|
windows
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
free multi-user remote desktop utilityIs there a free remote desktop utility that allows multiple simultaneous
user logins? I've been using Windows RDP as well as TightVNC so far, and they are both fine. But what I'd really like is something that will allow users to remain actively logged in without suspending them in the background when somebody else logs in. I believe Windows Terminal Services and Citrix does this, but of course neither of them are free. Yousuf Khan Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is there a free remote desktop utility that allows multiple I don't know of anything that's free - there are allegedly some old hacks > simultaneous user logins? I've been using Windows RDP as well as > TightVNC so far, and they are both fine. But what I'd really like is > something that will allow users to remain actively logged in without > suspending them in the background when somebody else logs in. I > believe Windows Terminal Services and Citrix does this, but of course > neither of them are free. > Yousuf Khan for XP to permit multiple simultaneous RD connections, but they most certainly aren't supported (and I don't know where to find them, either). I'd consider them unsuitable for use in a business environment for many reasons. Terminal Services is what you need, if you want to stick with Windows, I'm afraid. You don't need Citrix. Lanwench [MVP - Exchange] wrote:
> I don't know of anything that's free - there are allegedly some old hacks Well, fortunately, it's not for a business environment, it's for my own > for XP to permit multiple simultaneous RD connections, but they most > certainly aren't supported (and I don't know where to find them, either). > I'd consider them unsuitable for use in a business environment for many > reasons. > > Terminal Services is what you need, if you want to stick with Windows, I'm > afraid. You don't need Citrix. home network. Aren't home networks just resembling business networks from a few years ago? I have 3 machines scattered throughout the house, and I'd rather manage them all from whichever machine I'm sitting at at the time rather than trudging around from room to room. VNC and RDP get me 90% of the way there, but I like to be able to keep control over the machines even when somebody else is using one of them. What's the XP hacks called, that you mentioned? All of the machines are XP, though some of them may be Home, and some may be Pro. Yousuf Khan In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
> Well, fortunately, it's not for a business environment, it's Well, if you don't want to use a KVM, then you might try sshd> for my own home network. Aren't home networks just resembling > business networks from a few years ago? I have 3 machines > scattered throughout the house, and I'd rather manage them all > from whichever machine I'm sitting at at the time rather than > trudging around from room to room. VNC and RDP get me 90% of > the way there, but I like to be able to keep control over the > machines even when somebody else is using one of them. > What's the XP hacks called, that you mentioned? All of the > machines are XP, though some of them may be Home, and some may > be Pro. compiled for MS-Win32 . This should give you command-line (cmd.exe or other shell) access to the machine -- Robert Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Well, if you don't want to use a KVM, then you might try sshd As I said, the machines are scattered throughout the house, nowhere in > compiled for MS-Win32 . This should give you command-line > (cmd.exe or other shell) access to the machine range of any kvm switch. SSH? I didn't say Linux here, I said Windows. I got my solutions for Linux already. Barely anything more than basic stuff that you can do with Windows on the command-line. Yousuf Khan In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com> wrote in part:
> SSH? I didn't say Linux here, I said Windows. I got my Well, I don't claim any MS-Windows expertise nor have you told us> solutions for Linux already. Barely anything more than > basic stuff that you can do with Windows on the command-line. the sorts of activities you wish to do on remote boxen. Highly interactive stuff like running a browser or office app likely would require a fairly "heavy" solution like Symantec PC-Anywhere. However, if you are merely looking for remote administration, I believe many of these can still be done cmd-line: ipconfig, arp, attr, etc. Perhaps some of these can still _only_ be done cmd-line. AFAIK, patching is done by KBxxxxxx.exe which should be remotely executable. MS doesn't make this easy, but that is the nature of learning GUIs: easy to start then progressively tougher. CLI has a much larger initial hurdle, but then gets easier. Look at it another way: you will be getting your exercise :) Personally, I keep all of my data and work all my data on _one_ machine (automagically backed up onto others). Then I don't need to worry about where a file or email is. I believe you can do much the same with MS-Windows by seting up network drives. -- Robert Robert Redelmeier wrote:
> Well, I don't claim any MS-Windows expertise nor have you told us Yeah, the remote desktop apps that I've mentioned that I'm already using > the sorts of activities you wish to do on remote boxen. Highly > interactive stuff like running a browser or office app likely > would require a fairly "heavy" solution like Symantec PC-Anywhere. right now are RDP (bundled with Windows) and TightVNC (open-source) which are both similar to PC-Anywhere. Basically, you get a full-screen GUI coming out through the network, appearing on a remote machine, much like the X Windows system in the Unix world, albeit a little bit cruder. The only problem with what I'm using now is that it isn't multi-user. That is, only one person at a time can be logged into a particular machine. So if somebody is logged into a machine, that I want to use, if I login to it, it will kick them off. Then they log back in, and kick me off, etc. For example, RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol) that I've mentioned previously is a Microsoft application that they include for free with all versions of Windows (the Home versions usually only have the client but not the server portion). Microsoft sells a package called Terminal Services, for several thousand dollars, which is an upgraded version of RDP, allowing multiple user logins. Similarly there is a third party application sold by Citrix systems for thousands of dollars too. However, I haven't used PC-Anywhere or Carbon Copy in ages, so I don't know if they are just unitary-user or multi-user. Anybody have an idea? > However, if you are merely looking for remote administration, Trust me, I know my way around a command-line, DOS or Unix. But in the > I believe many of these can still be done cmd-line: ipconfig, > arp, attr, etc. Perhaps some of these can still _only_ be done > cmd-line. AFAIK, patching is done by KBxxxxxx.exe which should be > remotely executable. MS doesn't make this easy, but that is the > nature of learning GUIs: easy to start then progressively tougher. > CLI has a much larger initial hurdle, but then gets easier. Windows world, there is just way too much stuff that can't be managed through a command-line (Linux is also getting to that level now). When I'm talking of managing a Windows box remotely, I mean managing it entirely, including its running applications. If I want to adjust a configuration in an application, I have no choice but to get to its GUI, and mouse-click over to the options or preferences menu. > Personally, I keep all of my data and work all my data on _one_ Network drives were among the first tools I setup, this now goes beyond > machine (automagically backed up onto others). Then I don't need > to worry about where a file or email is. I believe you can do > much the same with MS-Windows by seting up network drives. that. I'm not just trying to access data from a box, but manage the whole box. Yousuf Khan Yousuf Khan wrote:
Show quote > Robert Redelmeier wrote: I know that with PC-Anywhere that the user can use the computer at the >> Well, I don't claim any MS-Windows expertise nor have you told us >> the sorts of activities you wish to do on remote boxen. Highly >> interactive stuff like running a browser or office app likely >> would require a fairly "heavy" solution like Symantec PC-Anywhere. > > Yeah, the remote desktop apps that I've mentioned that I'm already using > right now are RDP (bundled with Windows) and TightVNC (open-source) > which are both similar to PC-Anywhere. Basically, you get a full-screen > GUI coming out through the network, appearing on a remote machine, much > like the X Windows system in the Unix world, albeit a little bit cruder. > > The only problem with what I'm using now is that it isn't multi-user. > That is, only one person at a time can be logged into a particular > machine. So if somebody is logged into a machine, that I want to use, if > I login to it, it will kick them off. Then they log back in, and kick me > off, etc. > > For example, RDP (Remote Desktop Protocol) that I've mentioned > previously is a Microsoft application that they include for free with > all versions of Windows (the Home versions usually only have the client > but not the server portion). Microsoft sells a package called Terminal > Services, for several thousand dollars, which is an upgraded version of > RDP, allowing multiple user logins. Similarly there is a third party > application sold by Citrix systems for thousands of dollars too. > However, I haven't used PC-Anywhere or Carbon Copy in ages, so I don't > know if they are just unitary-user or multi-user. Anybody have an idea? > same time as someone logged in through PC-Anywhere. Obviously, the remote user could not log in as a different user while the first person is logged in, anymore than two people can use XP on the same desktop at the same time. PC-Anywhere does allow two people to interact, such as one person opening a window and the second person editing a file in the opened window. Show quote >> However, if you are merely looking for remote administration, >> I believe many of these can still be done cmd-line: ipconfig, >> arp, attr, etc. Perhaps some of these can still _only_ be done >> cmd-line. AFAIK, patching is done by KBxxxxxx.exe which should be >> remotely executable. MS doesn't make this easy, but that is the >> nature of learning GUIs: easy to start then progressively tougher. >> CLI has a much larger initial hurdle, but then gets easier. > > Trust me, I know my way around a command-line, DOS or Unix. But in the > Windows world, there is just way too much stuff that can't be managed > through a command-line (Linux is also getting to that level now). When > I'm talking of managing a Windows box remotely, I mean managing it > entirely, including its running applications. If I want to adjust a > configuration in an application, I have no choice but to get to its GUI, > and mouse-click over to the options or preferences menu. > >> Personally, I keep all of my data and work all my data on _one_ >> machine (automagically backed up onto others). Then I don't need >> to worry about where a file or email is. I believe you can do >> much the same with MS-Windows by seting up network drives. > > Network drives were among the first tools I setup, this now goes beyond > that. I'm not just trying to access data from a box, but manage the > whole box. > > Yousuf Khan Michael W. Ryder wrote:
> I know that with PC-Anywhere that the user can use the computer at the Yes, well then it looks like PC-Anywhere has got exactly the same > same time as someone logged in through PC-Anywhere. Obviously, the > remote user could not log in as a different user while the first person > is logged in, anymore than two people can use XP on the same desktop at > the same time. PC-Anywhere does allow two people to interact, such as > one person opening a window and the second person editing a file in the > opened window. functionality as TightVNC. However, I was looking for a package that allowed me to login to my own account while letting someone else continue working on their own separate account, simultaneously. Yousuf Khan On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:55:54 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...] >Yeah, the remote desktop apps that I've mentioned that I'm already using I haven't tried TightVNC, but the "original" VNC allowed a server-side setting>right now are RDP (bundled with Windows) and TightVNC (open-source) >which are both similar to PC-Anywhere. Basically, you get a full-screen >GUI coming out through the network, appearing on a remote machine, much >like the X Windows system in the Unix world, albeit a little bit cruder. > >The only problem with what I'm using now is that it isn't multi-user. >That is, only one person at a time can be logged into a particular >machine. So if somebody is logged into a machine, that I want to use, if >I login to it, it will kick them off. Then they log back in, and kick me >off, etc. that allowed a local login to co-exist with a remote connection. I use it this was to remote-manage all of the systems I've somehow become responsible for (read: my systems, my wife's, my kids', their spouses, relatives, etc ;-) Take a real close look around the server-side settings to see if TightVNC hid such a toggle. I'd be surprised if "tight" actually means "we stripped out a highly useful feature".... Cheers /daytripper On Fri, 23 Nov 2007 21:55:54 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com>
wrote: >The only problem with what I'm using now is that it isn't multi-user. Hmm, that's kinda weird. We use TightVNC at home so that we could>That is, only one person at a time can be logged into a particular >machine. So if somebody is logged into a machine, that I want to use, if >I login to it, it will kick them off. Then they log back in, and kick me >off, etc. access stuff from outside in case we forgot to copy them out earlier or to check the home fax. If somebody else was on the computer, then it just becomes a case of two person fighting over the mouse and keyboard, nobody gets logged off. At which point, it's simply an unwritten rule to let the remote person do what is needed, or the remote person opens up notepad and type in what's wanted, the local person can usually do it faster :P Of course, there's only two of us so we simply use a single admin privilege account on Windows. But even if you logged into a non-privileged account, I suppose you could always use the (I think it exists) Run As... function? -- A Lost Angel, fallen from heaven Lost in dreams, Lost in aspirations, Lost to the world, Lost to myself The little lost angel wrote:
Show quote > Hmm, that's kinda weird. We use TightVNC at home so that we could Yes, that is available in TightVNC, but that's not what I want. I want > access stuff from outside in case we forgot to copy them out earlier > or to check the home fax. > > If somebody else was on the computer, then it just becomes a case of > two person fighting over the mouse and keyboard, nobody gets logged > off. At which point, it's simply an unwritten rule to let the remote > person do what is needed, or the remote person opens up notepad and > type in what's wanted, the local person can usually do it faster :P > > Of course, there's only two of us so we simply use a single admin > privilege account on Windows. But even if you logged into a > non-privileged account, I suppose you could always use the (I think it > exists) Run As... function? to be able to login to my own account while somebody is logged into their own account, simultaneously. Don't necessarily want to take over somebody else's account while they're working in it. Yousuf Khan Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com> wrote:
Show quote > The little lost angel wrote: Terminal Services will do this for you - there's no other way in Windows.>> Hmm, that's kinda weird. We use TightVNC at home so that we could >> access stuff from outside in case we forgot to copy them out earlier >> or to check the home fax. >> >> If somebody else was on the computer, then it just becomes a case of >> two person fighting over the mouse and keyboard, nobody gets logged >> off. At which point, it's simply an unwritten rule to let the remote >> person do what is needed, or the remote person opens up notepad and >> type in what's wanted, the local person can usually do it faster :P >> >> Of course, there's only two of us so we simply use a single admin >> privilege account on Windows. But even if you logged into a >> non-privileged account, I suppose you could always use the (I think >> it exists) Run As... function? > > > Yes, that is available in TightVNC, but that's not what I want. I want > to be able to login to my own account while somebody is logged into > their own account, simultaneously. Don't necessarily want to take over > somebody else's account while they're working in it. > > Yousuf Khan On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:21:15 -0500, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwe***@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote: > But only if you run a Server version - and even then there is a limit,>Terminal Services will do this for you - there's no other way in Windows. > IIRC it is console + 2 remote users, all others get some sort of over-the-limit message until one of current remote users logs off (could be annoying calling everyone around the office asking if he/she keeps a dormant remote logon on that #$%^ing box). With plain XP (prolly vista as well - never tried yet) no way at all - remote user gets the current console user kicked out. NNN nob***@nowhere.net <mygarbage2***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:21:15 -0500, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" Of course.....hence the name, eh? :)> <lanwe***@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote: > >> >> Terminal Services will do this for you - there's no other way in >> Windows. >> > But only if you run a Server version >- and even then there is a limit, No, that's not Terminal Services - that's Remote Desktop for admin use. > IIRC it is console + 2 remote users, Terminal Services allows you as many simultaneous connections as you have TS licenses to support. > all others get some sort of That's correct.> over-the-limit message until one of current remote users logs off > (could be annoying calling everyone around the office asking if he/she > keeps a dormant remote logon on that #$%^ing box). With plain XP > (prolly vista as well - never tried yet) no way at all - remote user > gets the current console user kicked out. Show quote > > NNN On Nov 27, 9:09 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]"
<lanwe***@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote: > No, that's not Terminal Services - that's Remote Desktop for admin use. So I assume Remote Desktop for admin use is only available with a> Terminal Services allows you as many simultaneous connections as you have TS > licenses to support. server version of Windows too? I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just assumed that this was basic functionality in Windows too. Yousuf Khan YKhan <yjk***@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 9:09 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" Yep.> <lanwe***@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote: >> No, that's not Terminal Services - that's Remote Desktop for admin >> use. Terminal Services allows you as many simultaneous connections >> as you have TS licenses to support. > > So I assume Remote Desktop for admin use is only available with a > server version of Windows too? > No, alas.> I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just assumed that > this was basic functionality in Windows too. Show quote > > Yousuf Khan In article <cd12464c-3f27-48b0-97f9-1ec945cfa9b1
@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, yjk***@gmail.com says... > On Nov 27, 9:09 am, "Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]" Yousuf! Assuming that something useful was basic functionality of > <lanwe***@heybuddy.donotsendme.unsolicitedmailatyahoo.com> wrote: > > No, that's not Terminal Services - that's Remote Desktop for admin use. > > Terminal Services allows you as many simultaneous connections as you have TS > > licenses to support. > > So I assume Remote Desktop for admin use is only available with a > server version of Windows too? > > I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just assumed that > this was basic functionality in Windows too. Windows? Next you'll be expecting Windows to be reliable and secure. -- Keith In comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips YKhan <yjk***@gmail.com> wrote in part:
> I guess I've been a bit spoiled by Unix and Linux, just Perhaps, but your expectations should consider from whence> assumed that this was basic functionality in Windows too. Unix and MS-Windows came. Linux/Unix came from a multi-user, multi-tasking system from day one. Networking was added early, and graphics later and only on remote VDTs. MS-Windows came from MS-DOS for PCs. That should be enough, but I will belabor the point: graphics was added fairly early and closely tied to the console, multitasking was added without multi-user, networking added late and multi-user only relatively recently (MS-Win2k?) These origins continue to be reflected in the OS strengths: Linux/Unix is very secure owing to its multi-user & multi-tasking base. With well settled networking but relatively weak graphics and interactivity. -- Robert On Nov 19, 1:38 pm, Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Is there a free remote desktop utility that allows multiple simultaneous Windows Terminal Services has been renamed as Remote Desktop. With> user logins? I've been using Windows RDP as well as TightVNC so far, and > they are both fine. But what I'd really like is something that will > allow users to remain actively logged in without suspending them in the > background when somebody else logs in. I believe Windows Terminal > Services and Citrix does this, but of course neither of them are free. > > Yousuf Khan RDP, you can only do what you want with a Server grade version of Windows (Windows 2003 or the new Windows 2008.) As for a KVM solution, you might want to look at the following: http://www.lantronix.com/data-center-management/kvm-solutions/securelinx-spider.html These "Spider" units are self-contained and only require their own CAT 5 cable. On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:38:06 -0500, Yousuf Khan <bbb***@yahoo.com>
wrote: >Is there a free remote desktop utility that allows multiple simultaneous I remember using a few years ago something called Dameware mini>user logins? I've been using Windows RDP as well as TightVNC so far, and >they are both fine. But what I'd really like is something that will >allow users to remain actively logged in without suspending them in the >background when somebody else logs in. I believe Windows Terminal >Services and Citrix does this, but of course neither of them are free. > > Yousuf Khan remote, this thing (unlike Windows RDP) didn't log current desktop user out. Don't remember though if it was free, or my then-current company bought a site license - it was available to anyone with admin rights to their own box to install off the network and run against any other box. NNN  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics