Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fast User Switching on Windows XP with VNC?

Posted by Cliff on from the why-doesn't-it-work dept.

A not-so Anonymous Coward asks: "I have searched the web for links on how to make VNC work with Windows XP fast user switching, and all I have seen is people saying that they cannot get it to work. I would now like to ask the Slashdot community to give it their shot, and see if they cannot find a way to make your standard VNC utilities cooperate with Windows XP fast user switching. For those who don't know what the problem is; when using fast user switching, if you switch users (without logging out) from the first user to log on then VNC comes up with a blank screen. Hopefully someone can come up with a fix for this." It sounds like (and I might be way off base here)Windows isn't necessarily running multiple desktops for its fast user switching, and once the switch occurs from the user running the VNC process, that VNC then somehow loses rights to the desktop. It would be interesting to note if VNC sessions will work once the desktop is switched back. Has anyone else tried getting this to work? Have you run into the same problems, or were you able to find a solution?

15 of 86 comments (clear)

  1. Lastest Version by Deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was having the same problem on one of my WindowsXP machines. Upgrading to the latest realvnc seemed to fix it up just fine though.

    Maybe you should upgrade your software before you whine to /. about it..

    1. Re:Lastest Version by reynaert · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, on my system the latest version of RealVNC (3.3.7) still has this problem. Maybe you're using a different VNC server?

    2. Re:Lastest Version by chrismg2003 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This machine was using the latest version. my guess is that you were logging out and not using fast user switching. If you check the help site for RealVNC you will find that they expressly state that RealVNC does not work with fast user switching. Thus far the only app I have been able to find that works with fast user switching is PCAnywhere and that program is too bloated for my tastes (not to mention it is not free).

      --

      Red Hat is for people who hate Windows, FreeBSD is for people who love Unix.

      www.putertech.net

  2. I don't use XP, but... by GiMP · · Score: 3, Informative

    couldn't this be done via a service? In NT you could configure VNC server as a service and you could even login via VNC.

    1. Re:I don't use XP, but... by HereAllNight · · Score: 5, Informative

      I concur with this.

      As I understand it, Fast User Switching simply keeps other users' processes alive (but suspended) while a user at the console starts up his/her own processes. If you're running vncserver manually, from the Start Menu or as a "Run" item in the Registry, going back to the Welcome Screen will cause vncserver to be suspended. Therefore, vncserver must be run as a service. Most VNC distros make it very easy to do this.

      The big problem is the Welcome Screen, which must be enabled in order to use Fast User Switching. We know that VNC works fine with the Explorer shell, but my guess is that the Welcome Screen does something to thwart non-MS remote utilities. It could be a matter of permissions; that everybody (including the vncserver service) must have the same priveleges or be in the same group as the Welcome Screen process.

      Personally, I use RemotelyAnywhere and GoToMyPC to access Windows machines over the Internet. If you're doing this only on a private network, then no worries. But if this goes across any public networks like the Internet, I strongly suggest finding a solution that provides more secure authentication at the very least.

      Since XP does offer RDP, I'd tend to use RDP before I tried VNC. Is there any reason why n-sAC must use VNC?

    2. Re:I don't use XP, but... by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Informative
      As I understand it, Fast User Switching simply keeps other users' processes alive (but suspended) while a user at the console starts up his/her own processes.
      Actually, the process are not suspended. They continue to run in the backgroud. The unix eqivilent would be just opening up a different console shell.

      I quite often will leave a video encoder running in the background and switch over users to my wife's account. If I don't set the encoding process at a low priority, her session drags.
    3. Re:I don't use XP, but... by HereAllNight · · Score: 2, Informative

      Looks like you're correct in the context of applications, but there's more to that. After looking through one of my 1000+ page books, I noticed that while the other users' processes may continue to run, they are unable to run "interactively". Thus a program like vncserver that runs interactively is likely to find itself in limbo when the 1st user loses his/her desktop.

  3. Re:Why not use in the built-in Remote Desktop? by Rayban · · Score: 4, Informative

    Or use rdesktop:

    http://www.rdesktop.org/

    --
    æeee!
  4. Re:Why not use in the built-in Remote Desktop? by wonkamaster · · Score: 3, Informative

    Another program that doesn't require WINE or Crossover Office (both of which I have experienced trouble with when using the M$ client) is Rdesktop. It works very well on every platform I've ever used it on (although fonts can be a bit weird on PPC platforms).

    Another benefit is that it can emulate a Windows 2000 client when connecting to a M$ server, keeping you from burning a license.

  5. Re:Why not use in the built-in Remote Desktop? by Echnin · · Score: 3, Informative
    Remote Desktop IS faster and simpler than VNC, yes. However, note that the "ask slashdot"-er is talking about fast user switching; he probably wants to have multiple persons using it at once. The Windows XP license does not allow this with remote desktop, and will not allow anyone to connect remotely if there is a person sitting at the computer, or someone is already connected. To have more people connected, you need to run Windows 2000 Terminal Server. Wonder if someone can hack Windows XP to allow multiple users. That'd be kewl. But obviously useless for most people, who only use it to access their own computer when they are away.

    Oh, and by the way, there are also native Linux Windows Remote Desktop clients. My brother uses it at his job, and it's also bundled with probably multiple distros... I believe Mandrake 9.1 has it.

    --
    Lalala
  6. Re:Makes me wonder by pocopoco · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is VNC for PPC, but if your connecting to a WinXP box it's better to use Microsoft's own Terminal Services Client for PPC instead. It's significantly faster, although not cross platform, of course.

  7. Re:Why not use in the built-in Remote Desktop? by jsse · · Score: 4, Informative

    Oh, and by the way, there are also native Linux Windows Remote Desktop clients. My brother uses it at his job, and it's also bundled with probably multiple distros... I believe Mandrake 9.1 has it.

    It's called tsclient.

    In Debian:
    apt-get install tsclient

    In Gentoo:
    emerge tsclient

    Mandrake and Redhat has it in their distro, too.

    The downside is that you must install Terminal Server in the XP, but it works exactly the same as Windows' terminal client and performs much better than VNC.

  8. Oi, get a clue by Chibi+Merrow · · Score: 3, Informative

    NT/2000 had the same problem if you started VNC as a User Process while logged in, then had to hit Alt+Ctrl+Del to do something or you logged out. Starting VNC as a SERVICE made it start BEFORE any users were logged in, meaning yes, exactly, it displays exactly what you see on the monitor. Which is what the author of the story wants. If he wanted a fresh desktop, he'd simply use terminal services. Now, starting it as a service still MAY NOT WORK but flaming the guy saying he has no clue what he's talking about and then making it seem in your article that YOU don't know what you're talking about has me a bit perturbed.

    --
    Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
    Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
  9. Re:Why not use in the built-in Remote Desktop? by BlueLightning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Cite your source. Here's mine (under "Removal of the Operating System Equivalency Provision"):
    New Options for Microsoft Server Licensing - Windows Server 2003 Terminal Services

    What I meant was clients no longer automatically get a CAL just because they are running Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP Pro. This policy is now gone, so you have to buy more CALs for the same number of clients if you upgrade to Windows Server 2003.

  10. Re:Why not use in the built-in Remote Desktop? by computer_chacham · · Score: 2, Informative

    >>Wonder if someone can hack Windows XP to allow multiple users.

    That feature is supposed to be in SP2. (Up to two simultaneous users.)