Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Remote Desktop Poor Performance

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
April 16, 2004 2:14:04 PM

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.
April 16, 2004 3:46:03 PM

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
Anonymous
April 18, 2004 11:26:04 PM

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
!