Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Remote Desktop 2 Released

pudge posted more than 10 years ago | from the neato dept.

OS X 69

chasingporsches writes "Today Apple released Apple Remote Desktop 2, a major upgrade of their network management software. New features include new software management support, and VNC support, which allows you to control and view any VNC-enabled Mac, Windows, or UNIX-based machine. Unlimited client price is $499, 10-client $299. It's not available as a free upgrade, but you can get a discounted price if you purchased the previous version today or later."

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Up-To-Date Program (5, Informative)

chlorophyl (753341) | more than 10 years ago | (#9485948)

For those of you who have or will purchase version 1.2 (version 2.0 won't ship till July) - you can get the new version for $19.95 by using these forms.

Up-To-Date 10 Client [apple.com]
Up-To-Date Unlimited Client [apple.com]

Re:Up-To-Date Program (4, Insightful)

jeffehobbs (419930) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486046)

...which is kind of bullshit for existing owners, because oddly enough I had purchased it before today and there's no even slightly discounted upgrade path whatsoever. It looks like I have to fork out $500 again, which seems to be a reoccurring theme from the New Apple.

Even $50-100 off for existing owners would have been a nice bone to throw.

Boo Apple thumbs down hiss boo.

~jeff

Re:Up-To-Date Program (2, Insightful)

chlorophyl (753341) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486143)

Yes I agree it's kind of odd for an "up-to-date" program. For the OS, you can usually qualify for the up-to-date if you purchased a version before the new one was released. But essentially with this, you are only qualified if you buy the old version afterwards.

Hopefully this isn't a sign of "up-to-date" programs to come, especially with Tiger on the horizon.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

TiMac (621390) | more than 10 years ago | (#9489274)

Actually, Apple's OS Up-to-Date programs have always been similar. If you buy the old version on or after the date the new product is announced, you get to use the up-to-date program...if you buy the old version before the new one was announced, they don't feel sorry for you. It was this way with Jaguar and Panther, and may be the same for Tiger, then.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 10 years ago | (#9493934)

No, the up-to-date programs are only ever officially for people who bought a product after the new one was announced. They usually extend unofficially a few months into the past. I bought a PowerBook last year with OS X 10.2. 10.3 was released about a month later, and I got an upgrade for the price of postage just by filling in the correct form, in spite of the fact the offer didn't extend that far back. Other people found the same, including some who had bought their machines a couple months earlier.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1, Redundant)

Photar (5491) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486413)

Its not like your old one is going to break.
Additionally, it has been known for quite some time that Apple was preparing a new release of Remote Desktop. Its not their fault you bought RD 1 late in the product cycle.

I say it was a poor purchasing move on YOUR part.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1, Flamebait)

Palverone (166646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487133)

How insightful. Blame the customer for being poorly informed. Your statement would make sense if this was the first time Apple did this sort of thing. I used to have to monitor the spy sites who would watch the plastic production facilities for discontinuing work on current products to know there was a new one on the way from Apple.

Another example is their Operating System releases. No direct upgrade path from Jaguar to Panther, and the same looks to be true from Panther to Tiger. Oh sure, every year or two let's sink another $120+ USD into a new OS that isn't more then a glorified SP with a few goodies thrown in to make me giggle.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (4, Insightful)

MoneyT (548795) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487397)

How insightful. Blame the customer for being poorly informed.

Yes, I will. If people are going to buy a product they need to be well informed about that product, including any planned or upcoming releases. Be intelligent and take responsibility for your decisions. It's not like it was a secret that new stuff was due.

Your statement would make sense if this was the first time Apple did this sort of thing.

Actualy, the more it happens, the more it makes sense that you should be paying attention to product cycles.

I used to have to monitor the spy sites who would watch the plastic production facilities for discontinuing work on current products to know there was a new one on the way from Apple.


Or, you could realize that Apple has a ~6 month product release cycle and not buy new machines without checking up on when the next one's are due.

Another example is their Operating System releases. No direct upgrade path from Jaguar to Panther, and the same looks to be true from Panther to Tiger.

WTF?

Oh sure, every year or two let's sink another $120+ USD into a new OS that isn't more then a glorified SP with a few goodies thrown in to make me giggle.


I see you've subscribed to redhat.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 10 years ago | (#9580224)

Yes, I will. If people are going to buy a product they need to be well informed about that product, including any planned or upcoming releases. Be intelligent and take responsibility for your decisions. It's not like it was a secret that new stuff was due.

Informed my ass. Apple keeps new releases completely secret. If a IT director has to check spymac.com on a daily basis to avoid being screwed, then Apple deserves what it gets.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

leperkuhn (634833) | more than 10 years ago | (#9488679)

If you think that the improvements that have been added are only worthy of a "service pack" version number, then it shouldn't bother you to not buy it. However, from 10.2 to 10.3 we got fast user switching, better finder, better network browser, expose, file vault, font book.... I'd say it's worth it. We'll see with Tiger.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (2, Insightful)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490465)

Then keep on using your old versions. I know folks still using 10.1 and 10.2. I'd certainly upgrade to 10.2, but 10.3... If it's just a glorified SP, then skip it. No one is making you buy a new OS- nor are they making you upgrade your ARD. If the old one works... USE IT! It has nothing to do with being poorly informed. Since when has Apple had evil applications that expired when a new version came out, forcing you to upgrade whether or not you want to or have the money, why would you assume they would start with that policy now?

Re:Up-To-Date Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9493596)

The problem is that in the Apple world, a lot of new software require 10.2 mininum, somethimes even 10.3. On Windows almost everything still works under Win2K, and often even under Win98.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9494494)

I be installing the wrong stuff, but most apps seem to work fine on 10.1 and 10.2- at least here at work were we've not gotten around to installing the 10.3 updates. Not much will run on 10.0 or the public beta, but 10.3 requirements seem quite rare.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490473)

And mods- this isn't flamebait. Just because you don't agree with it it doesn't mean it's a troll or flame.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

Palverone (166646) | more than 10 years ago | (#9494234)

everyones comments have been well stated and I admit that I was wrong.

Btw, thx mod for making my parent post flamebait-I guess any opposing point of view is flamebait to someone with the likes of you! ;)

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487488)

It looks like I have to fork out $500 again, which seems to be a reoccurring theme from the New Apple.

Unplug it, throw it out, and buy a new one. Welcome to Steve Jobs' Apple.

OK, mod me down, I can take it, but you know it's the truth.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (1)

Moofie (22272) | more than 10 years ago | (#9492639)

Or keep using it for ten years without having to think about it...that's the way Apple's always been.

In my experience, anyhow.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (2, Informative)

sakusha (441986) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487671)

I suppose you were even more pissed off to discover that ARD 1.2 Client was rolled into MacOS X 10.3 for free.

Re:Up-To-Date Program (3, Insightful)

burns210 (572621) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490166)

It isn't like version you already bought won't work... You bought this software knowning its abilities and decided to pay the money for it. Would it have been nice for Apple to have given you a discount? Yes, absolutely, just about any discount is 'nice'... Do you deserve to bitch and moan because you no longer have the latest ang greatest? No.

Fucked by Apple (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9486014)

Once again Apple screws its customers. This calls to mind all their bullshitting excuses for why they were charging for minor OS X upgrades. Not even Microsoft would charge its users for service packs.

Re:Fucked by Apple (4, Interesting)

chasingporsches (659844) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486168)

$500 is a small price to pay for a software product that works as well as it does. if you haven't used remote desktop, it might seem like a steep price to pay. but if i had a number of machines to manage, $500 would save a lot of money in IT costs by controlling all of them from one computer. Remote Desktop isn't JUST VNC. also, this isn't aimed for consumers, it's aimed for businesses and education.

Re:Fucked by Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9487502)

"Remote Desktop isn't JUST VNC."

Can you please elaborate? What ELSE?

Re:Fucked by Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490248)

Can you please elaborate? What ELSE?

Please RTFA.

Whatever (5, Insightful)

Microsift (223381) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486284)

Let's compare updates

Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> Win ME-> Win XP

OSX 10.0 -> OSX 10.1 -> OSX 10.2 -> OSX 10.3

Now I can't imagine why anyone would have "upgraded" to Win ME, but I'll put my 10.1 -> 10.2 upgrade up against that.

Windows charges for updates to its systems as well, the small # of features added in each update make it not worth the cost.

Mac OS X updates typically offer a compelling list of added features and improved system speed.

The OSX full price is comparable to the Windows upgrade price $129 vs. $99. People with 2-5 Macs can buy a Family Plan license for $179.

What compelling feature was added to Win ME that made you want to upgrade from Win 98.

Also, I can sell my old system software on EBay, since I am not upgrading, an upgrading windows user could not.

Flamebait AND Offtopic - NT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9486592)

NT

Re:Whatever (5, Informative)

chromaphobic (764362) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486756)

If 10.0 had been release in 1995, this might be a valid comparison. But back in 1995 the Mac was still on System 7.5, so if you want a valid weighing of the cost to keep a system up-to-date you need to start counting a bit earlier than OS X.

Try: (leaving out free updates)
7.5 - 8.0 - 8.5 - 9.0 - 10.0 - 10.2 - 10.3
versus:
95 - 98 - ME - XP

Assuming upgrade prices (and assuming I'm remembering prices correctly,) thats:
99 + 99 + 99 + 99 + 129 + 129 + 129 = 783
versus:
99 + 99 + 99 + 99 = 396

Which means, to keep the Mac OS up-to-date has been nearly twice as expensive (assuming you never got any upgrades "free" with a new system purchase) over the last (almost) ten years.

I love my Mac, so I'd MUCH rather have those ten years of Mac Operating Systems than Windows (yes, even System 7.5!) but that doesn't change the fact that it IS more expensive to keep a Mac up-to-date.

My point was... (5, Interesting)

Microsift (223381) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487123)

What do you get upgrading from 95 to 98?
What do you get upgrading from 98 to ME (I think you lost stuff here)

Only the XP upgrade was truly compelling, but I know people who bought every one!

Re:My point was... (2, Insightful)

linuxpng (314861) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487827)

Well, I've bought the upgrades. One thing that's a little different. There is alot of new software out there (games come to mind) that won't work unless you have like 10.2.8 or something, some even 10.3.

I think my point is that for at least 5-6 years game designers and other software companies made sure their software worked on windows 95. What my gripe is, is that there are apparently things missing from each osx (vertex shaders for ati cards) that are missing that get added in a later release.

It seems you need to buy the last release of osx in order to run some new software you may buy, which just seems kind of nuts. In addition, when was the last 10.1 security update?

Re:My point was... (2, Insightful)

prockcore (543967) | more than 10 years ago | (#9488697)

What do you get upgrading from 98 to ME (I think you lost stuff here)

While ME was a piece of crap, it did add some things that didn't get added to 2000 like Zip folders.

At least MS doesn't sell software that requires XP (anything that requires XP comes with XP). Apple routinely abandons old OSes and sells software that only works with the very latest OS.

Re:My point was... (3, Insightful)

kersy (790383) | more than 10 years ago | (#9492763)

While Microsoft might not abandon old OSes, other vendors are. The latest version of Adobe Premiere, for example, requires Windows XP.

Re:My point was... (1)

prockcore (543967) | more than 10 years ago | (#9497930)

The latest version of Adobe Premiere, for example, requires Windows XP.

This is true, and actually it's even worse. The latest version of Adobe Premiere won't run on regular Athlon's.. it requires Athlon XP.

Re:My point was... (1)

bigdavex (155746) | more than 10 years ago | (#9503018)


What do you get upgrading from 95 to 98?

USB, firewire, fat32 (versus 95a)

Good point... (1)

Microsift (223381) | more than 10 years ago | (#9506384)

Though, the only reason anyone cares about USB is because of the original iMac, the first computer to require users to use USB.

Re:Whatever (1, Funny)

AKnightCowboy (608632) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487558)

I love my Mac, so I'd MUCH rather have those ten years of Mac Operating Systems than Windows (yes, even System 7.5!) but that doesn't change the fact that it IS more expensive to keep a Mac up-to-date.

On the other hand, I do have Apple to thank that it's much easier to pirate their operating system. With Windows I have to work around that activation garbage so I just broke down and bought it. With MacOS X 10.3 I just burned a copy of my friend's CDs and installed with those. Worked perfectly. Thanks Apple!

Re:Whatever (1)

Smurf (7981) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490267)

95 - 98 - ME - XP

...

99 + 99 + 99 + 99 = 396

I don't know about the rest, but the upgrade to XP Professional costs $199 [amazon.com] . MacOS X should only be compared to Professional, not the crippled XP Home.

Re:Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9492772)

You ignore the fact that you cannot run 10.3 on a computer which ran 7.5.

Since every Mac you buy comes loaded with the latest OS, at one computer every 3 years, you'd be looking at buying very, very few copies of the OS.

Re:Whatever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9496676)

95 - 98 - ME - XP


Actually, that should be XP Pro, XP Home and OS X really aren't comparable, but that only drops the difference by $200

incomplete analysis (1)

bodrell (665409) | more than 10 years ago | (#9498306)

I understand your point--for just comparing prices of upgrades, you need to start at the same time (1995 in this case). But even so, there are other variables involved in keeping a computer up-to-date. First, you left out Windows 2000. I got my copy for $5, because the University of Texas made a Faustian deal with Microsoft (millions of $s) so students can purchase software for dirt cheap. But how much of my tuition and fees went towards that? At any rate, you can't forget 2000, because it's the best Windows OS to date. Not that that's saying much.

As with any bloatware, each consecutive version of Windows runs slower on a given system. That means upgrading your OS is pointless unless you get a new motherboard and CPU. Tack on $300 to each upgrade for that variable. Conversely, Mac OS 10.3 runs significantly faster than 10.2 did, and 10.2 ran faster than 10.1, which is the version that was installed when I bought my Powerbook. I expect at least three more years of solid use from my Mac, and it'll still be useful years after that.

Let's redo the math:
95 + 98 + Me + 2000 + XP = $399 + 399 + 399 + 399 + 399 = $1995

Realistically, you could subtract about $600 since Me, 2000, and XP will all run on comparable hardware, with a speed penalty. That still makes Windows more expensive to maintain.

But wait! While running Windows Me, you have a catastrophic failure caused by an unfortunate crash during a disk write. Four days later, after three unsuccessful reinstallations and finally a "downgrade" to Win98, you are able to recover most of your data, except for the 50 page grant application you were working on. Unfortunately, the deadline is in a week and you are unable to finish the application in time. Though you were a shoe-in for the grant ($25000, earmarked for new computer equipment), the committee doesn't accept late applications. Too bad for you. It was a really good grant application, too.

Suddenly, the cost of upgrading the Mac seems trivial.

Sound contrived? Variations on the above theme are the reason I switched to OS X, and the only regret I have is I can't play old Monkey Island games on my Powerbook. VirtualPC is still too slow.

Re:incomplete analysis (1)

fyonn (115426) | more than 10 years ago | (#9569832)


the only regret I have is I can't play old Monkey Island games on my Powerbook. VirtualPC is still too slow

simple solution to that!

http://www.scummvm.org/ :)

dave

thanks! (1)

bodrell (665409) | more than 10 years ago | (#9573512)

Awesome! Looks like I'll be able to run it from my Dreamcast, if it doesn't work on the Powerbook.

Re:Whatever (1)

Tedger (775013) | more than 10 years ago | (#9488658)

Cost aside, lets look at frequency. Even if the windows updates did give as compelling reasons to upgrade as the OSX upgrades did they are 1/3 of the speed. Apple has put out major improvements over the last 3 years since the release of 10.0. Panther has things that I can't imagine living without, even compared to Jaguar let alone 10.1, I'm not going to even touch 10.0. Apple has said that after Tiger that they are going to slow it down a bit because they can't keep up with this level of development for long but even still...

Re:Whatever (1)

mr_tap (693311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9492488)

The OSX full price is comparable to the Windows upgrade price $129 vs. $99

I have to say that I felt annoyed that there was no discount for upgrades from Apple. So lets make the upgrade price $US129 and the full price $US199 - everyone will be happy then right?

[deathly silence]

Re:Whatever (1)

mr_tap (693311) | more than 10 years ago | (#9492543)

Windows 95 -> Windows 98 -> Win ME-> Win XP

Don't forget that the real masochists tried Win 98 SE as well (OK so no-one would _pay_ for that upgrade). Seriously though, some people would have done the following and spent a bit more:

Windows 95 -> Windows NT4 -> Windows 2000 Prof -> Windows XP Prof

Re:Pay attention (2, Insightful)

Bastian (66383) | more than 10 years ago | (#9492073)

Windows '98. Windows '98SE. Windows ME.

How are these not charging money for 'service packs'? They were about the same (less, in my opinion) level of refinement over the previous version as different versions of OS X, and cost 3 times as much.

Just because Apple releases small point upgrades rather than gunnysacking them for a while to put together huge "Service packs" doesn't mean Apple doesn't give its users some free upgrades.

This is really biting Apple in the ass that they are changing only the minor number on each version of OS X. I like it better, but it really does seem to be easier to keep the drones complacent if you instead change a number (or set of letters) that has no relation to anything in particular the way Microsoft, Intel, and AMD have been doing lately.

Dream of Administrator? (3, Insightful)

cyfer2000 (548592) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486083)

Apple Remote Desktop lets you execute UNIX shell scripts or commands on any number of your client systems at once.

Is this a dream or nightmare of an administrator?

What? (4, Insightful)

abulafia (7826) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486346)

There are lots of tools that provide this sort of thing for a Unix box, both free and commercial. Hell, rolling your own with expect and ssh is simple; I've done it several times.
Why would a pretty GUI on top of this sort of thing be a nightmare?

Re:What? (1)

himself (66589) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486669)

abulaifa wrote:
>
> There are lots of tools that provide this sort of
> thing for a Unix box, both free and commercial.
>
I agree, remote admin tools are pretty thick on the ground. However, using VNC as the connection is kinda neat. (Or has anyone done this before?)
Any idea how many or which ports/services you need to have open on a remote UNIX (i.e., Solaris) client to run, say a shell script this way?

Re:What? (2, Informative)

abulafia (7826) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487656)

Any idea how many or which ports/services you need to have open on a remote UNIX (i.e., Solaris) client to run, say a shell script this way?

If you are referring to "using VNC" when you say "this way", you need 5900+N open, where N is the VNC server you're running, open to run it natively.

Alternately you can tunnel it over, for instance, ssh, and then you only need 22 open.

To be really sneaky, you can tunnel SSH over DNS [oblomovka.com] , in which case you need 53/UDP open. (PPT slides: http://www.doxpara.com/bo2004.ppt).

Verdict: If you have an open port, you can run whatever you like to it.

Re:Dream of Administrator? (1)

morgdx (688154) | more than 10 years ago | (#9493835)

#!/bin/ksh command=$1 for hostname in $(cat hosts.txt) do echo "ssh $hostname $command" ssh $hostname $command done

Please make cheques payable to...

Re:Dream of Administrator? (1)

morgdx (688154) | more than 10 years ago | (#9493854)

#!/bin/ksh
command=$1
for hostname in $(cat hosts.txt)
do
echo "ssh $hostname $command"
ssh $hostname $command
done

I knew preview was there for something...

You gotta wonder (4, Interesting)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486209)

what else Mr. Jobs is planning to reveal at the WWDC. We already got a few updates(G5 speed bump, upgrade to the remote control desktop). Besides Tiger, what else is there? New displays, while interesting, aren't really that groundbreaking(though I could be wrong), a G5 iMac? Probably not all that interesting for developers.
There really isn't a whole lot of chance that there will be a G5 powerbook, so could Steve be holding back on something really groundbreaking?
Lets use this post for pointless speculation!

Re:You gotta wonder (1)

Jord (547813) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486245)

I am hoping for an update to XCode. With Code Warrior no longer supporting Java and the other Java tools have their own issues, it would be nice to see XCode support Java as well as it supports Objective-C.

The odds are slim but one can dream!

Re:You gotta wonder (3, Interesting)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486322)

Well, a new XCode is rumored to be part of Tiger. At think secret [thinksecret.com] they have a rumor that XCode 1.5 has been seeded. You can download version 1.2, I haven't yet(because I am happy with it's C support, and I use Eclipse for Java) from Apple for free, I'm not really sure of what the extra features are.
I haven't messed around with the distributed build and fix and continue features of XCode(which seem to be the most interesting), but after I get my G5(currently only have an iBook :( ) I think I will try playing with those.
But yeah, for the time being you are probably better off running Eclipse versus XCode for Java. While XCode "works" under Java(and does automatically set the look and feel to be Aqua), there aren't that many features.

Re:You gotta wonder (2, Interesting)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487589)

Don't forget AirTunes/Airport Express. My pointless speculation is that the next generation iPod will have WiFi so it functions as (among other things) a remote control for iTunes on your G5 in the other room with the 250-gig music library ....

Re:You gotta wonder (1)

foidulus (743482) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487768)

Oh yeah, forgot about that one! Too bad I already bought an airport(a non-apple one though, in Japan iodata sells routers/access cards with the aiport name, Apple's wireless stuff is called Air-Mac) or I would have bought this, not too much more than a standard 802.11g router, plus you get features. As for remote control, you can throw together some nice web based stuff if you have a laptop, but it's still not very nice. You can also control it w/ a bluetooth phone, but you have to be within bluetooth range(not always true with a multi-story house).
I think it would be nice to have wi-fi on your iPod for other reasons too. For instance, I have a little table by the door that has an outlet nearby(and I suspect this is true for others as well). It would be nice to be able to just throw the iPod on the dock(connected to the charger) when I come home, and just grab it when I leave. However in order to transfer music right now you gotta grab the iPod and the firewire cable(unless you bought another one) and add it to the rats nest, then pick your music and put the iPod back. It would just be simpler if I could add music to it from iTunes from my desk, which is not near my door.

Re:You gotta wonder (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9488885)

Not a bad idea but why the hell would they announce it at a DEVELOPERS conference?? Last year they announced the G5 because it was a huge step for nearly all developers on the Mac platform. Having good information about the forthcoming system was very beneficial to software and hardware developers alike.

But something like this for the iPod is best suited for a consumer-oriented event. There's very little that can currently be done in the way of iPod development by 3rd parties (Apple seems to keep to a few select partners), so I don't see this being a big focus, even for a keynote 'wow'.

I love Apple (-1, Troll)

duffbeer703 (177751) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486280)

Apple keeps coming out with these breathtaking new applications that nobody in the IT world can seem to deliver!

$500/admin for Inventory, Remote Scripting AND GUI control??? It's a miracle and a bargain at the same time.

Apple is clearly the leader.

The binoculars (1, Interesting)

Fulkkari (603331) | more than 10 years ago | (#9486325)

Is it just me, but the binoculars (logo) and the black box makes me think of some kind of suspicious and/or illegal activity (spying, voyeurism, intrusion of private rights). A white box would have been better, because it is associated with goodness and cleanness while black is all that dirty stuff. Not a very good choice, huh?

Oh, well. That aside, Apple Remote Desktop is maybe the coolest administration program I've seen. Very impressive. Nobody should stop from buying it because of the box it is packaged in.

Re:The binoculars (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9486774)

A white box would have been better, because it is associated with goodness and cleanness while black is all that dirty stuff. Racist.

Re:The binoculars (1)

Gorbag (176668) | more than 10 years ago | (#9495574)

A white box would have been better, because it is associated with goodness and cleanness while black is all that dirty stuff.
Be careful; symbols have cultural bias, and Apple has an international clientele. White is associated with death in Korea, for instance, not "goodness and cleanness." You associate white with that, but that's hardly a universal.

Re:The binoculars (1)

Fulkkari (603331) | more than 10 years ago | (#9496643)

Be careful; symbols have cultural bias

Yes. I realized it was stupid of me. My point was just that the logo reminded me of some "Big Brother" watching my every move. Not a big deal, but I just felt like posting on this story.

chicken of the vnc, x2osx , tightvnc (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9487097)

I'm sure someone can tell me...
whats wrong with vnc programs like osxvnc [redstonesoftware.com] exactly? I've only ever used them on a lan myself but i've even shared mouse & keyboard using X2OSX (like x2x or x2vnc but you've guessed it.. ) And certainly we've had a mac around that people have VNC'd into before just using tightvnc or whatever from their linux or windows boxen.

theres probably something... i'd just like to know what the feature is you guys are paying for? ...its not that remote shellscript thing is it because guys... err...

Re:chicken of the vnc, x2osx , tightvnc (3, Informative)

metamatic (202216) | more than 10 years ago | (#9487518)

What's wrong with VNC?

Nothing, except that it's slower than a dead snail in treacle on a cold day. Those 24-bit Aqua bitmaps don't compress well.

24-bit Aqua (3, Informative)

dad2viii (715790) | more than 10 years ago | (#9491226)

The point about graphics hogging bandwidth is valid, but ARD is configurable to allow 16-bit (both 1.2 ad 2.0) and even 8-bit graphics (verified only for 1.2), too. Apple advises minimizing animation in the UI and otherwise to make the most of the link.

Re:chicken of the vnc, x2osx , tightvnc (2, Informative)

bursch-X (458146) | more than 10 years ago | (#9491700)

This is wrong:

They don't make use of Rendezvous, so it get's a big pain in the ass if your clients use DHCP on the LAN.

And Remote Desktop does much more than VNC. You can send files, the admin can display his/her screen on several other people's screens (great for teaching), look at several remote screens at the same time, force reboot machines, put remote machines to sleep, wake machines up from sleep, etc.

SQL Question (3, Interesting)

breadiu (706188) | more than 10 years ago | (#9489095)

I work for an orginaztion that is trying to implement an asset management system, and I know that Microsoft's SMS [microsoft.com] software stores its data in a SQL server. Apple says RD2 can "generate reports on data stored in the built-in SQL database." They also link [apple.com] to PostgreSQL. Does anyone know if it is possible to export RD2's data to a MS SQL server?

What's this like compared to VNC? Win rdesktop? (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490364)

Is there anyone here who has used Apple's Remote Desktop as well as the windows RDP system and VNC? I've been very happy with Windows RDP, though there is the obvious bummer of it being served only on Windows AFAIK. It is incredibly fast, certainly replacing VNC on the windows machines I need to access remotely.

So, where does Apple's RD stand? Better than VNC but slower than Win rdesktop?

Re:What's this like compared to VNC? Win rdesktop? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#9490476)

ARD and Windows RDP really have two completely different targeted uses. ARD is ultimately for system administration, similar to VNC, Timbuktu, or pcAnywhere (but with more/different features). Windows RDP is mainly used to deploy applications to users with those applications running on the server instead of on the client machine.

FWIW, I hate how slow VNC is, and ARD is faster (at least the current rev), but it seems to operate under UDP and is kind of irritating over lower-speed wan links. In terms of overall use of a server to run applications on (which require a GUI), there currently is no comparison to Windows RDP in the mac world. Not that I really need that, I prefer to run Mac on my workstation as well as for my server environment. Unfortunately I am forced to use Windows for certain business applications, and RDP works just great for that.

Re:What's this like compared to VNC? Win rdesktop? (1)

RevAaron (125240) | more than 10 years ago | (#9490599)

Windows RDP is mainly used to deploy applications to users with those applications running on the server instead of on the client machine.

I can't say I've read up on whatever marketing material MS has, but that really isn't strictly the case. A single-user RDP server comes with XP and is used by a good number of savvy XP users. Nor can Win RDP export individual applications ala Citrix or X11, at least not how I've seen it configured; though if one can do that, I'd love to know how, as it'd be darn useful.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>