More on Apple Remote Desktop

--- begin forwarded text

From: Ian Eiloart <ianesussex.ac.uk>

--On Monday, September 20, 2004 8:00 pm -0700 TidBITS Editors <editorstidbits.com> wrote:

One particular note: the Remote Desktop 1.0 software that's built into Mac OS X 10.3 Panther doesn't work with Remote Desktop 2.0, but Remote Desktop 2.0 can update the 1.0 client software on multiple remote machines over the network, just like any other task. It isn't even necessary to reboot the remote machines after updating.

But, you do have to remember to open up the relevant ports on the remote machine's firewall, *before* updating it. You can't do that after the update, unless you visit the machine and log in, or ssh to the machine and use the command line.

-- Ian Eiloart Servers Team Sussex University ITS

--- end forwarded text

--- begin forwarded text From: Marc Rhodes

Adam,

In this article you said:

While on the topic of controlling Windows-based PCs, note that Microsoft provides a free program called Remote Desktop Connection that enables Macs to log into and run programs on PCs running certain versions of Windows. Remote Desktop Connection uses Microsoft's Terminal Services, not VNC, and my impression is that Terminal Services works quite well when both computers are running Windows. However, I've tried the Remote Desktop Connection client for the Mac, and although I was able to get it working eventually, it was flaky and proved to be too much trouble to use on an ongoing basis. Your mileage may vary.

In the "your mileage may vary" department, I wanted to note that I often tell people that Remote Desktop Connection is the best software that Microsoft has ever done. I have used it extensively Mac-to-Windows and some Windows-to-Windows.

In my current job I use it some (checking web pages on IE/Windows mostly) and it works fine I launch Remote Desktop Connection instead of Virtual PC every time.

My previous job was Windows-only. I worked at home a few hours every day and all day occasionally. My mode of operation was to connect my PowerBook via VPN to work (PowerBook->VPN->AirPort->DSL), launch Remote Desktop Connection full-screen, and proceed to do Visual Studio/C#/.NET software development for hours on end. Of course, occasionally the connection dropped but when I reconnected all my apps on the PC were sitting right where I left them. Also note that I found the performance acceptable running over the public Internet as opposed to both machines on a local LAN.

Sometimes I needed to connect to multiple computers at work. The Macintosh client has a one computer connection limit (the Windows client can connect to multiple computers). I used the old, old Macintosh trick of simply duplicating the application in the Finder and launching the duplicate. Then I made duplicates to run as many sessions as I wanted.

Just wanted to share that with you. I don't often have good things to say about Microsoft but this is the extreme exception. It enabled me to spend hours in my home with my beautiful PowerBooks as opposed to spending hours in an office staring at an ugly Dell or worse yet forcing me to buy an ugly Dell.

Marc Rhodes

--- end forwarded text

> From: Bryan Nunweek
> Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 22:50:57 -0700
>
> In your review you note that you, like many others, still have
> machines running Mac OS 9 or earlier. However ARD 2.0 is incompatible
> with these and also won't coexist on the same machine as ARD 1.2.
> This is only in the fine print. Once you install it is very difficult
> to uninstall - no real way back.
>
> <http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=07821>
>
> [It's absolutely true that Apple Remote Desktop 2.0 is incompatible
> with Mac OS 9; as I noted, it works only in Mac OS X 10.2.8 and
> later. I've never tried uninstalling, since I like using it. -Adam]

I was surprised to see the following hint because I couldn't think of a
scenario when you would want to use it but if you need to get rid of ARD2
from a client, this page lists the files you need to delete. Make sure to
read the comments on the article because one of them amends the original
article's list.

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20040917120247831

You would probably want to install ARD1.2.4 again, the package for which
should still be available on the client.

/Library/Receipts/ARDClient124Update.pkg

--- begin forwarded text

From: Patrick Warn

Thank you for your review of Apple Remote Desktop. I've been tempted
to buy it but the price always has kept my credit card in my wallet.
I had heard that 2.0 was much better, but it still sounds as if it
isn't for me just yet.

I'm surprised by your experiences with VNC and Microsoft's Remote
Desktop Connection. My work is primarily with Windows and Linux
desktops and servers, and I control them all from my trusty 17"
PowerBook.

On the Windows side I've found that TightVNC, a free client/server
works better than any other VNC program I've tried. It, along with
many other VNC servers allows you to serve VNC to a web browser over
port 5800. Since Apple last updated the Java software on the Mac,
I've found that accessing VNC with Safari works very well and is
reasonably speedy. I like that I can have bookmarks to all my servers
and open them in tabs in the browser. Add in LaunchBar and I'm never
more than 6 keystrokes away from any server.

[I asked Patrick for clarification about this Java VNC usage, and he
added the following. -Adam]

It doesn't require TightVNC, just a VNC server that supports VNC over
HTTP. Most of the ones I've tried offer it. Some don't specify that
it is HTTP, but the standard is that port 5900 is the "plain VNC"
port and port 5800 is the "HTTP VNC" port. If you are on a computer
that can offer multiple displays, the port numbers are really 590x or
580x where x is the display number. I'm not sure, but it seems to be
a nod to X and the way it deals with more than one display.

In your web browser put in the URL
http://<myservernameoriphere>:5800/ press enter and watch the magic...

I've almost switched to Firefox as a replacement for Safari, as it
loads pages faster and I really like the extensions available,
however for VNC I find that the Java client works better with Safari,
at least with Firefox 1.0PR.

[Back to the original message. -Adam]

Since the company I work for makes a Windows based software package,
I've been through every upgrade to Virtual PC, and every two years or
so I by the top of the line PowerBook all in hopes of multi-platform
nirvana. It never seems to work out, and running Windows on my Mac is
always slow. With the release of Microsoft's free RDC client for the
Mac I finally gave up on VPC and I've never been happier.

I have an old AMD Athlon 700 PC at work, and a cheap home built
Pentium III 1GHz PC at home, both with Windows XP Pro. (XP home
doesn't include the RDC server software, only a client.) No matter
where I am, as long as I have a network connection I can access
either PC and run Windows at at least 4 times the speed of Virtual
PC, even if it is through the Internet. It works so well that at
work, I don't even have the PC hooked to a monitor or keyboard, I
only access it through RDC.

On the Linux side, I don't bother with VNC. Between OS X's FreeBSD
heritage, Fink, Terminal and X11 my PowerBook is a full peer with any
Unix or Linux computer. I don't even have to worry about line endings
in files anymore.

At home, I often want to remotely control my desktop Mac or my wife's
PowerBook, but I've found Timbuktu to be kind of clunky, and like
Apple's Remote Desktop it can get expensive. So I run the free OSXvnc
from Redstone software. It isn't perfect, but for the price it can't
be beat.

<http://www.redstonesoftware.com/osxvnc/>

In an ideal world, Apple would integrate Aqua and X11 so any computer
that can run X could control a Mac or run a Mac application remotely.
As long as I'm wishing, OpenOffice would make a great open source
base for a fully Aqua-fied AppleOffice...

Thanks for all the years of TidBITS!

Patrick Warn

--- end forwarded text

--- begin forwarded text
From: Chris Kempton

> Luckily, you can tunnel the VNC connection through
> SSH for additional security. VNC also requires that you open
> up port 5900 in your firewall.

That's not true. My company uses VNC to control multiple Xserves in a
remote data center, tunneling the 5900 traffic through SSH using the
methodology described here:

http://www.uk.research.att.com/archive/vnc/sshvnc.html

No firewall port opening required (or, in our configuration, performed).
ARD administration does require 5900 to be open because it communicates over
UDP, so we use it only from inside our network. But you can connect via
VNC-over-SSH (using Chicken of the VNC, for example) to a Mac behind a
firewall blocking 5900 but allowing SSH.

One obstacle that our staff encountered pretty quickly after moving away
from Timbuktu: creating SSH tunnels is beyond the capability of some
otherwise technically competent staffers. We use a little AppleScript
application that collects the name of the server to which you wish to VNC,
then hands that variable off to this statement:

   do script "ssh -C -N -L 2020:127.0.0.1:5900 remotedesktop" & hostConnect

Once that's done, you tell your VNC client to 127.0.0.1:2020 (also
AppleScripted) and you should be viewing the remote machine. NOTE: 2020 is
an arbitrary selection here; any unused port would suffice.

> While on the topic of controlling Windows-based PCs, note that
> Microsoft provides a free program called Remote Desktop Connection
> that enables Macs to log into and run programs on PCs running
> certain versions of Windows. Remote Desktop Connection uses
> Microsoft's Terminal Services, not VNC, and my impression is that
> Terminal Services works quite well when both computers are running
> Windows. However, I've tried the Remote Desktop Connection client
> for the Mac, and although I was able to get it working eventually,
> it was flaky and proved to be too much trouble to use on an
> ongoing basis. Your mileage may vary.

Apparently so. We use RDC daily to manage Windows servers in the same data
center and have had excellent results. In fact, the distributed GUI model
of Terminal Services (rather than the screen-sharing model of ARD-VNC) is
superior in many scenarios. Maybe your tolerance for "flakiness" was
lessened by the fact that the software was supplied by Microsoft?

[Actually, my tolerance for flakiness was lessened by the fact that
the PC is in my office, so I don't really need remote control
software to use it, and I use the PC so infrequently anyway that
spending extra time fussing with remote control software feels like a
waste. But hey, I'm happy to hear that RDC works well for people who
really use it. -Adam]

All this being said, I've found ARD 2 to be a big time-saver and legitimate
Timbuktu-killer, and would suggest it to anyone who manages more than 2
Macs. I would add to the wish list support for true distributed GUI, as in
X11 and Terminal Services.

--
Chris Kempton
Baseview Products, Inc.

--- end forwarded text

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam C. Engst [mailto:acetidbits.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:20 PM
> To: tidbits-talktidbits.com
> Subject: Re: More on Apple Remote Desktop
>
>
> --- begin forwarded text
> From: Chris Kempton

> One obstacle that our staff encountered pretty quickly after
> moving away
> from Timbuktu: creating SSH tunnels is beyond the capability of some
> otherwise technically competent staffers. We use a little AppleScript
> application that collects the name of the server to which you
> wish to VNC,
> then hands that variable off to this statement:
>
> do script "ssh -C -N -L 2020:127.0.0.1:5900
> remotedesktop" & hostConnect
>
> Once that's done, you tell your VNC client to 127.0.0.1:2020 (also
> AppleScripted) and you should be viewing the remote machine.
> NOTE: 2020 is
> an arbitrary selection here; any unused port would suffice.

I'm on Windows at work and I use a Windows batch script to do a similar job,
handling the creation of an ssh tunnel and launching the VNC client to use
it. One enhancement I can suggest is to add a randomizer for the arbitrary
selection of the local port. Currently your script does not allow someone to
have two VNC windows open because the second time the script is run it will
find port 2020 already in use. My script uses a variable for the local port
number and the variable is filled in by "59" with the current time appended
to it (if I launch it at 4:35pm, the local port number is 5935). As long as
I don't try to run it twice in the same minute or have the bad luck to
launch it exactly one hour later, I can open up a second (or third, or
fourth) VNC window.

> Apparently so. We use RDC daily to manage Windows servers in
> the same data
> center and have had excellent results. In fact, the
> distributed GUI model
> of Terminal Services (rather than the screen-sharing model of
> ARD-VNC) is
> superior in many scenarios.

I also have had excellent results using Microsoft's Remote Desktop
Connection both from a Windows and Mac client. I find the screen updating
performance to be better than VNC. We use VNC on the desktops we support
because we often want the screen-sharing model of VNC so we can see
"over-the-shoulder" of the person having a problem with the computer. When
connecting to servers, I use RDC because it performs better and if there
actually was someone sitting in front of the server itself (unlikely) I
don't want to have to fight with them over control of the keyboard & mouse.

SSH tunneling usually isn't an option for securing VNC on Windows computers
but the Windows VNC service let you set allow, deny, and prompt rules for ip
ranges in the Windows registry so you can allow access only from specific
ips and/or subnets. The Mac VNC service doesn't have such a service but if
you're willing to give up the Firewall GUI in Server Preferences, you can
set similar firewall rules using 3rd party firewall tools or from the
command prompt (I haven't delved into writing ipfw firewall rules yet).

--On Thursday, September 23, 2004 12:17 PM -0700 "Adam C. Engst"
<acetidbits.com> wrote:
> In the "your mileage may vary" department, I wanted to note that I
> often tell people that Remote Desktop Connection is the best software
> that Microsoft has ever done. I have used it extensively
> Mac-to-Windows and some Windows-to-Windows.

I have to second this. I use it extensively for Mac-to-Windows and
Windows-to-Windows connections. It isn't unusual for me to have 5 or 6
servers remoted at the same time as 2 or 3 client computers.

> My previous job was Windows-only. I worked at home a few hours every
> day and all day occasionally. My mode of operation was to connect my
> PowerBook via VPN to work (PowerBook->VPN->AirPort->DSL), launch
> Remote Desktop Connection full-screen, and proceed to do Visual
> Studio/C#/.NET software development for hours on end. Of course,
> occasionally the connection dropped but when I reconnected all my
> apps on the PC were sitting right where I left them. Also note that
> I found the performance acceptable running over the public Internet
> as opposed to both machines on a local LAN.

There are some adjustments you can make that allow running over slower
links acceptable (the big one is to not run full-screen, instead run at
800x600 or lower and reduce the number of colors). I've even run usably on
modem connections for short periods.

> Just wanted to share that with you. I don't often have good things
> to say about Microsoft but this is the extreme exception. It enabled
> me to spend hours in my home with my beautiful PowerBooks as opposed
> to spending hours in an office staring at an ugly Dell or worse yet
> forcing me to buy an ugly Dell.

When I travel I frequently take my PowerBook with me (gotta watch those
DVD's in the hotel room) so I'll take it to the office and remote control
my desktop back in the main office and whatever servers I'm working on (it
is much nicer to work from a conference room than a noisy server room!)
The local computer admins will usually ask me to hide my computer so others
don't ask how they can get a Mac....

There are some limitations to Remote Desktop:

1) The person on the other end can't see what you're doing. This is good
when you're doing admin stuff, but bad if you want to use it to do remote
training.

2) It requires Windows 2000 or 2003 Server or Windows XP Professional. You
can't remote desktop Windows XP Home.

3) If users have admin privs on the machine they can kick you off in the
middle of a session. Our users aren't supposed to have this, but they do
in some offices. It can really hose a machine to be kicked off in the
middle of an installation (same effect yanking the power plug halfway
through a software installation)

> I also have had excellent results using Microsoft's Remote Desktop
> Connection both from a Windows and Mac client.

Just to chime in: I also think Microsoft's RDC is pretty great. We use it a
lot at our design studio. In fact, this single piece of software convinced
us to swap out the Windows machine from the conference room and replace it
with an iMac. With RDC and Timbuktu installed on it, the iMac can now access
any machine in the office, Mac or Windows. RDC makes a small but very
compelling case for why Macs are useful business tools.

Getting back on the topic of Apple's Remote Desktop software, there's one
lingering question that I have that may be kind of silly and basic, but I
haven't been able to figure out from everything I've read (and admittedly
I've been reading quickly).

I use Timbuktu to get to my home Mac from the office and vice versa. I also
use it to go from my home computer to my girlfriend's computer in the next
room and vice-versa.

Is this two-way connection scheme, in which each Mac can see and/or be seen,
possible with Apple Remote Desktop? Or is it more of a server-like scheme,
where only the one copy of Remote Desktop can see the clients, and the
clients cannot see the 'server'?

I'm guessing this is the case, and that I would need to install a unique
instance of the Apple Remote Desktop 'server' on each of the machines in
order to let them both see and be seen. Is that right?

[Yes. That's correct. The Apple Remote Desktop application is best thought of as the viewer, and it controls Macs running the "client" software. So you'd need the viewer and the "client" software on each computer in that case. -Adam]

Best,
Khoi

work: www.behaviordesign.com
play: www.subtraction.com

At 8:00 AM -0700 2004/09/24, Wilcox, Curtis wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
>> From: Adam C. Engst [mailto:acetidbits.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2004 3:20 PM
>> To: tidbits-talktidbits.com
>> Subject: Re: More on Apple Remote Desktop
>>
>>
>> --- begin forwarded text
>> From: Chris Kempton
>
>> One obstacle that our staff encountered pretty quickly after
>> moving away
>> from Timbuktu: creating SSH tunnels is beyond the capability of some
>> otherwise technically competent staffers. We use a little AppleScript
>> application that collects the name of the server to which you
>> wish to VNC,
>> then hands that variable off to this statement:
>>
>> do script "ssh -C -N -L 2020:127.0.0.1:5900
>> remotedesktop" & hostConnect

        This is actually one of the bad things about ARD. It uses 2
TCP and 2 UDP ports, and ssh tunneling only works for TCP, so
although the VNC remote control bit works through a tunnel, other
features don't. ARD isn't safe over the Internet without a full VPN
connection, which of course isn't feasible for everybody.

>SSH tunneling usually isn't an option for securing VNC on Windows computers
>but the Windows VNC service let you set allow, deny, and prompt rules for ip
>ranges in the Windows registry so you can allow access only from specific
>ips and/or subnets. The Mac VNC service doesn't have such a service but if
>you're willing to give up the Firewall GUI in Server Preferences, you can
>set similar firewall rules using 3rd party firewall tools or from the
>command prompt (I haven't delved into writing ipfw firewall rules yet).

        ssh tunneling is much better than poking holes without
encryption, and doesn't require firewall changes. If you have to open
a port, though, it's not bad. First "sudo ipfw list" to see the list
of rules:

>peppersalt:~$ sudo ipfw list
>Password:
>02000 allow ip from any to any via lo*
>02010 deny ip from 127.0.0.0/8 to any in
>02020 deny ip from any to 127.0.0.0/8 in
>02030 deny ip from 224.0.0.0/3 to any in
>02040 deny tcp from any to 224.0.0.0/3 in
>02050 allow tcp from any to any out
>02060 allow tcp from any to any established
>02070 allow tcp from any to any 548 in
>02080 allow tcp from any to any 427 in
>02090 allow tcp from any to any 910 in
>02100 allow tcp from any to any 22 in
>02110 allow tcp from any to any 5297 in
>02120 allow tcp from any to any 5298 in
>02130 allow tcp from any to any 80 in
>02140 allow tcp from any to any 427 in
>02150 allow tcp from any to any 139 in
>02160 allow tcp from any to any 3689 in
>12190 deny tcp from any to any
>65535 allow ip from any to any

        Then something like "sudo ipfw 3000 allow tcp from REMOTEHOST
any to any 5900 in" adds a rule allowing establishment of new
connections from any port on REMOTEHOST to port 5900/tcp (VNC) on the
local box. That should be all you need to add to Apple's default
ruleset (at least as of Panther). You don't need to use the ipfw
command, directly, though. Panther client's System
Preferences:Sharing:New:Other can be used to specify an arbitrary
port, as can Server Admin for Panther Server. An advantage of using
ipfw directly over Panther Client's GUI, though, is that you can
specify a specific machine or network range to permit, and not allow
connections from the whole Internet.

        To open up all 4 ARD2 ports:

sudo ipfw 3000 allow tcp from REMOTEHOST any to any 5900 in
sudo ipfw 3010 allow tcp from REMOTEHOST any to any 3283 in
sudo ipfw 3020 allow udp from REMOTEHOST any to any 5900 in
sudo ipfw 3030 allow udp from REMOTEHOST any to any 3283 in

                                                Chris
--
Chris Pepper: <http://www.reppep.com/~pepper/>
Rockefeller University: <http://www.rockefeller.edu/>

At 08:00 AM 9/24/2004, Kevin van Haaren wrote:
>2) It requires Windows 2000 or 2003 Server or Windows XP
>Professional. You can't remote desktop Windows XP Home.

IIRC, you Windows 2000 has the RD *client*, but you can't RD *into* a
Windows 2000 machine. So far as I know you can only go into 2003 Server or
XP Professional.

Count me as another who uses Remote Desktop on a daily basis.

-Andrew

On 28-09-2004 03:28:53, Khoi Vinh wrote:

>Is this two-way connection scheme, in which each Mac can see and/or be seen,
>possible with Apple Remote Desktop? Or is it more of a server-like scheme,
>where only the one copy of Remote Desktop can see the clients, and the
>clients cannot see the 'server'?
>
>I'm guessing this is the case, and that I would need to install a unique
>instance of the Apple Remote Desktop 'server' on each of the machines in
>order to let them both see and be seen. Is that right?
>
>[Yes. That's correct. The Apple Remote Desktop application is best thought of
>as the viewer, and it controls Macs running the "client" software. So you'd
>need the viewer and the "client" software on each computer in that case. -Adam]

As a friend of mine found out, you can even create a loop that way:
<http://www.rg-d.com/BioLOG/images/Cluckinell.jpg>

Harro de Jong

--On Monday, September 27, 2004 10:59 PM -0700 Andrew Laurence
<atlaurenes.nacs.uci.edu> wrote:

> At 08:00 AM 9/24/2004, Kevin van Haaren wrote:
>> 2) It requires Windows 2000 or 2003 Server or Windows XP
>> Professional. You can't remote desktop Windows XP Home.
>
> IIRC, you Windows 2000 has the RD *client*, but you can't RD *into* a
> Windows 2000 machine. So far as I know you can only go into 2003 Server
> or XP Professional.
>
> Count me as another who uses Remote Desktop on a daily basis.

You can remote control a Windows 2000 Server (not Workstation) machine but
you have to install the Terminal Services option (not on by default) in the
Add/Remove Windows Components control panel. Windows 2000 Server has a
free administrative terminal services mode that allows 2 people to remote
control the server simultaneously (plus 1 on the console means 3 people can
be working on a server at the same time).

Full terminal services mode requires licenses purchased from Microsoft but
can allow many users to use a server simultaneously.

Kevin

--- begin forwarded text

From: Thomas Bürglin
Date: Sep 28, 2004 3:57 am

I would like to issue a serious warning about ARD 2.0

We have a 40 eMac student lab connected to a X server.

In a course I teach, I wanted to share my teacher computer screen
with 20 student Macs.
The connection is invariably lost after a few minutes
on the first few computers, while some still share the screen.
The application still things it is connected, it does not
realize the connection is dropped.
Only remedy is to restart ARD - very tedious.

Apple has been informed, but no solution has been forthcoming.
The computers are all on the same subnet, all connected to
the same fast CISCO switches. We can only blame buggy Apple
software which apparently has some timing problems.

Downgrading to version 1.2 is a pain in the neck, as you have
seen. We never had these problems with the same lab with 1.2.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Bürglin, lecturer (Associate Prof.)
Dept. of Biosciences at Novum and Center for
Genomics and Bioinformatics, Karolinska Institutet
& Natural Sciences, Södertörns University College

--- end forwarded text

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Laurence [mailto:atlaurenes.nacs.uci.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 9:37 AM
> To: tidbits-talktidbits.com
> Subject: Re: More on Apple Remote Desktop
>
>
> At 08:00 AM 9/24/2004, Kevin van Haaren wrote:
> >2) It requires Windows 2000 or 2003 Server or Windows XP
> >Professional. You can't remote desktop Windows XP Home.
>
> IIRC, you Windows 2000 has the RD *client*, but you can't RD *into* a
> Windows 2000 machine. So far as I know you can only go into
> 2003 Server or
> XP Professional.

Windows 2000 Pro doesn't come with the RD client but you can download it.
The client runs on Windows 95 and newer.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/tools/rdclientdl.mspx

For the sake of completeness, in addition to the RD client for Windows and
the one for Mac OS X, there is also one for Windows CE. I don't know about
PDAs but it is typically included in the WinCE install on thin client
computers. Such clients are often configured to automatically connect to a
Terminal Server.

As for the Remote Desktop service, Kevin van Haaren's answer was entirely
correct. Win2k Server *does* have a Terminal Server option that allows 2
remote sessions without Terminal Server licenses.

To veer back into the Mac realm, many suspect OS X's Quartz would be
relatively easy to run remotely in a fashion similar to Windows Terminal
Server. The problem is it's hard to say how such a feature would help Apple
sell more Macs. It would probably require more server configurations, an
Apple thin client, and Apple's classic ability to show how things are "done
right."

At 12:07 PM -0400 9/28/04, Wilcox, Curtis wrote:
>To veer back into the Mac realm, many suspect OS X's Quartz would be
>relatively easy to run remotely in a fashion similar to Windows Terminal
>Server.

*cough* NSView *cough*

NeXT had it. It piped DisplayPostscript over the network to the
local display, not unlike XWindows. But, yeah, it'd take so long to
explain that it wouldn't sell Macs. Better to say "use VNC from your
PC or *nix of choice."

--
Andrew Laurence
atlaurenuci.edu

I don't think this thread has answered the following question:

If several 'client' computers are on a LAN behind a router, can ARD on a remote Mac be configured (along with the appropriate port forwarding scheme on the router) to address each client individually from outside the LAN? VPN is currently not an option.



[Sean Peisert asked me this very question privately, and I relayed it to Apple. You can't run ARD on different ports, the way you can with Timbuktu, but what Apple recommended was port mapping appropriately so you could access one machine on the LAN, and then use the ARD application on that Mac to access other Macs on the LAN. Funky, but it should work. -Adam]

Dick