No, it's not "end of discussion" since you have provided zero evidence to back up your claim. I have real-world experience to prove there is no such limitation. Until you can prove otherwise, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Unfortunately for you I'm the only one out of the two of us who can actually proof it. You can't which is why your posts almost never contain proof for whatever it is you are claiming (saying you have real world proof is absolutely meaningless and does not count as proof). You definitely need to change that attitude. If you claim something and you want others to proof it than practice what you preach and provide proof of claims you make as well. Until then the discussion is definitely closed.
Since reading messages is a talent you don't seem to have: search for keywords in my posts and you'd have found "teamviewer" and "mac address". Now combine those with Google and you'll soon find an error message called "commercial use suspected". It says enough I have to hold your hand and teach you what to look for and how to search. If you have that much experience with Teamviewer than I shouldn't have to point these things out.
As the OP didn't describe what they needed a remote desktop client for, TV remains a viable option. You're assuming they intend to use it for something that TV can't provide. That's only your uninformed assumption.
I'm not making assumptions, you are. You are already assuming he is using it for remote control and as you are stating here we have no idea what he is using it for. Since RDP can do quite a lot (Citrix was so kind to give Microsoft the ICA protocol and thus RDP can do very similar things as Citrix stuff can do which is a lot more than just remote control!) any other protocol than RDP is not an option. You'll run the risk of giving someone something that is unusable for his needs/requirements. In other words: I'm playing on the safe side by sticking to RDP-only clients so there is some certainty things will work, with Teamviewer there isn't.
There is another reason why Teamviewer is a stupid suggestion. RDP comes with Windows for free. Teamviewer costs money if you are going to use it commercially (commercial use is for any profit AND non-profit organisation!). As you've already pointed out, we have no idea what the use case is thus we also have no idea if it is for personal or commercial use. Another assumption you are making and I'm not.
I never said TV is an RDP client. It is, however, a secure and privacy-friendly remote desktop solution. I haven't misled anyone.
It is not about you saying it or not. Somebody requests an RDP client and you give them something that is not. That needs explaining which is why I pointed that out. RDP is a lot more than just remote controlling a computer.
The secure and privacy part is a claim you are making and it is a good example of you not providing any proof that supports your claim. You need to address that. Pointing at their own privacy policy and their own EULA is not providing proof since you are entirely relying on Teamviewer telling the truth. Google is a good example of a company saying it upholds users' privacy while in fact it doesn't (they are subject of privacy research around the globe and have already been convicted for breaking privacy law in some parts of the world). Always do your own research. Use tools like tcpdump which comes with OS X by default.
I simply have years of successful experience with TV, as many in this forum do.
Experience is one thing, knowing how it works technically, what the licensing is, etc. are completely different. Functionality-wise there is not much wrong with Teamviewer but that is not what matters here. The entire point is whether Teamviewers functionality matches what the OP wants.
