Hi Nable,
using X2Go means that you'll need a local X-Server. This X-Server catches a lot work of display, caching and input management locally. So
- yes, you'll need more power on the client to run this complete X-Server even when content ist rendered on serverside. On the plus side: this is a "near native" (ok, the diff between nxagent and XOrg is increasing) redirection of Linux displays.
Regards,
Heinz
Am 30.09.2013 22:22, schrieb Nable 80:
Furthermore, xrdp encapsulates the VNC protocol AFAIK, that's not 100% truth. XRDP has several options (including rdp2rdp proxy), personally I use (for most setups) x11rdp + xrdp (Xvnc is too resource-consuming), although sometimes (for special setups) I use X2Go because of Debian packages (one has to build x11rdp from source to get the best recent version) + out-of-box sound forwarding support + easy directory sharing + ready thinclient packages.
Here are some more observations from me: when you have a weak/slow client (Vcxsrv and XMing seem to be rather slow on my old laptop with WinXP) and heavy server, the xrdp seems to be working better. When you have rather powerful client and want to reduce amount of software rendering on server-side, X2Go seems to be better. 2developers: please, correct me if I'm saying smth wrong, as I don't know much about the internals of X11-related software.
X2Go-Dev mailing list X2Go-Dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev