Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #186429 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-01 16:11 +0200 |
| Last post | 2025-08-14 16:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 113 — 20 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 16:11 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-01 10:28 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-01 18:19 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-01 12:33 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Alan K." <alan@invalid.com> - 2025-08-01 13:49 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-01 21:11 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection NY <me@privacy.net> - 2025-08-02 16:29 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-02 18:26 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:45 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 15:58 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-02 16:35 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Graham J <nobody@nowhere.co.uk> - 2025-08-01 16:43 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:47 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 09:02 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 09:13 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-01 18:41 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:49 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-01 12:06 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-01 15:26 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> - 2025-08-06 15:58 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-06 18:41 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-06 12:35 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-01 17:32 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-02 12:15 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 15:57 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-02 15:46 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 17:30 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-02 18:32 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-02 19:53 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-02 17:53 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-03 19:43 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-08-03 20:41 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-04 11:55 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Char Jackson <none@none.invalid> - 2025-08-04 23:22 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-05 20:24 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-04 12:57 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection T <T@invalid.invalid> - 2025-08-03 23:10 -0700
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-04 15:37 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-02 15:54 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-02 16:40 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-02 19:56 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-03 20:36 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-03 18:11 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-04 11:34 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-04 14:06 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-06 08:59 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-03 21:07 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-04 11:24 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-04 10:50 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-06 09:01 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-07 11:39 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-07 15:19 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Zaidy036 <Zaidy036@air.isp.spam> - 2025-08-04 16:25 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-06 09:03 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-08-06 20:55 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Brian Gregory <void-invalid-dead-dontuse@email.invalid> - 2025-08-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-07 15:22 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-07 15:20 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Philip Herlihy <nothing@invalid.com> - 2025-08-08 11:44 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-09 12:59 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-09 13:17 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-10 18:01 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-10 18:12 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-10 19:33 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:08 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-11 09:46 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 14:07 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 08:19 -0500
OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming (was: Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 14:36 +0100
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 11:06 +0200
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-20 10:48 +0100
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-20 13:36 +0200
Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-10-20 12:36 +0000
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-08-10 19:57 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-10 20:42 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-11 09:44 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 14:09 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 08:53 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 15:53 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 13:03 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-11 19:31 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-11 21:11 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-12 02:00 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-13 21:21 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> - 2025-10-19 23:36 -0700
OT: ageing (was: Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection) "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-10-20 08:45 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 20:20 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-08-12 12:35 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-12 14:16 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-08-12 21:11 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-12 17:24 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2025-08-13 05:10 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-08-12 15:29 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Michael Logies <logies@t-online.de> - 2025-08-11 22:40 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-11 21:06 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 20:35 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-12 09:01 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-12 13:23 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-13 03:45 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-13 21:28 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-13 17:09 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-14 13:27 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2025-08-11 21:03 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-11 20:39 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection rsutton <rsutton43@comcast.net> - 2025-08-12 07:49 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection wasbit <wasbit@REMOVEhotmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:26 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-13 11:39 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> - 2025-08-13 12:13 +0100
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-13 18:33 +0200
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-08-13 12:52 -0500
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection rsutton <rsutton43@comcast.net> - 2025-08-14 08:22 -0400
Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> - 2025-08-14 16:00 +0200
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 12:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfoo14F9qu4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186577 |
On 08/08/2025 12:44, Philip Herlihy wrote: > In article <mfjnhhFejrfU2@mid.individual.net>, fnauta@solfon.nl says... >> >> >> I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >> two wifi W11 laptops. >> >> > > If you're still without a solution for the W11 laptops, try running the > UVNC server on one (running as a service), and a "listening client" on > the other. On the latter, open port 5500 via your firewall, and run the > listening client. On the server, right-click the system tray icon and > pick "new connection" (forget exact words, but it's obvious) and give > the local IP address of the machine running the client. That should > work, and give you a basis to work from. If it doesn't work for you, > I'd suggest using an AI research tool like Perplexity or ChatGPT to help > you diagnose the problem. Good luck! > > > -- > Phil, London Thanks. I have scaled RealVNC down to two clients, which is much cheaper. I now use it for the laptops. Fokke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-09 13:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <irskto62ipt8$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> |
| In reply to | #186585 |
Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> wrote: > I have scaled RealVNC down to two clients, which is much cheaper. I > now use it for the laptops. Since you pay for it, some support is included. They have their FAQs and help pages, their web-based forums, and a web form to submit an online request for help. Sometimes FAQs and forums aren't sufficient. It has been so long since I last using VNC that, I think, when I long ago tested several variant RealVNC was free back then. Free is nice, but support can be critical when you need it. I don't care for subscriptionware, though: $8.95/mo, billed annually ($99/yr) for an Essentials license with 1 user over 3 devices. They probably went to that model to afford providing support; else, a one-time purchase with lifetime support has diminishing ROI over time; however, once you have everything working, often you no longer need support, but then you're paying yearly for support you no longer need. Free is nice, but sometimes paid is better. Over decades of using free Usenet, I eventually decided to pay for it but wanted something cheap (10 euro/yr, ~$12 USD/yr) with high up-time. I tried LibreOffice for over a year, but there were too many workarounds or missing functions, so I went back to MS Office, but got the standalone 2021 Pro Plus for real cheap ($35) from a known, trustworthy, and reliable seller. I used to pay for eM Client (I gave up on Thunderbird after 6 trials with the last one lasting 6 months), but now I'm back to MS Outlook (the client, not their webapp). Sometimes free can be great. I have lots of freeware. Sometimes payware is a better choice. The effort you expend in setting up, debugging, and maintaining freeware can be offset by something that works straight out of the box. However, I'd rather pay for a one-time lifetime license, but I don't see RealVNC offers one for personal use. Depends if you like challenges. For me, I'd probably go with a different and freeware VNC variant, especially only for only intranetwork hosts. Getting secure external access requires much more setup. For me, the wifi hosts not working would be a challenge, and I'm stubborn, er, determined enough to make it work. Wifi adds more complication to the networking than wired Ethernet connections. TightVNC has their mailing lists (https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php) to get help. UltraVNC has their forums (https://forum.uvnc.com/). I can't say if either would prove fruitful to resolve problems since I've never visited there. I'd first prefer newsgroups, secondly web forums, and lastly mailing lists, but help is help. However, maybe you already paid for the RealVNC subscriptionware license, and figure you're done with all the hassle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 18:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfru27Fpvv0U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186590 |
On 09/08/2025 20:17, VanguardLH wrote: > Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> wrote: > >> I have scaled RealVNC down to two clients, which is much cheaper. I >> now use it for the laptops. > > Since you pay for it, some support is included. They have their FAQs > and help pages, their web-based forums, and a web form to submit an > online request for help. Sometimes FAQs and forums aren't sufficient. > > It has been so long since I last using VNC that, I think, when I long > ago tested several variant RealVNC was free back then. Indeed, it was free for a long time. > Free is nice, > but support can be critical when you need it. I don't care for > subscriptionware, though: $8.95/mo, billed annually ($99/yr) for an > Essentials license with 1 user over 3 devices. Indeed, that's what I have now. > They probably went to > that model to afford providing support; else, a one-time purchase with > lifetime support has diminishing ROI over time; however, once you have > everything working, often you no longer need support, but then you're > paying yearly for support you no longer need. That's true,but I didn't have another choice. > Free is nice, but sometimes paid is better. Over decades of using free > Usenet, I eventually decided to pay for it but wanted something cheap > (10 euro/yr, ~$12 USD/yr) with high up-time. I tried LibreOffice for > over a year, but there were too many workarounds or missing functions, > so I went back to MS Office, but got the standalone 2021 Pro Plus for > real cheap ($35) from a known, trustworthy, and reliable seller. I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it. > I used > to pay for eM Client (I gave up on Thunderbird after 6 trials with the > last one lasting 6 months), but now I'm back to MS Outlook (the client, > not their webapp). I use Thunderbird for many years, and I'm happy with it! > Sometimes free can be great. I have lots of > freeware. Sometimes payware is a better choice. The effort you expend > in setting up, debugging, and maintaining freeware can be offset by > something that works straight out of the box. However, I'd rather pay > for a one-time lifetime license, but I don't see RealVNC offers one for > personal use. > > Depends if you like challenges. For me, I'd probably go with a > different and freeware VNC variant, especially only for only > intranetwork hosts. Getting secure external access requires much more > setup. For me, the wifi hosts not working would be a challenge, and I'm > stubborn, er, determined enough to make it work. Wifi adds more > complication to the networking than wired Ethernet connections. > > TightVNC has their mailing lists (https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php) to > get help. UltraVNC has their forums (https://forum.uvnc.com/). I can't > say if either would prove fruitful to resolve problems since I've never > visited there. I'd first prefer newsgroups, So do I > secondly web forums, and > lastly mailing lists, but help is help. However, maybe you already paid > for the RealVNC subscriptionware license, Yes, when I had 6 clients. It was a lot of money. It's valued to june 2026. Than I will close down to 2 clients. > and figure you're done with > all the hassle. Thanks! Fokke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107ajtq$1t4m7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186624 |
On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:
[]
> I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.
[]
I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).
It works fine under W10-64, and I've yet to find _anything_ I want that
needs any features in later versions (and yet to find anything that
needs me to save in one of the .???x formats, either). [In fact, I
probably would have been happy with Office 97, 1998 ("Burgundy")
edition; the only difference between that and 2003 that I actually _use_
is more flexible cell alignment in Word tables. But I don't know if that
would run on later Windows.]
(Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using
that too.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
When I'm good, I'm very good. But when I'm bad - I'm better! (Mae West)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 19:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfs3fhFqu0bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186626 |
On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote:
> On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote:
>
> []
>
>> I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it.
>
> []
>
> I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants).
> It works fine under W10-64, and I've yet to find _anything_ I want that
> needs any features in later versions (and yet to find anything that
> needs me to save in one of the .???x formats, either). [In fact, I
> probably would have been happy with Office 97, 1998 ("Burgundy")
> edition; the only difference between that and 2003 that I actually _use_
> is more flexible cell alignment in Word tables. But I don't know if that
> would run on later Windows.]
>
> (Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using
> that too.)
When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product
activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016.
Fokke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 19:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107an7e$1t4m7$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186627 |
On 2025/8/10 18:33:38, Fokke Nauta wrote: > On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote: >> >> [] >> >>> I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it. >> >> [] >> >> I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants). [] >> (Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using >> that too.) > > When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product > activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016. > > Fokke Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did actually buy it - I think it might have been through an employee scheme. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 09:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mftleeF4ap6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186630 |
On 10/08/2025 20:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/10 18:33:38, Fokke Nauta wrote: >> On 10/08/2025 19:12, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2025/8/10 17:1:12, Fokke Nauta wrote: >>> >>> [] >>> >>>> I use MS Home and Office 2016. I'm happy with it. >>> >>> [] >>> >>> I use Office 2003 (with the patches to let it read the .???x variants). > > [] > >>> (Not sure what "MS Home" is; if the _flavour_ of Windows, yes, I'm using >>> that too.) >> >> When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product >> activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016. >> >> Fokke > > Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of > Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did > actually buy it Fully agree. - I think it might have been through an employee scheme. ? Fokke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 14:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107cptu$2gp2e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186652 |
On 2025/8/11 8:46:22, Fokke Nauta wrote: > On 10/08/2025 20:08, J. P. Gilliver wrote: [] >> Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of >> Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did >> actually buy it > > Fully agree. > > - I think it might have been through an employee scheme. > > ? Some scheme whereby my then employer had made some arrangement whereby employees could obtain Office at a beneficial price (might have involved downloading, and a key, rather than getting it on an actual medium, I can't remember). I think there was a later one where it was even free, but you had to delete your home copy if you left employment with that employer. (I wonder how many did!) As to _why_ the employer did this, I think it wasn't entirely altruistic: they wanted employees to be familiar with the same version(s) they were using at work.> > Fokke > John -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We're done for the night. I'm off for a cup of tea and some crystal meth. Only joking. I've had quite enough tea for one day. - Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7013
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 08:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <quyzy3uwx881.dlg@v.nguard.lh> |
| In reply to | #186652 |
Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> wrote: > J. P. Gilliver wrote: > >> Fokke Nauta wrote: >> >>> When I open my account, Product Information Office, it says Product >>> activated etc, Microsoft Home and Business 2016. >> >> Ah, I understand. When I do Help|About in Word, I get "...Part of >> Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003". I'm pretty sure I did >> actually buy it > > Fully agree. > > - I think it might have been through an employee scheme. "Home and Business" is an edition of Microsoft Office. Each edition has a different recipe of components and features. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Office#Editions There are also Plus sub-editions, like the Microsoft Office 2021 Professional Plus that I purchased ($30) as a standalone version with a lifetime license (doesn't expire after 1 year as with subscriptions to MS 365). The Microsoft Office 365 subscriptions were renamed to Microsoft 365. I don't remember there were any changes to the subscriptions, just a name change. You can see the Office Home & Business edition listed at: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/buy/compare-all-microsoft-365-products https://www.licencedeals.com/blogs/licencedeals-info-corner/microsoft-office-editions-comparison Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their products. Oh yes, Outlook new (yes, the lowercased "new' is part of the product name) replaced Mail (which had several incarnations across Windows versions). Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their bundles, too. There are product names now which differ from what they were called before. Gee, all I have to do is change the name plate on my car, and presto chango I have a new car. Changing names is how Microsoft hopes to con users something is new.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 14:36 +0100 |
| Subject | OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming (was: Re: Alternative for remote desktop connection) |
| Message-ID | <107crl2$2gj2l$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186661 |
On 2025/8/11 14:19:6, VanguardLH wrote: [] > Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their products. Oh > yes, Outlook new (yes, the lowercased "new' is part of the product name) > replaced Mail (which had several incarnations across Windows versions). > Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their bundles, too. > There are product names now which differ from what they were called > before. Gee, all I have to do is change the name plate on my car, and > presto chango I have a new car. Changing names is how Microsoft hopes > to con users something is new. I couldn't agree more. Didn't help when they had (maybe still have) a hosting etc. service/company called Outlook, as well as software called Outlook (and Outlook Express, too). They once had an office suite called Works, which included a word processor, a spreadsheet, and I think one or two others (something graphical maybe?). Not only was it substantially cheaper than Office (which was so expensive you could buy the individual parts, like Word and Excel, separately at that time), but it also was much less demanding in resource requirements. It did most of what the average home user required. Towards the end of its existence, it came with Word rather than its original WP, since WP was the part most users used. I'm pretty sure Works was finally killed off because it was eating into the profits/sales of the full Office. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We're done for the night. I'm off for a cup of tea and some crystal meth. Only joking. I've had quite enough tea for one day. - Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7013
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 11:06 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming |
| Message-ID | <bmahslxaaq.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #186662 |
On 2025-08-11 15:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/8/11 14:19:6, VanguardLH wrote: > > [] > >> Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their products. Oh >> yes, Outlook new (yes, the lowercased "new' is part of the product name) >> replaced Mail (which had several incarnations across Windows versions). >> Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their bundles, too. >> There are product names now which differ from what they were called >> before. Gee, all I have to do is change the name plate on my car, and >> presto chango I have a new car. Changing names is how Microsoft hopes >> to con users something is new. > > I couldn't agree more. Didn't help when they had (maybe still have) a > hosting etc. service/company called Outlook, as well as software called > Outlook (and Outlook Express, too). > > They once had an office suite called Works, which included a word > processor, a spreadsheet, and I think one or two others (something > graphical maybe?). Not only was it substantially cheaper than Office > (which was so expensive you could buy the individual parts, like Word > and Excel, separately at that time), but it also was much less demanding > in resource requirements. It did most of what the average home user > required. Towards the end of its existence, it came with Word rather > than its original WP, since WP was the part most users used. I'm pretty > sure Works was finally killed off because it was eating into the > profits/sales of the full Office. I remember that Works. Could it be that it was free (gratis) at some point? -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 10:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming |
| Message-ID | <10d50i3$3336v$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #188507 |
On 2025/10/20 10:6:51, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2025-08-11 15:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >> On 2025/8/11 14:19:6, VanguardLH wrote: >> >> [] >> >>> Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their products. Oh >>> yes, Outlook new (yes, the lowercased "new' is part of the product name) >>> replaced Mail (which had several incarnations across Windows versions). >>> Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their bundles, too. >>> There are product names now which differ from what they were called >>> before. Gee, all I have to do is change the name plate on my car, and >>> presto chango I have a new car. Changing names is how Microsoft hopes >>> to con users something is new. >> >> I couldn't agree more. Didn't help when they had (maybe still have) a >> hosting etc. service/company called Outlook, as well as software called >> Outlook (and Outlook Express, too). >> >> They once had an office suite called Works, which included a word >> processor, a spreadsheet, and I think one or two others (something >> graphical maybe?). Not only was it substantially cheaper than Office >> (which was so expensive you could buy the individual parts, like Word >> and Excel, separately at that time), but it also was much less demanding >> in resource requirements. It did most of what the average home user >> required. Towards the end of its existence, it came with Word rather >> than its original WP, since WP was the part most users used. I'm pretty >> sure Works was finally killed off because it was eating into the >> profits/sales of the full Office. > > I remember that Works. Could it be that it was free (gratis) at some point? > > I don't think Microsoft ever gave it away as a separate product, but it was seriously cheap; they, or some system sellers, might have bundled it with PCs at some point. But you might be right. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The thing about smut is it harms no one and it's rarely cruel. Besides, it's a gleeful rejection of the dreary and the "correct". - Alison Graham, RT 2014/10/25-31
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 13:36 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming |
| Message-ID | <hejhslxd5d.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #188512 |
On 2025-10-20 11:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > On 2025/10/20 10:6:51, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2025-08-11 15:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote: >>> On 2025/8/11 14:19:6, VanguardLH wrote: >>> >>> [] >>> >>>> Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their products. Oh >>>> yes, Outlook new (yes, the lowercased "new' is part of the product name) >>>> replaced Mail (which had several incarnations across Windows versions). >>>> Microsoft keeps moving the target on the names of their bundles, too. >>>> There are product names now which differ from what they were called >>>> before. Gee, all I have to do is change the name plate on my car, and >>>> presto chango I have a new car. Changing names is how Microsoft hopes >>>> to con users something is new. >>> >>> I couldn't agree more. Didn't help when they had (maybe still have) a >>> hosting etc. service/company called Outlook, as well as software called >>> Outlook (and Outlook Express, too). >>> >>> They once had an office suite called Works, which included a word >>> processor, a spreadsheet, and I think one or two others (something >>> graphical maybe?). Not only was it substantially cheaper than Office >>> (which was so expensive you could buy the individual parts, like Word >>> and Excel, separately at that time), but it also was much less demanding >>> in resource requirements. It did most of what the average home user >>> required. Towards the end of its existence, it came with Word rather >>> than its original WP, since WP was the part most users used. I'm pretty >>> sure Works was finally killed off because it was eating into the >>> profits/sales of the full Office. >> >> I remember that Works. Could it be that it was free (gratis) at some point? >> >> > I don't think Microsoft ever gave it away as a separate product, but it > was seriously cheap; they, or some system sellers, might have bundled it > with PCs at some point. But you might be right. Yeah, maybe I got it when buying a complete PC. Windows Me, perhaps. But memory is foggy about the details and the dates. -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-20 12:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OT: Microsoft product (and service) naming |
| Message-ID | <10d5hdj.u98.1@ID-201911.user.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #188528 |
Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 2025-10-20 11:48, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > > On 2025/10/20 10:6:51, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> On 2025-08-11 15:36, J. P. Gilliver wrote: > >>> On 2025/8/11 14:19:6, VanguardLH wrote: > >>> > >>> [] [...] > >>> They once had an office suite called Works, which included a word > >>> processor, a spreadsheet, and I think one or two others (something > >>> graphical maybe?). Not only was it substantially cheaper than Office > >>> (which was so expensive you could buy the individual parts, like Word > >>> and Excel, separately at that time), but it also was much less demanding > >>> in resource requirements. It did most of what the average home user > >>> required. Towards the end of its existence, it came with Word rather > >>> than its original WP, since WP was the part most users used. I'm pretty > >>> sure Works was finally killed off because it was eating into the > >>> profits/sales of the full Office. > >> > >> I remember that Works. Could it be that it was free (gratis) at some point? > >> > > I don't think Microsoft ever gave it away as a separate product, but it > > was seriously cheap; they, or some system sellers, might have bundled it > > with PCs at some point. But you might be right. > > Yeah, maybe I got it when buying a complete PC. Windows Me, perhaps. But > memory is foggy about the details and the dates. Yes, I got it (Microsoft Works) bundled with my HP Pavilion dv6570 laptop, which I bought in August 2007 (came with Windows Vista). Totally useless, because it was incompatible with everything else. (Later I got LibreOffice, now I do without).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 19:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <n43nmlxce4.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #186590 |
On 2025-08-09 20:17, VanguardLH wrote: > TightVNC has their mailing lists (https://www.tightvnc.com/lists.php) to > get help. UltraVNC has their forums (https://forum.uvnc.com/). I can't > say if either would prove fruitful to resolve problems since I've never > visited there. I'd first prefer newsgroups, secondly web forums, and > lastly mailing lists, but help is help. However, maybe you already paid > for the RealVNC subscriptionware license, and figure you're done with > all the hassle. I have found chatgpt good for diagnosis of computer problems. In any case, the reply is instantaneous. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 20:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mfs7h4FrkdmU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186574 |
On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote: > I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the > two wifi W11 laptops. I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is searching for clients/guests within the home network. I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of TeamViewer. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fokke Nauta <fnauta@solfon.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 09:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mftlb7F4ap6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #186632 |
On 10/08/2025 20:42, s|b wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote: > >> I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >> two wifi W11 laptops. > > I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than > TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and > password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a > list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is > searching for clients/guests within the home network. > > I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better > results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of > TeamViewer. > I now use RealVNC for the two laptops. I scaled it down to two clients, which is much cheaper. Fokke
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 14:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107cq2m$2gp2e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186632 |
On 2025/8/10 19:42:45, s|b wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2025 15:20:49 +0200, Fokke Nauta wrote: > >> I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >> two wifi W11 laptops. > > I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than > TeamViewer. I'm not sure, but I think you can set it up, so the ID and > password of the guest devices (server) stay the same. You can create a > list of favourites and you can 'discover peers' which I think is > searching for clients/guests within the home network. > > I'm using the portable version, but it can also be installed for better > results. I'll be advising family and friends to use RustDesk instead of > TeamViewer. > Is RustDesk free? Or free-for-personal-use (but has a commercial version, so there's the same danger of being cut of because they think you're commercial as can happen with TeamViewer?) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf We're done for the night. I'm off for a cup of tea and some crystal meth. Only joking. I've had quite enough tea for one day. - Victoria Coren Mitchell, quoted in RT 2017/10/7013
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 08:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okqafzekasa0.dlg@v.nguard.lh> |
| In reply to | #186658 |
"J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > s|b wrote: > >> Fokke Nauta wrote: >> >>> I now use TightVNC for the two local W10 pc's. It didn't work with the >>> two wifi W11 laptops. >> >> I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than >> TeamViewer. > > Is RustDesk free? Yes, for personal-use only (https://rustdesk.com/pricing); however, their comparison page doesn't mention the limitations. The other editions mention the number of logged in users, and number of managed devices, but no mention of a limit for the free plan. While their free version is OSS, their other versions are not. Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server. I did not find a list of public Rustdesk servers you could use, but then there would be a privacy and security issues. https://www.reddit.com/r/rustdesk/comments/1bjpyso/whats_the_difference_between_the_free_version_and/ You can find user discussions at: https://github.com/rustdesk/rustdesk/discussions Even if you don't participate, lurking can pull out some gems of info.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 15:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107d05s$2gj2l$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #186663 |
On 2025/8/11 14:53:3, VanguardLH wrote: > "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote: > >> s|b wrote: [] >>> I've tried RustDesk a few days ago and found it more responsive than >>> TeamViewer. >> >> Is RustDesk free? > > Yes, for personal-use only (https://rustdesk.com/pricing); however, Thanks. > their comparison page doesn't mention the limitations. The other > editions mention the number of logged in users, and number of managed > devices, but no mention of a limit for the free plan. While their free > version is OSS, their other versions are not. > > Teamviewer supplies their own servers. No setup by you. Rustdesk has > you setup a self-hosted server just like you have to setup a VNC server. Is that on your own machine? [] Rest of your post starred as keep for future reference, thanks. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10
csiph-web