Join.me ... better than GotoMeeting

This may sound like spam, but its not.
How many of you use tools like GoToMeeting or Webex or "Windows Remote Assistance" for desktop sharing? Probably a lot of you. Many of of us LV developers end up having to support remote systems. I use desktop sharing to provide tech support and to do demos. GoToMeeting has always been my tool of choice. But now there is something better (in some situations): www.Join.me
Its awesome. They have made it idiot-proof. And totally free.
It is a great alternative when the person you are connecting with has very little technical skills.
Btw: I have no affiliation with LogMeIn (the people who created join.me) ... I just think its a great product and wanted to share the news. So go check it out.

Been using LogMeIn Free for a while now. Great service IMO. Our IT dept. uses several paid LogMeIn services and turned me onto the free one.
Funny thing... I deploy LMI on all the machines that leave the office (Got two contract manufacturers overseas). One of those laptops got stolen a few months ago.
If you're going to steal a laptop, don't do it with one that's got remote access on it.
And definitely don't steal a laptop I have remote access to.
And when you're using that stolen laptop that I have remote access to, it's probably not a good idea to leave your facebook page logged in. Hope you're enjoying those wall posts I left for you.
I don't think they stole the power supply for the computer (dumbas*ses ), saw that it was running on battery and when it hit zero it hasn't been back online since. Rescued all the test data and wiped all the company data off of it, so really it's just the hardware that's of any value to the company now.
Got the IP, ISP, and the name on the logged in facebook page after the machine was stolen. Turned all that info over to Mexican authorities, but still haven't recovered the laptop. The fun I and our IT dept. had with the guy was worth the price of the hardware though

Similar Messages

How can we say if Join better than using Sub Queries ??

Hi all,
I am trying to understand the rationale behind "Is _Inner Join_ better than using _Sub Query_ ?" for this scenario ...
I have these tables --
Table1 { *t1_Col_1* (PrimaryKey), t1_Col_2, t1_Col_3, t1_Col_4 }
-- Number of rows = ~4Million , t1_Col_3 has say 60% entries non-zero -----> (Condition 4)
Table2 { *t2_Col_1* (PK), t2_Col_2, t2_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~150Million, t2_Col_2 maps to t1_Col_1 -----> (Condition 1). This means for every distinct value of t1_Col_1 (its PK) we'll have multiple rows in Table2.
Table3 { *t3_Col_1* (PK), t3_Col_2, t3_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~50K, t3_Col_1 maps to t1_Col_2 -----> (Condition 2)
Table4 { *t4_Col_1* (PK), t4_Col_2, t4_Col_3 }
-- Number of rows = ~1K, t4_Col_2 maps to t3_Col_2 -----> (Condition 3)
Now here are the 2 queries: -
Query using direct join --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1, Table2, Table3, Table4
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3 != 0
Query using SubQuery --
SELECT t1_Col_1, t2_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table2,
(SELECT t1_Col_1, t3_Col_1, t4_Col_2
FROM Table1,Table3, Table4
WHERE
AND t1_Col_2=t3_Col_1 -- Condition 2
AND t3_Col_2=t4_Col_1 -- Condition 3
AND t1_Col_3!= 0
WHERE t1_Col_1=t2_Col_2 -- Condition 1
Now the golden question is - How can I document with evidence that Type-1 is better than Type-2 or the other way ? I think the 3 things in comparison are: -
- Number of rows accessed (Type-1 better ?)
- Memory/Bytes used (Again Type-1 better ?)
- Cost ( ?? )
(PS - testing on both MySQL, Oracle10g)
Thanks,
A

So, is it right to conclude that Optimizer uses the optimal path and then processes the query resulting in nearly the same query execution time ?If the optimizer transforms two queries so that they end up the same, then they will run in the same time. Of course, sometimes it cannot do so because of the the way the data is defined (nulls are often a factor; constraints can help it) or the way the query is written, and sometimes it misses a possible optimization due to inaccurate statistics or other information not available to it, or limitations of the optimizer itself.
Is this the right place to ask for MySQL optimization ?Probably not.

For All Entries is NOT better than INNER JOIN in most cases

I quote from Siegfried Boes' excellent post here: Will writing an inner join be better or creating a view?
For all the FOR ALL ENTRIES lovers ... there is no proof for these reappearing recommendation.
There is nearly nobody who receives forum points, who recommends FOR ALL ENTRIES instead of Joins. What is the reason ???
It is easier to prove the opposite. A Join is a nested loop inside the database, a FOR ALL ENTRIES is partly outside of the database. FOR ALL ENTRIES works in blocks, joins on totals.
FOR ALL ENTRIES are not recommded on really large tables, because the chances are too high that
too many records are transferred.
People prefer FOR ALL ENTRIES, because JOINs are not so easy to understand. Joins can go wrong, but with a bit of understanding they can be fixed.
Some Joins are slow and can not be fixed, but then the FOR ALL ENTRIES would be extremely slow.
There are several kinds of views:
- projection views, i.e. only one table involved just fields reduced
- join views, several tables, joins conditions stored in dictionary
- materialized views, here the joined data are actually stored in the database. Storing and synchronisation has to be done manually.
Only the last one creates real overhead. It should be the exception.
Join Views and Joins are nearly identical. The view is better for reuse. The join is better in complicated, becuase if the access goes wrong, it can often be fixed by adding a hint. Hints can not be added to views.
Abraham Bukit points out:
If it is cluster table, (you can't use join). If it is buffered table, I would also say avoid join.
If they all are transaction table which are not buffered and are not cluster tables.
He further supports Siegfried's statement that FAE is easier to undestand than INNER JOINs.
Thomas Zloch says, regarding buffered tables:
At least think twice, maybe compare runtimes if in doubt.
So, unless someone has some EVIDENCE that FOR ALL ENTRIES is better, I don't think we want to see this discussed further.
Kind regards
Matt

To give food for thought here's an example I gave in a thread:
If you have a statement like
SELECT ... FOR ALL ENTRIES IN FAE_itab WHERE f = FAE_itab-f.
SAP sends it to the database depending how the parameter rsdb/prefer_union_all is set:
rsdb/prefer_union_all = 0 =>
SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[1]-f
          OR    f = FAE_itab[2]-f
          OR    f = FAE_itab[N]-f
You have some influence of the generated statement type: Instead of OR'ed fields an IN list can be used
if you have only a single coulmn N to compare:
rsdb/prefer_in_itab_opt parameter:
SELECT ... WHERE f IN (itab[1]-f, itab[2]-f, ..., itab[N]-f)
rsdb/prefer_union_all = 1 =>
SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[1]-f
UNION ALL SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[2]-f
UNION ALL SELECT ... WHERE f = FAE_itab[N]-f
see: Note 48230 - Parameters for the SELECT ... FOR ALL ENTRIES statement
As you can see for the 2nd parameter several statements are generated and combined with a UNION ALL,
the first setting generates statements with OR's (or uses IN if possible) for the entries in FAE_itab.
I give you a little example here (my parameters are set in a way that the OR's are translated to IN lists; i traced the execution in ST05)
Select myid into table t_tabcount from mydbtable
for all entries in t_table    " 484 entries
    where myid = t_table-myid .
ST05 trace:
|Transaction SEU_INT|Work process no 0|Proc.type DIA|Client 200|User |
|Duration |Obj. name |Op.    |Recs.|RC    |Statement|
| 640|mydbtable |PREPARE|   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( :A0 , :A1 , :A2 , :A3 , :A4 ) AND "myid" = :A5|
| 2|mydbtable |OPEN   |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 2.536|mydbtable |FETCH |    0| 1403|   |
| 3|mydbtable |REOPEN |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 118|mydbtable |FETCH | 0| |
| 2|mydbtable |REOPEN | | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ) AND "myid" = 72     |
| 3|mydbtable |REOPEN | | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 475 , 476 , 477 , 478 , 479 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
| 94|mydbtable |FETCH | 0| 1403|   |
| 2|mydbtable |REOPEN |   | 0|SELECT WHERE "myid" IN ( 480 , 481 , 482 , 483 , 484 ) AND "myid" = 72 |
You see the IN list contained 5 entries each , wich made up about 97 statements for all 484 entries.
For every statment you have a single fetch operation wich means a separate access to the database.
If you would replace the FAE with a join you would only have one fetch to the database.
With the example above we can derive these observations:
1. From database point of view these settings kill performance when you access a big table and/or have a lot of entries or columns in your FAE_itab. Furthermore, you hide information what data you will access
at all and thus you block the database from creating a more efficient execution plan because it DOESN'T KNOW wich data you will select in the next step. I.e. it may be more efficient to scan the table in one shot instead of having many index accesses - but the database can make this decision only if it can examine ONE statement that has ALL the information of what data to retrieve.
2. A second impact is that with every statement execution you trigger the allocation of database resources
wich will contribute to the overhead described above.
Said that, FAE can never be a replacement for joining big tables (think of having a table with thousands of records in a FAE table )
Edited by: kishan P on Nov 2, 2010 2:16 PM - Format Fixed

HT1771 why did apple erase ichat? its so much better than messages and now I cant video chat with my ichat buddies

why did apple erase ichat? its so much better than messages and now I cant video chat with my ichat buddies!!!

HI,
Apple did not erase iChat.
Messages in Mountain Lion is iChat +
The plus bit is the fact you can iMessage iOS devices.
All the other features that were in iChat are still there.
If you upgraded Lion to get to Mountain Lion then in System Preferences > Mail, Contacts and Calendars you probably list all the iChat Accounts (Screen Names and IDs).
You may need to enable them for Messages.
They should also show up in Messages Menu > Preference > Accounts
Once those accounts (AIM and Jabber) are Enabled they can be viewed in a Combined Buddy List
Windows Menu > Buddies (Or using CMD + 1 Keystrokes)
In the General Section of the Preferences you can Unlink these Buddy lists.
The Green icons or highlight a Buddy and then using the Buddies Menu or the icons at the Bottom of the Buddy list can be used the same way to start Video or Audio Only chats.
The iMessage "Account" is only for texting iOS devices or other people using their Apple ID on a Mac in Messages.
It is an account "in addition to" rather than "taking over from" the services that iChat can join.
9:22 PM Thursday; December 6, 2012
Please, if posting Logs, do not post any Log info after the line "Binary Images for iChat"
 iMac 2.5Ghz 5i 2011 (Mountain Lion 10.8.2)
 G4/1GhzDual MDD (Leopard 10.5.8)
 MacBookPro 2Gb (Snow Leopard 10.6.8)
 Mac OS X (10.6.8),
 Couple of iPhones and an iPad
"Limit the Logs to the Bits above Binary Images."  No, Seriously

Why is MME playing much better than ASIO4ALL

I have a 64 bit acer Aspire R7 with 8GB RAM and runing windows 8.1. i have bin using adobe audition(now using CS6) for about 10 years now and i have never found myself havin this problem:
1)It so happens that my MME drivers are giving less glitches than the ASIO4ALL.(no matter how much i play around with the buffer size)
2)when using the asio4all during play back,the volume is lower compared to that of the MME drivers.
3)the asio4all icon on the system tray keeps flickering from play(green) to an exclamation mark(red) constantly
i cant use my MME for my projects coz i gat quite a bunch of plugins waiting to join the party...hence it will start glitching too sooner than later(((pliz help!!!help help help!!!!

I'm usin the onboard soundcard.i know have to get an external USB soundcard(guilty)...money issues.((but the thing is i used to run the same version of audition on a much smaller laptop(hp,32 bit,3GB RAM) and it worked far much better than the acer.when i play audio in audition with plugin effects:MME used to lag while ASIO4ALL would play it smoothly.n now i have rather the opposite situation.
ryclark wrote:
What audio interface are you using with Audition? If you are using the onboard soundcard you would be much better off using an external USB connected one with proper ASIO drivers which bypass the operating system completely.
There should be no difference between using ASIO4All and MME drivers since ASIO4All uses the windows drivers anyway. It converts them to ASIO for audio interfaces that don't have ASIO drivers. However from what I hear Win 8.1 may be causing the problem with your glitchy audio especially if you are using the built in audio
What do you mean there is no difference between ASIO4ALL and MME drivers?then why does audition prompt to use ASIO4ALL if available??

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4

Is there a way that i can downgrade my iOS 7.1 on my iPhone 4 to iOS 6xx? battery life not good, and performance isn't better than iOS 6.. Please apple i am really disappointed with iOS 7 on my iPhone 4, it can runs great on iPhone above 4 such as 5/5s/etc.. iPhone 4 just good with iOS 6...

No.

Why does a DVI or VGA look better than HDMI for 2nd Monitor

Why does a DVI or VGA connection for a program monitor look better than HDMI. I've tested this on several systems with CS5x and CS6. The full screen output from premiere definitely looks worse with HDMI.
I can often see visual differences with the Windows GUI as well, over sharpening of text and lines, harsh rendering of gradients. It looks like a VGA signal displayed on a television.
I've looked at the NVidia stetting and it appears to be set to 1920x1080 at 60hz either way, DVI or HDMI. On one Acer 20 inch monitor the was VGA, HDMI, Composite, Component, and Digital Tuner, but no DVI. The program monitor has always looked blah from the HDMI. So I recently switched the connection to a DVI to VGA adaptor, and now the video looks so much better.
Any thoughts or explanations?

Just because the monitors accept a 1080P signal doesn't mean their native resolution is 1920x1080. At 20 inch they very likely can scale that signal down to the native resolution of the panel which may be 1600 x 900 or another resolution that is 16 x 9 resolution. That scaling can be done by the GPU or firmware on the Monitor depending on the video driver options and the firmware options. That scaling is also the most common cause to text and icon blurriness you are talking about. As an example there are Pro monitors that accept a 4K signal but scale it down to 2.5K or 2K on the actual panel. You might try going into your video card settings such as Nvidia control panel and look for the scaling options. Select GPU scaling and see if the preview is better. If that doesn't work select no scaling and see if it's better if the monitor firmware handles the scaling.
Eric
ADK

Open DNS better than Comcast xfinity DNS?

Is OpenDNS better than using Comcast/xfinity's DNS? If yes, how do I switch over?
I go to into Airport Utility and enter in the 2 openDNS numbers, something like 222 and 220, but at the bottom of the page right now (because I am using Comcast's DNS) there's a web address something.comcast.net Do I need to change that info too? If so, what do I put in that field?
Thanks!

How did you add them?
If you are using a single computer: Open System Preferences/Network. Double click on your connection type, or select it in the drop-down menu, and in the box marked 'DNS Servers' add the following two numbers:
208.67.222.222
208.67.220.220
(You can also enter them if you click on Advanced and then DNS)
Sometimes reversing the order of the DNS numbers can be beneficial in cases where there is a long delay before web pages start to load, and then suddenly load at normal speed:
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2296
If your computer is part of a network: please refer to this page: http://www.opendns.com/start/bestpractices/#yournetwork and follow the advice given.
(An explanation of why using Open DNS is both safe and a good idea can be read here: http://www.labnol.org/internet/tools/opendsn-what-is-opendns-why-required-2/2587 /
Open DNS also provides an anti-phishing feature: http://www.opendns.com/solutions/homenetwork/anti-phishing/ )
Wikipedia also has an interesting article about Open DNS:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDNS

Are the screens on white iMac 20" better than those on new 24"?

I have read so much about the troubles with the 20" and 24" Aluminum iMac screens that I'm afraid to buy one now, and was thinking of buying a refurb'd white (plastic) iMac from Apple. Is the screen tech in the white version better than that in the 24" Alum? I have an old 2.0 white iMac and have never had any trouble with the screen at all.

Pier Rodelon wrote:
Thanks for these pix. I have two more questions,
1) Previous poster suggests that specs for the white iMac screens were lower
than specs for ALU iMac screens--is this true and in what particulars?
Other than viewing angle and brightness, Apple doesn't publish any meaningful
screen specs.
The ALU screens are a little brighter -- entirely too bright -- and they don't have
sufficient adjustment range to reduce the brightness for comfortable viewing with
normal home lighting levels.
The 20" ALU viewing angle specs are much poorer than the white 20" or any of
the 24" models. In practice, the difference is easily noticable even to the most
casual observer.
2) Does the 24" white iMac have the same screen that the 20" white iMac has?
All 24" iMacs have expensive S-IPS LCD panels. That's the same basic technology
and from the same manufacturer as the Apple Cinema Displays. (As discussed
previously, some (many?) 24" ALUs have/had problems with uneven backlighting.)
Some white 20" units use exactly the same S-IPS panel as 20" Cinema Displays;
some others came with an excellent-quality S-PVA display. I believe all 20" iMacs,
at least as far back as the G5 PPC, used similarly high-quality (gorgeous!) panels.
The 20" ALU iMacs all have much lower-quality TN panels (from various sources).
The 17" white Intel iMacs also use the lower-quality TN panels.
To see what display you currently have, cut-n-paste the following command line
into Terminal.app -- then look it up in the panel database at tftcentral.co.uk:
ioreg -lw0 | grep IODisplayEDID | sed "/\[^<\]*</s///" | xxd -p -r | strings -6
I don't know if the 24" white iMac refurb would be a better choice than the 20"
white (or the 20/24" ALU).
IMO, there's no contest in 20" size -- the white iMac displays are vastly superior.
If you're lucky enough to get a good display, the ALU 24" is very attractive; OTOH,
I have no performance complaints with my white 2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo -- and it
was $600 less than my 24" ALU reject.
Looby

ATI Radeon HD 4870 not better than the Nvidea Geforce 120?

I bought av new ATI Radeon HD 4870 card to my MacPro. But are wery disappointed. My old NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 performes almost better than ATI. I ran Cinebench test and this is the results:
*NVIDIA GeForce*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3225 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18880 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.85
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 6107 CB-GFX
*ATI Radeon HD 4870*
Rendering (Single CPU): 3218 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 18852 CB-CPU
Multiprocessor Speedup: 5.86
Shading (OpenGL Standard): 5846 CB-GFX
I also ran the Photoshop Actiontest from www.retouchartists.com on a large .tiff file, and my ATI Radeon used 1,10,2 and NVidea used 1,09,4. That is almost 1 second better for the old card.
Apple says that the ATI 4870 card performs 2x better than the Nvidea 120. That is not my experience!

Hello,
I currently have a 2008 3.0Ghz Harpertown mac pro and I am trying to figure out what to do here. I just purchased the 24 inch cinema display, but yet I have a nice 1GB 4870 ati radeon I got off ebay. Its more powerful than the Apple version, but lacks the mini-display port.
Currently, I have the ATI RADEON 2600 XT connected, though inactive, while my 4870 is active.
So, should I just get the Nvidia GT 120 and keep my 1GB 4870, or should I get rid of the 4870 I have and just buy Apple's? Either way, the GT 120 works in a 2008 mac pro despite what Apple says on their site that it only works in 2009 mac pros.

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?

When transferring volumes to a new drive, is a cloning app better than the finder?
I’m adding a new (bigger) external hard drive. I have created five partions on it as the old drive has. Is it, better, faster, more accurate, etc. to use an app, or just drag and drop the folders on to the new partitions. The sofware I have are; TechTool6, Drive Genius3 & SuperDuper. Two of the partitons have a Mac OS on them. The others just have files.
Thanks,
Larry

If the drive is to be functional as a boot drive then cloning is the better approach as it will grab all hidden configuration files and preserve the file access permissions properly; however, if you are setting up a data drive then the Finder's copy options should be adequate. To ensure file permissions are properly attributed to the copied files, select them and press Command-C to copy, followed by Shift-Option-Command-V to paste the items in the new location and preserve their file attributes (you may need to authenticate when copying them in this manner). If you do not need to preserve permissions then a basic drag-and-drop copy should suffice.

IMovie capture quality better than anything FCP can offer for consumer DV?

As a newbie to FCP, I have not found Capture, sequence, and export settings that is equal to or better than what iMovie 08 can create. Prior to this, I've been using iMovie 08 which is extremely user friendly. Just plug in the fire wire connections and it auto detects only one setting for DV. I am not sure what format it captures in but it does a good job. When I export out of iMovie 08 I use "using Quicktime" and choose the Uncompressed 8-bit NTSC method. The result is a decent, non-interlaced looking .mov file.
The first time I tried to capture with FCP I chose the easy setup, where I would capture in the NTSC DV, sequence would be NTSC DV and export using the current settings in quicktime. The result was an interlaced and lowered quality vid.
I have also tried the following combinations with no success with quality comparisons w/ iMovie 08:
capt: NTSC dv, seq: NTSC DV, progressive exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
capt: Uncompressed 8-bit, seq: Uncompressed 8-Bit exp: Uncompressed 8-bit
This last one came close, but still iMovie 08 was better.
My assumption is that FCP would contain the settings to duplicate or even out perform iMovie's export quality for consumer video dv. I viewed iMovie as little brother and FCP as big brother. Shouldn't FCP produce equal to or better quality than iMovie 08? And what are the settings for this?
Thanks

Thank you for clearing up my confusion. How is my export from iMovie 08, using "Uncompressed 8-bit" coming out progressive (I see no interlaced, odd/even scan lines)? Is this export dropping lines/information? If so, uncompressed is not an appropriate name for the export.
I understand what you are saying about "getting quality back" on export. My initial question was comparing the quality of an iMovie 08 export vs. FCP export and having the problem of a lowered output from the FCP export.
If anyone has the time, would they try a short experiment:
1. From your DV source, camera or deck connect to your computer
Capture a short clip via iMovie 08 a short clip in standard 4:3.
Export using Quicktime, Uncompressed 8-bit setting
2. From your DV source, camera or deck, connect to your computer.
Capture the same short clip to FCP using Easy set up for NTSC DV. Export with current settings.
3. Compare the two.

TS1398 problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

problem in wifi range i use my phone my rume but i think china mobile is working better than iphone ......

I don't understand what you are asking here. Can you try and ask again?

PP CS5/5.5 chroma key better than AE CS4?

Hi everyone.
I think I read somewhere a while back that the chroma key in PP CS5/5.5 is better than AE CS4's Keylight. In fact, the PP effect may be an improved Keylight , but I can't recall this for certain.
Can anyone verify this?
Thx.
Paul

I've keyed with the same camera for a couple of years now, and it's got a pretty narrow band in which greens are easily keyed. DVCPRO HD is not well-reputed for its handling of greens, or at least as a result of it's use with an older 1/3" sensor. I've gotten the best results with the exposure on the screen at about 50-60IRE, but that's just in my scenarios. Most of my material is recorded to P2 cards (though I did one long shoot with OnLo and a green screen), but the footage encoding is the same--it's all DVCPRO HD. I've got some stuff that I did recently that keyed like buttah with Ultra--I literally had a solid key in 20 seconds with just picking the background color and tweaking a couple parameters.
So, since "brightly lit" and "lower lit" are subjective terms, it's hard to give you any specific recommendations other than to try to stick in a particular exposure range. All I know is that when your green screen footage is evenly lit and at mid-range exposure, Ultra does a pretty good job with minimal effort.

Why Annyconecct is better than vpn client ?

why anyconnect is better than cisco vpn client ?
what is its advangatges ?
i think that both are remoteaccess vpn .
why its better ?

The other thing is that, Cisco does not support traditional VPN on Windows 8.X. I have run in to lots of issues trying to install Cisco VPN client on Windows 8.x clients.. it sometimes work and sometimes it needs registry hacks etc.. really painful setup for the network engineer. So Anyconnect is preffered.
Also, since SSL uses port 443/SSL by default, it does not need any ALG (Application Layer Gateway) functionality in remote end user's routers to operate, and will simply work with normal PAT which is always on.. with traditional IPSec VPN, since it uses ESP, you need to have AGL turned on on the user's GW router (this is normally called IPSec VPN pass through mode) and this sometimes doesn't work the way you want specially on the older residential routers. When this happens you really don't have any other option for those users.. and your only response would be "Sorry your router does not support this kind of VPN or your router does something strange with the VPN so Please upgrade your router" which is something the normal residential user don't want to hear.. and something you want to tell them..
So SSL VPN is the way to go..
please rate helpful posts :)

Join.me ... better than GotoMeeting

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for