[kwill]

In reply to:

---

2) an enhanced iChat that would include desktop sharing (viewing and permitted control). This would be a highly useful feature, which is part of various other virtual collaboration tools. This would be great for Apple support personnel too.

---

Seek and ye shall find.
http://www.showmacster.com/

[jmincey]

"That really is a network admin feature. The only thing that really makes sense from a user perspective is to be able to search mounted server volumes. You can already do that with a free utility such as EZFind."
I don't agree that it's a network admin feature. It's a network feature -- but not network admin necessarily. And, yes, there are always third-party utilities, but that's no argument against integrating basic functionality (such as file search) into the OS. Lots of things in the past which were once provided by third parties are now integrated in the OS, and I'm glad Apple didn't see the third-party option as reason never to adopt it themselves.

[Peter Cohen]

What I would say, Jeff, is that I think ARD is very fairly priced for the functionality it provides, as it goes way beyond the realm of just remote control capabilities. ARD is a well-featured network management solution for Mac OS X that provides network auditing, software distribution and other capabilities.
What we're discussing is really a separate product, albeit one whose features, as they exist now, exist as a subset of ARD. Should Apple break it out? I contend that they already do, and that all users need to do is add VNC to get it. Maybe Apple can take a look at incorporating an open-source solution like VNC in Leopard.

[Nobody]

For Home
Apple supports Chicken of the VNCfreely
http://www.apple.com...cosx/networkingsecurity/chickenofthevnc.html

What about OSXvnc?

http://www.apple.com...cosx/networkingsecurity/osxvnc.html

[macFanDave]

A five-seat license ought to be thrown in for free for those you buy the Mac OS X Family Pack.
It would be a lot more trouble than it is worth for Apple to crack down on so-called casual piracy, so those of us who actually shell out the extra $70 to comply to an effectively unenforceable EULA are basically bound by the honor system.
That would be a nice little reward for our virtue. I can see where the features of ARD can be useful to manage a little home network, but if all you need in remote control, Chicken of the VNC is easy and sufficient.

[jmincey]

In reply to:

---

...I think ARD is very fairly priced for the functionality it provides, as it goes way beyond the realm of just remote control capabilities. ARD is a well-featured network management solution for Mac OS X that provides network auditing, software distribution and other capabilities.

---

I hope you are not under the impression I've said anything to the contrary in this thread because in fact I'm inclined to agree with you on this.

[mycatsnameis]

I agree with the general impression that there is a need for a limited version of this program (fewer seats, perhaps reduced functionality) geared towards the home network.
This is a perfect opportunity for Apple to expand the iLife suite.
Why not iNetwork as the next app in iLife '07?
Just like Apple has leveraged it's high end music, photo, video and DVD technology into iLife, it's a natural fit.

[jxself]

In reply to:

---

"The new version includes the ability for users to do Spotlight searches across multiple Tiger systems."
This is very disappointing. This implies that this functionality will be reserved for this product and not one day be integrated in OS X itself.

---

Not necessarily. There's always 10.5. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[NeoX]

In reply to:

---

Windows XP has a limited Terminal Services function built-in to each workstation edition of the software. This would allow a remote user to help his mother or to access his own machine. It's a very limited service which allows only a single user to have remote access, but it's great that Microsoft has bundled it.
Apple should do likewise. None of this $99 stuff. There should be a one-user capability integrated into OS X and then for more than that people can purchase ARD.

---

I agree 100%! Apple should have an option for simple remote control without all the asset tracking and software push and other enterprise features that a home/home office user doesn't need. That should be part of the OS, just like XP Pro.
Regards,

[NeoX]

In reply to:

---

really, all the users need to do is download Chicken of the VNC or another VNC application and run it to control each others' machines, ARD aside.

---

There is no comparison between VNC and Remote Desktop on XP or OSX. I have used VNC and it is much slower then the native solution on XP Pro not to mention XP Pro has more features and better integration with sharing drives, etc. Remote Desktop on XP is also encrypted and I don't know about VNC.
I don't particularly care for VNC and a native solution would be so much better.
On this Apple should take a lesson from Microsoft.
Regards,

[stevo555]

I don't see anything in the new features list on Apple's site regarding encryption. This was one of the biggest complaints of the last version. What gives?

[Abecedaria]

ARD is great as an admin product, but they're missing a golden opportunity here: integration with iChat.
Think about a version of iChat with ARD screen sharing features. What a great tool this would be for remote collaboration, troubleshooting for a friend, etc. This could be a huge opportunity as both an enterprise and a consumer product.
abc

[dak]

In reply to:

---

On this Apple should take a lesson from Microsoft.

---

Agreed. It's a shame Apple doesn't have this as a standard feature and tout the hell out of it.
As it stands, it looks like Timbuktu is the best solution for pro-level remote control for home users at $180 for 2 users, but even that's really high. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to use VNC to help my mom who I'm switching over to Mac this week. Really too bad, because this sure would make switching even more attractive.
:d

[jdb8167]

While Microsoft's Remote Desktop is encrypted, no one in their right mind relies on it for security. It has severe security issues in the key exchange. If you rely on the Remote Desktop Protocol you are vulnerable to a man in the middle attack. There is a paper on this problem here:
RDP The Good The Bad and The Ugly