Hi everybody! Short time reader, first time poster.
Last time I was using my suite of portable apps (very nice job, all of you!), I needed a quick way to access my computer remotely.
hostname:5800 was too slow for me, but I did find that UltraVNC came with a standalone viewer:
Single file viewer... possible inclusion in PortableApps?
It makes several changes to the windows registry.
However, I made some changes to include a "-portable" parameter, which would make it portable - it simply skips all the registry-changing code. It can be found here.
While a PAF installer and a version that doesn't need that parameter to function portably are currently on the books, I've not had time to actually hash it out yet. The current downloads only include the actual viewer itself (without the zip32.dll and unzip32.dll needed to transfer folders), and the full source code (which currently DOES include those .dll's).
Interesting, but the standalone file I downloaded, I simply put on my thumb drive with no registry changes, or so I thought...
At least, I plugged it into a computer that only gave me limited access (them university computers ), and it ran perfectly, file transfers included... I'm pretty sure limited user accounts in XP don't allow registry changes, am I correct?
I look forward to news re: your program with the -portable tag, though!
Even limited Pc let you alter the Hotkey_Current_User string if I'm correct.
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - Richard P. Feynman
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
HKCU is specific to the current user (it doesn't affect other users of the PC) so even a limited user has the rights to alter keys within that registry hive.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
That's what I thought, too, until I decided to actually make sure. It associated itself with .vnc files, created an MRU, and a sound scheme (?!) in the registry.
The only way I could think of to counter-act this cleanly was to remove those bits of code altogether, which is how that project was born. Now, I'm mostly trying to clean up my source code changes, and create two bundles - one paf.exe that doesn't need the -portable parameter (it ONLY runs portably), and one source .zip (or .7z, still haven't decided) that ONLY has the source for the viewer itself (currently, the source .zip includes the server's source).
With any luck, it'll be ready sometime next week.
is it passable to also make a portable Server as well as the viewer
Passable? Not sure what you mean by that, could you please elaborate?
Well, I'm not sure that's what was meant. Of course it's POSSIBLE, but "Passible" normally means something like "Acceptable," which is what's confusing me (Dictionary.com linky).
So, assuming I'm actually being asked to make a UVNCServerPortable, the answer is gonna be "Sorry, I don't have enough time for that just now, school's kinda hectic just now."
If I'm being asked whether or not it's a good idea, the answer is "I'm the wrong guy to ask. If you don't think so, then probably not - otherwise go for it, I'm not going to stop you ;)"
If I'm being asked for permission (for some strange reason) so that Atlantis can make one, again, I'm the wrong guy to ask. It's GPL, so as long as Atlantis follows those terms, it's okay.
Now, do you see how I could be confused with the way that question was worded? I'd kinda like to get from _ATLANTIS_ what was meant, so I can maybe form a better response.
sory about my spelling any way is it possible for you to just make the launcher with instrctions on how to put the server files into the requyered directory and only post the launcher
and I'm trying to keep in mind that you must actually be serious about this, seeing how it's been a *few* months since you posted the original request.
You want a launcher that will make UltraVNC's SERVER application (the part that makes the computer you are currently on REMOTELY available to the VIEWER application) portable?
You want to be able to leave your USB stick (or whatever other device it may be on) plugged into some remote machine (for example, your HOME computer), so you can access it from someplace else via my uvncviewer (for example, your WORK or SCHOOL computer)?
Am I correct so far?
Yes you r right and the reason i havent checek up on this sight is because i was bisy with school and then i forgot about my posts
The current "stable" version is not as portable, and would require a larger patch to the source to do, or a lot of tracing to create a launcher for. The version that's currently in beta can be made more portable, in that it can use a .ini file, rather than the registry, to store its settings.
Now, keep in mind, either way, that this would still require your user account to have administrator-level privileges to use it.
Please don't interpret this as a solid "no", so much as a "not yet, we'll see".
And, I figured there might be a good reason for the long delay
ok i will be pashent
Try logmein with Firefox portable. It lets you remote control, and it's free+online. If you don't like it I don't know what to do.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
Teamviewer is much better then ultravnc
it has got a launcher in beta forum
First of all, their site claims none of the sides have to enable incoming ports (although it "helps the speed"). How is this possible? How does one side find another without incoming ports? That's something weird about this.
Secondly, does it have an interactive reverse mode? UltraVNC has another program called SC. It's an almost 100% portable program, that lets the client connect to you instead of vice versa (like usual). That way, only you have to open a port in the firewall instead of having make newbie clients do so.
Teamviewer's site and (rather short) FAQ reveal nothing about a reverse mode.
Even more so, UltraVNC's SC has (albeit unofficially) a special version with a GUI that accepts manual IP and port. Does Teamviewer have such a thing?
The server and viewer are the same app that by default connect to TeamViewer servers to establish the client ID and password. This is how they connect through firewalls.
Reversing control is the matter of selecting a menu command.
TV does support IP addresses, via the Accept LAN Connections option. In fact, you can make it use ONLY IP addresses if you set the advanced option to Only Accept LAN Connections.
I was a little skeptical at first, but I've tried it and I really like it. I'll be testing it shortly for stability.
The only way to bypass both sides' incoming ports is to have a middleman. Call me paranoid, but with all due respect to the middleman I prefer direct communication when I remote control another computer.
As for LAN connections, the reason I need IP addresses is because of dynamic addresses and not because of LAN connections. Can I use IP addresses when using just the Internet and not any LAN?
>Reversing control is the matter of selecting a menu command.
Is it interactive like I've described? I wish they would bother to mention this feature in this site.
Yes you can use IP just over the internet. I believe it's port 5938 (not configurable as far as I know though).
And sure you'd have to trust the middleman. That's why it's just one option. You should know that all communication is AES-256 encrypted, so the middleman can't read your data anyway.
And a reverse mode would work by the client connecting to you, then you choose the menu command to reverse control. I don't believe you can do *exactly* as you describe though.
You mixed up unrelated things. Just because I want to use IP addresses doesn't mean I want to use ports (and vice versa).
Dude, if you want to use IP addresses to connect to a computer over the internet, you need to open the port on the remote computer (assuming it's behind a firewall or router that would normally block the port). I'm letting you know it's port 5938. That's not mixed up or unrelated. Choose your words more carefully.
You don't need to enable incoming ports when the packets are routed via a Teamviewer server. Both sides connect to the Teamviewer routing server. That seems to be what they are offering.
I don't like middlemen when I remote control another computer.
That's why I wasn't going to reply to the post suggesting it, and, besides, the PROGRAM may be free, but it requires a rather expensive license to really make use of it (read the documentation on the site, as well as the readme with the app), which also turns me off to the idea.