Remote Desktop Poor Performance
Last response: in Windows XP
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)
We have a few clients who would like to remotely control their office based
XP machines from home using Remote Desktop over VPN. My inital experiments
with this scenario have been very disappointing in terms of performance.
I've been installing thin client configurations since the very first Citrix
Winframe back in the mid nineties, and also Terminal Services since NT4
Terminal Server Edition and I was expecting the performance of WinXP Remote
Desktop to be similar assuming sufficient bandwidth. Am I doing something
wrong, or am I expecting too much? What are your performance experiences
when comparing full blown terminal services to WinXP Remote Desktop?
Thanks,
D.
We have a few clients who would like to remotely control their office based
XP machines from home using Remote Desktop over VPN. My inital experiments
with this scenario have been very disappointing in terms of performance.
I've been installing thin client configurations since the very first Citrix
Winframe back in the mid nineties, and also Terminal Services since NT4
Terminal Server Edition and I was expecting the performance of WinXP Remote
Desktop to be similar assuming sufficient bandwidth. Am I doing something
wrong, or am I expecting too much? What are your performance experiences
when comparing full blown terminal services to WinXP Remote Desktop?
Thanks,
D.
More about : remote desktop poor performance
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)
I've experienced botth Terminal Services with Windows 2000/2003 and Remote Desktop with windows XP. Terminal Services was designed for the specific purpose of multiple users logging on to run applications and whatnot, and was therefore designed to run accordingly. Windows XP was designed to be an OS, and the RD feature is just that, a feature, and was not designed for those seeking performance in a remote connection environment. In my experience, TS is definitely faster. What might take 2-3 seconds in TS takes 4-5 in RD. RD is a very good option if you don't have the money to spend on TS or your network environment is not designed as such, however there is a slight (not really noticeable to the common user) performance loss with RD. Also, realize that you are losing on average 5-10% of your speed using a vpn. Hope this helps.
Zac
I've experienced botth Terminal Services with Windows 2000/2003 and Remote Desktop with windows XP. Terminal Services was designed for the specific purpose of multiple users logging on to run applications and whatnot, and was therefore designed to run accordingly. Windows XP was designed to be an OS, and the RD feature is just that, a feature, and was not designed for those seeking performance in a remote connection environment. In my experience, TS is definitely faster. What might take 2-3 seconds in TS takes 4-5 in RD. RD is a very good option if you don't have the money to spend on TS or your network environment is not designed as such, however there is a slight (not really noticeable to the common user) performance loss with RD. Also, realize that you are losing on average 5-10% of your speed using a vpn. Hope this helps.
Zac
Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.work_remotely (More info?)
I disagree. The terminal services technology in XP Pro (as far as I know) is identical to that of 2000/2003 except that it doesn't allow multiple concurrent logons. What makes a Remote Desktop Session on a Terminal Server seem faster than running on an XP Pro machine is because it's usually running on a $5,000 computer, and not a $500 desktop.
Remote Desktop should be very usable over a 26.4-33.6Kbps connection and similar to sitting at the console over a DSL connection (except for graphically intensive programs like Internet Explorer, Photoshop, Games...)
High Screen Resolution (over 1024x768), high color depth, displaying a desktop background, redirecting sound... all significantly slow down your session, so turn off anything that is not-essential (via the Remote Desktop Client).
Patrick Rouse
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
http://www.workthin.com
----- Zac wrote: -----
I've experienced botth Terminal Services with Windows 2000/2003 and Remote Desktop with windows XP. Terminal Services was designed for the specific purpose of multiple users logging on to run applications and whatnot, and was therefore designed to run accordingly. Windows XP was designed to be an OS, and the RD feature is just that, a feature, and was not designed for those seeking performance in a remote connection environment. In my experience, TS is definitely faster. What might take 2-3 seconds in TS takes 4-5 in RD. RD is a very good option if you don't have the money to spend on TS or your network environment is not designed as such, however there is a slight (not really noticeable to the common user) performance loss with RD. Also, realize that you are losing on average 5-10% of your speed using a vpn. Hope this helps.
Zac
I disagree. The terminal services technology in XP Pro (as far as I know) is identical to that of 2000/2003 except that it doesn't allow multiple concurrent logons. What makes a Remote Desktop Session on a Terminal Server seem faster than running on an XP Pro machine is because it's usually running on a $5,000 computer, and not a $500 desktop.
Remote Desktop should be very usable over a 26.4-33.6Kbps connection and similar to sitting at the console over a DSL connection (except for graphically intensive programs like Internet Explorer, Photoshop, Games...)
High Screen Resolution (over 1024x768), high color depth, displaying a desktop background, redirecting sound... all significantly slow down your session, so turn off anything that is not-essential (via the Remote Desktop Client).
Patrick Rouse
Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server
http://www.workthin.com
----- Zac wrote: -----
I've experienced botth Terminal Services with Windows 2000/2003 and Remote Desktop with windows XP. Terminal Services was designed for the specific purpose of multiple users logging on to run applications and whatnot, and was therefore designed to run accordingly. Windows XP was designed to be an OS, and the RD feature is just that, a feature, and was not designed for those seeking performance in a remote connection environment. In my experience, TS is definitely faster. What might take 2-3 seconds in TS takes 4-5 in RD. RD is a very good option if you don't have the money to spend on TS or your network environment is not designed as such, however there is a slight (not really noticeable to the common user) performance loss with RD. Also, realize that you are losing on average 5-10% of your speed using a vpn. Hope this helps.
Zac
Related ressources:
- ForumPoor Remote Desktop Performance
- ForumRemote Desktop Performance Very Poor after SP2
- ForumGreat Laptop specs but poor performance
- ForumPerformance of Remote Desktop using VPN
- ForumRunning AutoCad over Remote Desktop ? Performance limiting factor?
- ForumPoor performance with Nvidia GTX 670
- ForumPoor random write performance : Samsung 840
- ForumPoor Performance with Radeon 5850
- ForumPoor RAM performance Troubleshoot - Help!
- ForumPoor performance new rig
- ForumQuestion : Possibility of Remote Desktop gaming on Tablets
- ForumPoor system performance ; bottlenecked??
- ForumSamsung 830, extremelly poor performance .
- ForumReally poor performance AMD FX 8150
- ForumGtx275 poor performance
- ForumGetting past administrative password
- ForumRemote through Netmeeting
- ForumWindows Remote Assistance
- ForumSetting up Remote Desktop using DSL connection
- ForumRemote Uninstall
- More resources
Read discussions in other Windows XP categories
!
