- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I installed NoMachine 4.1 and am testing it — connecting from a Windows machine to a Linux one. The Linux one has a 1920×1080 desktop, the Windows client is a laptop with lower resolution. I don’t want to resize the Linux machine’s resolution to match the lower resolution of the Windows laptop.
I’m connecting Fullscreen, the display quality is on the max setting, with 1:1 resolution. I’ve also tried all 3 display option checkboxes.
No matter what, the display is blurry when connecting this way. If I use “Keep Aspect Ratio” then it isn’t blurry, but then I can’t view the entire desktop at once.
And before someone says, of course it is blurry, your resolution is less than the target — I currently use Ultravnc and TeamViewer between the exact same computers, and the fonts are much crisper using either of those software. Of course it is never ideal with the resolution not matching, but those software do scaling in such a way that the fonts are much more readable than what NoMachine is doing.
Hi DarkNova, to better understand what the issue is, can you please send three screenshots, in PNG format, taken 1:1 of the display as rendered by NoMachine, TeamViewer and UltraVNC?
It would also be nice if you could send the screenshot while the display is in “Keep aspect ratio” and “Fit to window” mode, so that we can understand if it’s only a problem with the scaling algorithm.
Attach images to your reply or send to issues[at]nomachine.com.
We did our homework. This was also a good chance to compare NoMachine with the competition (something we regularly do, as everybody should be doing in any business). Well, let me say… WOW. I mean, both software you mentioned are definitely fast by any measure, but… Well, you understand what I mean. I don’t know what the people here put in the software but let me say: good job ;-).
But let’s back at our scaling problem. Yes, I confirm that is a scaling issue. Both UltraVNC and TeamViewer make a better job at scaling. The reason is that at the present moment we use an implementation that is optimized for speed, rather than quality. This implementation was originally intended to be a fallback for when HW accelerated scaling is not available, but since HW accelerated scaling is proceeding more slowly than expected (people have been busy with other tasks) it’s basically the only scaling available at the moment. We can improve the quality of this SW scaling, of course. The problem is how to do that in real-time without impacting the rest. There are some ideas on the table. I promise you will see consistent improvements in the next releases.
By the way, these are three screenshots taken with the three software, so you can judge for yourself.
Attachments:
A quick update from our last post on this topic. You can see from the image that I attached that performance has greatly improved, so much so that we can say that quality is on a par, if not better, with the other mentioned products.
Attachments:
This topic was marked as solved, you can't post.