 08:30 AM
I did this with my sister - I sent her OSXvnc over iChat, told her to double click the file that appeared on the desktop, tell me the ip address and - SHAZAM! - I was remotely controlling her Mac. OK, it was a little slow, but we did have a voice chat running at the same time over 256k uplink.

Point is - it may not be optimal, but you can so this today, and do it easily.An old thread! but, to the point at hand, I have taken over machines over the internet before.

What you describe is not a simple solution, though my father could learn easy enough. The problem is that he's using NAT behind a router - I'd need the router IP address (which is dynamic), and a port directed to him.

I think iChat could help to achieve that connection.