Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

turtle777 · 09:14 PM

From all the rumors about that PAL thing, if it's for real, it sounds like an Apple version of Virtual Network Computing (VNC).

This stuff is indeed useful, especially if .mac would offer some sort of static IP services like dyndns.org.

Well, it wouldn't be a totally new idea, the technology is already around.

www.webthing.net/vncthing/ (Client for OS X)
www.redstonesoftware.com/osxvnc (Server OS X)
www.realvnc.com (Server / client for PCs)
www.dyndns.org

What you guys think ?

-t

mitchell_pgh · Jun 5, 2003, 09:13 PM

Apple spent a bunch of money on Remote Desktop... I don't think they would just up and abandon that application (considering they just updated it).

Pal could be a remote desktop for the rest of us...

turtle777 · Jun 5, 2003, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Apple spent a bunch of money on Remote Desktop... I don't think they would just up and abandon that application (considering they just updated it).

Pal could be a remote desktop for the rest of us...

I agree.

The interesting question is if Apple

a) would offer a PC client, too.
That would basically mean that you could get some sort of a 'coming home" feeling from anywhere, even with any remote PC (a broadband connection is a must, though...)
b) will offer some sort of hardware "client", basically some sort of smart display...

Well, especially b) has some potential...

-t

Gee4orce · Jun 6, 2003, 04:30 AM

VNC and Remote Desktop are just screen mirroring applications.

What I could see a real benefit for would be genuine multiple remote screen connections. ie. even when someone is logged on to the computer at home and working on something, I could log in at the same time, but see my desktop, not theirs. I would work independently of them, simultaneously.

This might also explain the 'multiple simultaneous logins' that were rumoured to be arriving in Panther. We all thought this meant the same thing that XP does, but maybe the Mac version will take it a step further, and we can have multiple, simultaneous active logins....

Obviously this will need a powerful computer. But, lets expand the theory. Apple could sell Xserves as headless home servers, plus a cutdown powerbook as a remote terminal. With a broadband connection, you effectively have a high speed supercomputer wherever you go - that fits into your shirt pocket !

ShotgunEd · Jun 6, 2003, 04:54 AM

yeh, having multiple GUI logins would be stupendous, but it would require a complete rewrite of the UI server.

Simon · Jun 6, 2003, 06:36 AM

Originally posted by ShotgunEd:
yeh, having multiple GUI logins would be stupendous, but it would require a complete rewrite of the UI server.

No.

NeXT already had this feature and as developers have mentioned on this board before it was left in the NS API when OS X was written. It was however never "activated" and it seems that quite some hooks for it to work are missing.

So there is work needed.

But a complete rewrite is not necessary.

ShotgunEd · Jun 6, 2003, 07:36 AM

hmm, i guess i was misinformed.

Millennium · Jun 6, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by Simon:
No.

NeXT already had this feature and as developers have mentioned on this board before it was left in the NS API when OS X was written. It was however never "activated" and it seems that quite some hooks for it to work are missing.

Actually, this isn't really true.

NeXT used Display PostScript for its graphics system. DPS had this technology.

Apple, on the other hand, used Quartz, which has been called "Display PDF" by some. This has some similarities to Quartz, but by itself does not provide remote-hosting capability.

It is true that CGServices, a low-level graphics layer on top of which Quartz sits (the OSX port of XFree also sits on top of this), does have remote-hosting capability. However, the window server is not written in such a way that one could provide XFree-like multiple GUI logins. That's the part that requires a complete rewrite, and unfortunately, it requires rewrites in several other OS components in order to work properly.

This isn't saying that Apple hasn't done this. It's no secret that they've wanted to do it for some time. However, it would require a huge effort, and some parts of the OS would need a complete rewrite.

Now, as for VNC: I doubt Apple would use the VNC protocol for this project. However, the few things I've heard about PAL would seem to indicate that the functionality would be similar to VNC.

Simon · Jun 6, 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Millennium:
It is true that CGServices, a low-level graphics layer on top of which Quartz sits (the OSX port of XFree also sits on top of this), does have remote-hosting capability. However, the window server is not written in such a way that one could provide XFree-like multiple GUI logins. That's the part that requires a complete rewrite, and unfortunately, it requires rewrites in several other OS components in order to work properly.

Thanks for the elaborate info Millenium. I was thinking about CGServices (forgot the name of course). I was led to believe that getting the functionality in there was the main problem and since it was included into CGServices already that the rest would be a piece of cake.

Obviously this was wrong. Sorry about that.

Now, assuming since the intro of Jaguar Apple wanted multiuple GUI login sessions, do you think with a reasonable amount of resources they could get it in by now? How much resources would be required?

ckohler · Jun 6, 2003, 02:47 PM

OSX's Aqua interface is poorly suited for the types of screen mirroring technologies used today in programs like VNC. There's far too many gradients, animation, transparency and other complex bitmap data. VNC works best with only simple desktops that contain lots of solid areas of single color.

Hopefully, Apple will one day tap into the remote desktop capabilities of *nix described above and marry it with a specialized remote desktop application that could contain a lot of the code needed to render objects on a screen. That way only the most basic data (such as icon appearnace and position, window placement and size, available menus and options) would need to be sent to the client enabling complex desktops to be controled over low bandwidth connections. Send only the most basic bitmap data you have to and let the program handle the rest of the drawing rather than trying to copy everything pixel for pixel.

Sarc · Jun 6, 2003, 10:13 PM

Dunno about the rest of you ppl. but personally I feel that Remote Desktop isn't a modern Apple app.
I think that it was a sort of inherited codebase from another OS probably, I mean, the GUI is not Aqua HI compliant, the way you add servers, etc. It just doesn't feel right.

Anyone feel this too ?

WJMoore · Jun 7, 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by ckohler:
OSX's Aqua interface is poorly suited for the types of screen mirroring technologies used today in programs like VNC. There's far too many gradients, animation, transparency and other complex bitmap data. VNC works best with only simple desktops that contain lots of solid areas of single color.

Hopefully, Apple will one day tap into the remote desktop capabilities of *nix described above and marry it with a specialized remote desktop application that could contain a lot of the code needed to render objects on a screen. That way only the most basic data (such as icon appearnace and position, window placement and size, available menus and options) would need to be sent to the client enabling complex desktops to be controled over low bandwidth connections. Send only the most basic bitmap data you have to and let the program handle the rest of the drawing rather than trying to copy everything pixel for pixel.

I like your thinking, in this way the client sort of becomes an 'ultra light' version of the OS... I like it.

WM