Remote Desktop Clients

[atomicparker]

Yes I did a search first.

I can't seem to find a decent client for RDC in OSX. Microsoft's is very unstable and doesn't support file transfer, Cord isn't much better and doesn't support it either. Are there any other options? Free or not. I'll take anything.

Thanks

[phoenixsan]

this is overkill, but in a Mac environment, ARD can be a way to go....

[Amigaman]

Jump Desktop for Mac is a great RDP/VNC client. It's $29 on the app store, but I've found it to be much more stable than CoRD or the MS client.

[GGJstudios]

I use TeamViewer, which is free for personal use and works with Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Ubuntu, iPhone, iPad, etc. It's very secure and quite simple to set up and use (no messing around with ports), which comes in handy if providing remote support to those who aren't very computer literate. You can talk them through the setup on their end and be connected to them in less than a minute. I prefer it over LogMeIn because it includes free file transfers between computers, a feature I use frequently.

[dyn]

Teamviewer and Logmein are not RDP clients that the TS wants. Both are also not something you want as the connections are going via a 3rd party and they are limited in the amount of connections (connect too many times with Teamviewer and you'll only be able to connect for 5 minutes, after that it will become only 1 minute; it's their way of making you buy a license from them).

Microsoft has it's own official RDP client (it comes with MS Office iirc) and you can download it from their website ("remote desktop for Mac" is what it is called) but as you already found out it is not the best (it works fine for simple connections). Another really good one is the open source Cord which I like because of the list of computer connections and the fact that you can use the quick connect option that doesn't keep a history (useful if you want to log into a machine only once). I haven't found it to be buggy or crash. I also like the fact that I can set up forwarding of specific folders (or disk paths as Cord calls them) instead of entire disks. That's what I use for filetransfers.

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by dyn

Teamviewer and Logmein are not RDP clients that the TS wants.

What can you do with RDP that you can't do with TeamViewer?

What is the difference between TeamViewer and RDP?
With numerous modules and features TeamViewer goes far beyond the functionality of the ordinary Remote Desktop. In the case of remote support, your customers can see every step you take on his/her screen.

The main difference is that TeamViewer works without port forwarding and configurations on firewalls and proxy servers. Configurations with TeamViewer are not necessary no matter if you need a solution for remote support, remote control, remote access, or online meetings.

TeamViewer vs Windows Remote Desktop Connection in Remote Access Software

Originally Posted by dyn

Both are also not something you want as the connections are going via a 3rd party

What difference does that make? TV connections are extremely secure.
TeamViewer Security

Originally Posted by dyn

they are limited in the amount of connections (connect too many times with Teamviewer and you'll only be able to connect for 5 minutes, after that it will become only 1 minute; it's their way of making you buy a license from them).

That's not true. I use TV extensively and have never had any connection limitations whatsoever.

[dyn]

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

What can you do with RDP that you can't do with TeamViewer?

Connect to machines that only support RDP. Not rely on other companies for your connection since the connection is between you and the remote machine (TV connects through their servers which is one of the reasons why it works with many firewalls; it doesn't use it for the entire connection though, only up to a certain part). This is very important for security as well as privacy and certain network setups (firewalled/segmented environments; TV does have the option to connect via ip-address but you have to enable it manually first). UAC stuff can be a PITA with TV as well. Then there are permissions. I can setup RDP on any Windows machine to only allow certain useraccounts to connect via RDP. I can't do this with TV.

What difference does that make? TV connections are extremely secure.
TeamViewer Security

Google said they didn't log all the wifi networks when taking pics for streetview. They also said they didn't log usernames, etc. of those wifi networks when they had no security. Yet in reality they all did that and they are being fined for it all over the world. Or simply put: don't believe what companies say, check it first.

It makes a lot of difference in quite a few companies that have security policies. Local law can also attribute to TV not being allowed or not (it depends entirely on the setup, the kind of data, etc.).

That's not true. I use TV extensively and have never had any connection limitations whatsoever.

Do your homework properly. It is widely known that TV limits it and there used to be a simple fix by changing ones MAC-address (this no longer works btw). I've used TV extensively, used various versions of it and am still using it extensively. I've ran into these limitations when the license expired or the license simply wasn't installed. With about 10 connections a day you'll run into these limits quite easily.

Another thing: RDP has proper documentation whereas TV has almost no documentation. It is very hard to lookup certain technical aspects of what it does. Same thing with licensing. The limitations are not something that they've written down somewhere. The only way of knowing is to find out yourself. Lifetime license is also something that isn't very clear: you get that lifetime license for the specific version: when you buy TV8 you'll only get a lifetime license for 8. Not worth much because TV phases out versions quite quickly. It'll probably last you for 2 or 3 years (educated guess). It implies there is some kind of license program where you can upgrade easily to a newer TV version but that's not the case.

There are many other products besides Teamviewer that do a similar job. The question you are asking is the wrong question. You should be asking (or in this rather explaining) why the OP should be using Teamviewer instead of RDP. Why use something that requires additional software to be installed and connections run through 3rd party servers that you do not control when you have something similar that is built into the OS and doesn't require connections to be routed through any server? Do bare in mind that Teamviewer is mainly aimed at remote support where as RDP absolutely isn't. RDP is about remote controlling a machine/server based computing. Besides, if RDP is the only way of connecting than suggesting TV or anything that doesn't use RDP is moot anyway. It won't be able to connect. It's as good as using a hammer.

[BlendedFrog]

I'd like to add my thoughts on this. I know that there is/was a time limit on TV connections. One thing I have noticed is that is you install the teamviewer host client on the computer you will be connecting to instead of the full teamviewer client then the time limit doesn't seem to apply. On my mac mini I have the host client and on my MBP and my computer at work I use the full clients and I have been able to stay connected to the mini for hours.

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by dyn

Connect to machines that only support RDP.

I've never encountered a computer that didn't support TeamViewer.

Originally Posted by dyn

Not rely on other companies for your connection since the connection is between you and the remote machine (TV connects through their servers which is one of the reasons why it works with many firewalls; it doesn't use it for the entire connection though, only up to a certain part). This is very important for security as well as privacy and certain network setups

You can't avoid relying on other companies, as you do so for your internet connection. As TV sessions are 256 bit encrypted, there's not a concern with privacy or security, and TeamViewer is always available.

Originally Posted by dyn

UAC stuff can be a PITA with TV as well. Then there are permissions.

I've never encountered problems with either.

Originally Posted by dyn

Google said they didn't log all the wifi networks when taking pics for streetview. They also said they didn't log usernames, etc. of those wifi networks when they had no security. Yet in reality they all did that and they are being fined for it all over the world. Or simply put: don't believe what companies say, check it first.

We're talking about TeamViewer, not Google. I've checked it extensively over the years and I've never encountered any security lapses.

Originally Posted by dyn

Do your homework properly. It is widely known that TV limits it and there used to be a simple fix by changing ones MAC-address (this no longer works btw). I've used TV extensively, used various versions of it and am still using it extensively. I've ran into these limitations when the license expired or the license simply wasn't installed. With about 10 connections a day you'll run into these limits quite easily.

I've done my homework quite properly, thank you. You're completely misinformed. I've used TV heavily for many years, with as many as 30+ connections in a day. There has never been a limit to how many connections I can make. There is a limit on how many simultaneous connections, but that's never been a problem.

Originally Posted by dyn

Why use something that requires additional software to be installed and connections run through 3rd party servers that you do not control when you have something similar that is built into the OS and doesn't require connections to be routed through any server?

Because it works. It's reliable and secure. The OP asked for other options. TV is certainly an option, unless the OP specifies some required function that TV can't provide, which they haven't thus far.

If you don't like TV, don't use it. But don't try to mislead people into believing it's not a secure, reliable tool for remote access. The OP already stated that the MS and Cord clients you mentioned don't support file transfers, which TV does. Your posts appear to be more focused on trying to criticize the TeamViewer recommendation than in trying to offer options to the OP that they haven't already dismissed.

[dyn]

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

I've never encountered a computer that didn't support TeamViewer.

Try one with anything other than Windows or OS X

You can't avoid relying on other companies, as you do so for your internet connection. As TV sessions are 256 bit encrypted, there's not a concern with privacy or security, and TeamViewer is always available.

That's not entirely true. You can avoid relying on other companies but you just can't avoid not relying on others for 100%. In this case it is not about what encryption technology TV is using, it's about routing traffic via them. Everybody needs to ask the question if that's what they want and if that's what they are allowed to by their local law or not. If the answer is no then TV simply is not an option at all.

In this case I wasn't talking about the above but about the technical part. You don't have to rely on 3rd parties when using RDP which means that you can use it in a heavily defended and internet-less network. Technically it isn't always possible to use TV because of how your network is set up.

We're talking about TeamViewer, not Google. I've checked it extensively over the years and I've never encountered any security lapses.

Who cares what company we are talking about, it doesn't matter. It's all about what you want and what you are allowed by local law. That's what will define if you can use a particular piece of software.

I've done my homework quite properly, thank you. You're completely misinformed. I've used TV heavily for many years, with as many as 30+ connections in a day. There has never been a limit to how many connections I can make. There is a limit on how many simultaneous connections, but that's never been a problem.

Anybody can do a search on the internet and find heaps of information about restrictions from TV as well as the MAC-address trick. There have been many limits for years. End of discussion.

Because it works. It's reliable and secure. The OP asked for other options. TV is certainly an option, unless the OP specifies some required function that TV can't provide, which they haven't thus far.

TV is not an option because the OP asked for other RDC options than the ones already mentioned. TV doesn't do RDP.

If you don't like TV, don't use it. But don't try to mislead people into believing it's not a secure, reliable tool for remote access.

If you like TV then use it but don't mislead people into thinking it is a secure, privacy-friendly RDP client because it isn't. The secure and privacy thing is something everybody has to decide for themselves but these aspects have to be mentioned in other to make a good decision.

The OP already stated that the MS and Cord clients you mentioned don't support file transfers, which TV does.

Which is incorrect since they do.

Your posts appear to be more focused on trying to criticize the TeamViewer recommendation than in trying to offer options to the OP that they haven't already dismissed.

Your post is nothing but spam regarding teamviewer. There is no objectivity at all and you completely fail to interpret the OP's post regarding RDP clients.

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by dyn

Anybody can do a search on the internet and find heaps of information about restrictions from TV as well as the MAC-address trick. There have been many limits for years. End of discussion.

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.

Originally Posted by dyn

TV is not an option because the OP asked for other RDC options than the ones already mentioned. TV doesn't do RDP.

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.

Originally Posted by dyn

If you like TV then use it but don't mislead people into thinking it is a secure, privacy-friendly RDP client because it isn't.

I never said TV is an RDP client. It is, however, a secure and privacy-friendly remote desktop solution. I haven't misled anyone.

Originally Posted by dyn

Your post is nothing but spam regarding teamviewer. There is no objectivity at all and you completely fail to interpret the OP's post regarding RDP clients.

No, you simply made uninformed assumptions about their post that I didn't make. Until the OP clarifies their intended use and lists requirements to the contrary, TV remains a viable solution for remote desktop access. My post is not spam, as I have no vested interest in anyone using a free app. I simply have years of successful experience with TV, as many in this forum do.

[legioxi]

I use iTap. Works with all flavored of windows, even the extra NLP encryption. That and jump desktop are the only ones I've found to work with everything.

[dyn]

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

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.

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by dyn

Unfortunately for you I'm the only one out of the two of us who can actually proof it.

... and yet, you haven't provided one bit of proof. I'm not going to waste time trying to validate your baseless claims. If you want to prove your claims, you'll have to do the work yourself. Posting a link from a credible source is a simple way of proving your claims, and yet, you haven't done so.

Despite your opinion and baseless claims, TeamViewer remains a valid option until the OP posts requirements to the contrary.

More info: TeamViewer vs Windows Remote Desktop Connection in Remote Access Software

[balamw]

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

Despite your opinion and baseless claims, TeamViewer remains a valid option until the OP posts requirements to the contrary.

Given that the OP stated "I'll take anything", I think that offering alternatives such as TeamViewer, services like GotoMyPC LogMeIn or VNC based solutions is appropriate until we get more input from the OP.

Originally Posted by GGJstudios

More info: TeamViewer vs Windows Remote Desktop Connection in Remote Access Software

I find that comparison chart a bit off the mark. Unless I don't understand what they mean by Screen Blanking, RDC does this by default. TeamViewer doesn't, unless you tell it to. There is an official Mac client for RDP, etc...

I have colleagues that use TeamViewer for Linux <-> Windows all the time, so I really don't know what dyn is on about by saying it is limited to Mac/Windows.

B

[GGJstudios]

Originally Posted by balamw

Unless I don't understand what they mean by Screen Blanking, RDC does this by default. TeamViewer doesn't, unless you tell it to.

In TeamViewer, you can blank the screen of the remote computer with a simple menu selection. You can also disable remote keyboard/mouse/trackpad input. The chart didn't specify whether blanking is by default or selection.

Originally Posted by balamw

I have colleagues that use TeamViewer for Linux <-> Windows all the time, so I really don't know what dyn is on about by saying it is limited to Mac/Windows.

Exactly. As I said in my first post, "works with Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, Ubuntu, iPhone, iPad, etc."

[MLinneer]

I use RealVNC to connect from my iMac at home to my work PC's, 1 Win7 and 3 WinXP machines, simultaneously. It's free for up to 5 servers and works flawlessly over a PP2P connection. The main thing I like is the remote window is scalable. I can shrink the windows down so that I can easily click from one to another and still see the entire remote desktop. Real has a paid version that supports remote printing and file exchange too, but with the free version I've found Dropbox works just as well.

[dyn]

Originally Posted by balamw

I have colleagues that use TeamViewer for Linux <-> Windows all the time, so I really don't know what dyn is on about by saying it is limited to Mac/Windows.

What I meant with that is that you get good support with Windows and Mac but when you use something else the support is a bit less (and how much less depends on the system used). In some cases it may not even run (not every Linux distribution is officially supported for example). You're right I could have explained it better.