WinVNC on Windows Server 2003?

[Time2Kill]

I just started using Windows Server 2003 Ent. for a fileserver in my home. I've been able to figure out how setup an account and do filesharing, but I can not get a successful connection for WinVNC. When I try and connect to the computer using WinVNC, I get the following error, "The connection closed unexpectedly"

I'm pretty sure its because I don't have the proper permissions/security settings in place, but I have no clue what I need to change to allow it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

 

[poohster]

Are you just trying to administer the server? If the server is not exposed to the internet, use RDC

 

[JayAre]

I would assume that you're connecting to your Home Server from work????

If so, VNC requires entry though a specific port. I believe by default it listens for 5900.

So you would need to setup your home router to listen on that port for VNC traffic (ie: port forwarding). When you connect you would enter www.yourcomputer.com:5900 or do it by IP address 10.10.10.10:5900

You dont have to use port 5900, it's only the default.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

Do you have a recent version of VNC?
Does the VNC server service start up on the server?
Can you connect to the server using VNC from across its local network? This may or may not point to a firewall issue.
Try RDC....must smoother than VNC anyways.

 

[jonw757]

I never get why people use anything but the built in to windows remote control client, it just doesnt make any sense.

 

[Gillette]

I never get why people use anything but the built in to windows remote control client, it just doesnt make any sense.

less overheard, support for multiple connections, doesn't lock out anyone using the workstation, extra password on top of it all, variable compression schemes on a per-client basis, etc...

 

[Orinthical]

less overheard, support for multiple connections, doesn't lock out anyone using the workstation, extra password on top of it all, variable compression schemes on a per-client basis, etc...

Higher attack surface, more bugs to keep track of, proprietary yet "open source" solutions, broken patches, unsigned potentially risky display drivers?

And I'm not too sure if I agree with your on the "less overhead" statement either. RDC might increase your system's overall utilization by a few percent - converting the display into pictures requires some overhead as well. I'd wager that the truth of the matter is that both use about the same resources.

One argument for the use of VNC though is that some programs don't like to be installed using terminal services. In those rare cases, VNC can save the day. But like I said... that's rare.

 

[jonw757]

never heard or seen VNC being faster then RDP, could have its use for the very rare occasion you need multiple people to actually see something on the same screen being in different locations, having another password I wouldn't see as an upside, its something else to remember and another application to support and keep up on vulnerabilities. I still dont get it besides the need for multiple people to see the same screen in seperate locations.

 

[JayAre]

I never get why people use anything but the built in to windows remote control client, it just doesnt make any sense.

They way I'm reading this, I'm assuming you're talking about the "Remote Assistance" and not the "Remote Desktop / Terminal Services".

With the Remote Assistance, I hate having the user to "allow" me or "accept" my connection. I want to be in and out as fast as I can without any interruptions.

 

[jonw757]

They way I'm reading this, I'm assuming you're talking about the "Remote Assistance" and not the "Remote Desktop / Terminal Services".

With the Remote Assistance, I hate having the user to "allow" me or "accept" my connection. I want to be in and out as fast as I can without any interruptions.

No, I am talking about RDP, I chose to say remote control as thats what VNC is. Ive never actually successfully used remote assistance.