Talk:TightVNC

Claim of popularity
As much as I hate to do it, I have to remove the claim of "It is one of the more widely used of VNC implementations." I am unable to find any actual research on the matter of popularity between the two software, and my own limited research yields no means of determining actual usage data. Performing a Google search for both "TightVNC" and "RealVNC" (in quotes) yields greater results for RealVNC with 840,000 hits while TightVNC only 527,000 hits. Furthermore, a search for '*VNC "most popular"' and '*VNC "the most popular"' yield conflicting results but with nearly even hits for both, invalidating the usefulness of this search.

As of this writing, the only two popular VNC software are TightVNC and RealVNC, which makes the statement "one of the more" redundant as there are only two currently in any sort of demand. I suppose if you include the countless but useless and obsolete contenders, this would be an accurate statement, but it holds no encyclopedic value.

If it were possible to obtain some sort of client-info data off some vastly popular VNC servers, popularity data may be available, but no such technology exists thus making it impossible to support a claim of popularity. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I only put it in because the notability tag. It is quite ludicrous that one of the top 2 or 3 VNCs should be tagged as non-notable and I wanted to make it clear that this was one of the major ones. The annoying thing is I couldn't find a reference for it. What we need is just one good reference that can kill off the notability tag. The trouble is that I can't find a really good one. TightVNC is so popular that its blog coverage makes it hard to find RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Portable versions
These are now on the same URL as the others. "Viewer executable, does not require installation" for the viewer, which is what most people think of as the "portable" part. The server/daemon can be run manually from the "Complete set of executables, no installer" download, if someone insists. ;) Fixing the dead link. 50.206.59.42 (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)