Re: Why is Emacs so slow when used remotely?

[Bob Proulx <bob@proulx.com>]

Peter Dyballa wrote:
> Am 28.11.2013 um 20:48 schrieb Bob Proulx:
> > So when you say that it has problems with characters outside of the
> > US-ASCII range my immediate thought was everything is graphical and
> > what does the character range have to do with it?  It is all just
> > pixels at that point.
> 
> I don't think that pressing a key is a bunch of pixels – I mean
> outside of a virtual reality, that what some folks call real life.

In all of the time I have been using the various VNC implementations I
have never seen a key input problem.  Of course that doesn't mean that
they don't exist.  It just means that I haven't ever seen them while
supporting myself and others using it.  I rarely input those
characters but others I work with who use VNC do and I would have
expected to have heard them complain if they were having problems.
But I have seen graphics artifacts very much too often.  That is
definitely a problematic area.  So I jumped to the conclusion that you
were talking about the display of non-ascii characters.

But from this I read that you have had problems inputing non-ascii
characters when using VNC?

> I think of installing TigerVNC and TightVNC, which both need
> (Real?)VNC to be installed.

RealVNC is the grandfather of all of the VNC implementations.  It is
the most stable for me.  I recommend it as the reference platform to
compare any others against.  YMMV.

TightVNC is an extension of RealVNC that adds the "Tight" extensions
and other useful features.  Its main advantage being performance due
to data stream compression.  It is completely self contained.

TightVNC as I understand it was created due to developers wanting
faster development than RealVNC since RealVNC development is very
mature, stable, doesn't accept patches very quickly, and does not
change very often.

Installing TightVNC does not need RealVNC installed.  If you install
TightVNC then you should have everything you need all in one place.
This is just the same as installing RealVNC.  Both TightVNC and
RealVNC can be installed side by side and either used independently of
the other.

TigerVNC is a fork of TightVNC.  TigerVNC as I understand it was
created due to developers wanting faster development than available
through TightVNC and/or they had differences of opinion with the
TightVNC developers.  I wasn't following the development there and am
a little fuzzy on the details.  In any case Tiger is a fork of Tight
and as far as I know is also self contained.  I haven't used it but it
should be installable side by side with either of the other others
too.

Personally I have had the most reliable success using RealVNC.  At one
time the performance advantage of TightVNC was very attractive and I
used it in preference due to this.  In the last two years I have been
having graphics artifacts with TightVNC and so have reverted to using
RealVNC.  I haven't investigated further since the other worked and
the performance issue was no longer a driving factor for me since I
was doing less with it.  YMMV.  I say try each of them and make your
own evaluations.  For best performance both client and server should
be the same flavor.

Bob