iRAPP for Mac

User Reviews

• just another implementation of vnc

  nolaMay 30, 2012

  Pros

  May be faster than other VNC implementation.

  Cons

  iRAPP uses VNC protocol, but they mislead readers without mentioning "VNC" on their webpage. They do pack some nice features in their server/client package. So, the price they charge is essentially for the features, but not for the underlying protocols and speed. This is the same with aquaconnect, which is even more expensive. They all send images not instructions.

  Summary

  Although iRAPP claims to use their own protocol, it is nothing but a different implementation of VNC. It is OK for occasional use, but not a solution for working on your remote computer. Too slow compared with windows remote desktop and nomachine for Linux. If you are considering iRAPP, you have probably tried and been disappointed with VNC, and are looking for something that performs like remote desktop on windows. According to iRAPP's faq, its competitor aquaconnect uses even more bandwidth, which means they are basically the same, just different variants of VNC. Nomachine recently released 4.6 preview that includes a nxserver for mac. Sounds exciting, but I couldn't make it work, and the log file shows that the only available protocol for mac osx is shadow, which is their own word for VNC. So, basically, VNC is the only protocol for mac remote desktop right now.

  ---

• Been using it since 2007

  blueworld44January 4, 2012

  Pros

  Not only is iRAPP a different solution, it has its own protocol that allows to combine the remote Mac with my local Windows machine. Pretty cool!

  Cons

  No Mac client yet.

  Summary

  All in all a very robust solution, and Code Rebel seems to release updates ( with new features ) every 2-3 months.

  ---