Author Topic: Synergy Virtual KVM (Read 29355 times)

bmms · « **Reply #25 on:** November 11, 2012, 07:02 AM »

Dear "Clean",

We are happy, that your experience with our Text Expander "PhraseExpress" convinced you to use our latest software "ShareMouse" as well.

Your continued loyalty over many years is appreciated very much.

Thank you for your compliments about our support offerings. We are getting hundreds of freeware user inquiries, ranging from requests to analyze users sophisticated networking environments, to fix enhanced automation scripts or even to develop those for them free-of-charge. We appreciate your understanding, that we unfortunately do not have the resources to provide unlimited free consulting services for our freeware offerings. Those are provided "as-is" on a complimentary basis.

We actually do provide technical support for our freeware users for issues, which are helpful for the general userbase. The forum is used as a dynamic FAQ in this regard. We are sorry, if your particular requests have not been falling into this category, but again, you are using a complimentary offering and we appreciate, that you to take it as such.

--

Your choice of alternatives is just fine. There are hammers and there are other hammers. Both are a tool.

You probaby don't need to save text formatted text snippets or use a Mac to realize, that different tools are different (in many more ways). User requirements are different, too.

40hz · « **Reply #26 on:** November 11, 2012, 07:43 AM »

@BartlesMedia - can you possibly understand that this ongoing battle you and your rivals are waging anyplace on the web where the moderators have not already banned you is of no possible interest to anybody here? You're winning neither friends nor supporters by continuing to do this. We've heard it all before. We understand the points you and the other participants have made - having heard them all more times than we'd care to remember. I'm sure software such as yours makes it very easy to post this sort of thing rapidly and efficiently - so the temptation is always there to be posting more of the same somewhere. But please - can you possibly give it (and us) a rest?

cmpm · « **Reply #27 on:** November 11, 2012, 08:11 AM »

what he said ^

wraith808 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 11, 2012, 08:37 AM »

Renegade · « **Reply #29 on:** November 11, 2012, 10:14 AM »

Had a huge post written... Decided to not post it. Read the above.

barney · « **Reply #30 on:** November 11, 2012, 10:40 AM »

But please - can you possibly give it (and us) a rest?
-40hz (November 11, 2012, 07:43 AM)

Amen!!!

bmms · « **Reply #31 on:** November 11, 2012, 11:38 AM »

I'm sure software such as yours makes it very easy to post this sort of thing rapidly and efficiently

I am glad, that you explore potential uses for our software. But to be honest, I haven't used PhraseExpress for my posting. It was a hand-made text and a boilerplate template manager doesn't help too much. PhraseExpress may just have corrected a few typos or expanded frequently used single words. However, the complete sentences are too specific to be saved as a text snippet.

As you are so passionate about following our communicaton over the whole internets so closely, you may consider to subscribe to our Twitter account. Just in case you want to stay up-to-date.

wraith808 · « **Reply #32 on:** November 11, 2012, 11:40 AM »

*facepalm*

*headdesk*

tomos · « **Reply #33 on:** November 11, 2012, 12:07 PM »

Lock it please!

40hz · « **Reply #34 on:** November 11, 2012, 12:27 PM »

Lock it please!
-tomos (November 11, 2012, 12:07 PM)

I'd prefer it be edited.

I don't see any good reason why a perfectly good and valuable discussion topic should be shut down purely because somebody (who should know better) has again decided to hijack the discussion, go completely off topic, and start going on and on about something nobody here much cares about.

Just my

mouser · « **Reply #35 on:** November 11, 2012, 12:39 PM »

Let's just try to pull it back on topic now -- everyone's had their say.

I do agree there is no reason these threads should get pulled off topic. But on the other hand, we can't expect someone to not post in a thread where someone says their product "is bad". I think there has to be some leeway given to people to defend themselves when their product is criticized.

Having said that, there is no need for us to spend more time talking about something that is off topic, so let's try to keep this on topic now.

Renegade · « **Reply #36 on:** November 11, 2012, 08:10 PM »

Just as a mini-update, Synergy seems to be smoother on my Mac now. Might be because the mouse battery was low before? That doesn't seem quite right, but I don't really have a very good explanation why it seems smoother now. Maybe I just got used to it?

wraith808 · « **Reply #37 on:** November 11, 2012, 08:22 PM »

Just as a mini-update, Synergy seems to be smoother on my Mac now. Might be because the mouse battery was low before? That doesn't seem quite right, but I don't really have a very good explanation why it seems smoother now. Maybe I just got used to it?
-Renegade (November 11, 2012, 08:10 PM)

Or maybe it *did* get better. Like I said... in my experience, the Synergy connection must utilize the dark arts and require blood sacrifice or something, because it gets better and worse for no reason that I was able to discern...

bmms · « **Reply #38 on:** November 12, 2012, 02:56 AM »

Most mouse and keyboard sharing solutions, we are aware of, use the TCP network data protocol to transmit mouse cursor and keyboard input updates:

TCP is packet-based. TCP packets have a pre-defined static size. TCP transmits packets only if they are fully packed (in the particular application, data updates have to match the defined TCP packet size in order to be dispatched immediately) or after a time-out. If your mouse/keyboard data update packet doesn't fill up a complete packet, TCP waits for the next packet to finish the pending packet or waits for the time-out to dispatch the data -> Laggy cursor.

Possible solutions:

1. Reduce the TCP time-out parameter which will slow down your whole TCP transfer as small unfinished packets with a lot of packet overhead will entertain your wires. Too small values may stall your switch/router/network adapter.

2. Use a dedicated network connection between your computers to isolate mouse and keyboard data from other TCP traffic and experiment hours by tweaking the TCP packet size to matches the mouse/keyboard data update size. I actually don't know but hope for you, that Synergy uses data updates with static size to allow you matching with the TCP packet size. Otherwise you have to deal with a target that moves faster than a bullet.

Good luck.

For people, who have things to get done, other makers invested man-years to develop a custom protocol that is optimized to meet special requirements of mouse and keyboard sharing. Sometimes, pearls do not shine on the surface but under the hood.

Renegade · « **Reply #39 on:** November 12, 2012, 03:06 AM »

Most mouse and keyboard sharing solutions, we are aware of, use the TCP network data protocol to transmit mouse cursor and keyboard input updates:

TCP is packet-based. TCP packets have a pre-defined static size. TCP transmits packets only if they are fully packed (in the particular application, data updates have to match the defined TCP packet size in order to be dispatched immediately) or after a time-out. If your mouse/keyboard data update packet doesn't fill up a complete packet, TCP waits for the next packet to finish the pending packet or waits for the time-out to dispatch the data -> Laggy cursor.

Possible solutions:

1. Reduce the TCP time-out parameter which will slow down your whole TCP transfer as small unfinished packets with a lot of packet overhead will entertain your wires. Too small values may stall your switch/router/network adapter.

2. Use a dedicated network connection between your computers to isolate mouse and keyboard data from other TCP traffic and experiment hours by tweaking the TCP packet size to matches the mouse/keyboard data update size. I actually don't know but hope for you, that Synergy uses data updates with static size to allow you matching with the TCP packet size. Otherwise you have to deal with a target that moves faster than a bullet.

Good luck.

For people, who have things to get done, other makers invested man-years to develop a custom protocol that is optimized to meet special requirements of mouse and keyboard sharing. Sometimes, pearls do not shine on the surface but under the hood.
-BartelsMedia (November 12, 2012, 02:56 AM)

That makes sense.

I was actually surprised to hear that TCP is used.

My Mac isn't my money machine -- that's Windows -- and really, given how slow Macs are to use compared to Windows (well, for me anyways), the minor annoyance is fine for now. If I really need better performance, I'll look elsewhere.

But it's good to know that you have a custom protocol for that. Didn't know that before. It would certainly make a difference for me if I were to try out a few and evaluate some - at least for understanding what's going on.

clean · « **Reply #40 on:** November 12, 2012, 07:27 AM »

As said, I tried both MWB and SM, on external screens connected to old and slow notebooks, and I certainly had a critical eye on response times. They were similar and both absolutely acceptable, and I couldn't recognize a difference; your experience with special set-ups, and especially such including Macs, might differ.

(As short as possible: I never said "the product was bad", I said "product not good", i.e. not acceptable for me for factors (background, price) beyond quality, and I later explained this bottom line with wich I had begun. And of course, there must be a "right to answer" in a discussion forum, which makes all the difference to sites like bits where there is no such right. And, as interested parties will certainly have found out by themselves, the 12 bucks-offer (incl. VAT) will soon be on bits, not on GAOTD as B. erroneously announced.)

40hz · « **Reply #41 on:** November 12, 2012, 08:30 AM »

@clean - Please drop it. Do it as a favor to Mouser.

Renegade · « **Reply #42 on:** November 15, 2012, 07:45 PM »

Well, still a few days in, and Synergy seems to be doing extremely well. I fully charged my mouse direct on the electrical socket, and it's far smoother now.

It seems like there are some "gotchas" there that once solved, end the problems. But, they take some farting around with.

So far, I'm quite happy with Synergy.

bmms · « **Reply #43 on:** November 16, 2012, 02:47 PM »

So far, I'm quite happy with Synergy.
-Renegade (November 15, 2012, 07:45 PM)

Already considered to donate for their work?

Renegade · « **Reply #44 on:** December 31, 2012, 08:55 AM »

So far, I'm quite happy with Synergy.
-Renegade (November 15, 2012, 07:45 PM)

Already considered to donate for their work?
-BartelsMedia (November 16, 2012, 02:47 PM)

Yep. Just donated today.

Mind you, it wasn't a lot, but they'll be in my list of software to donate for again. In the past I've bought software multiple times for a single license and donated multiple times for software, but things are a bit thinner these days, so I need to watch things a bit better. Before, I was single without a family, and really blew a lot of money that I didn't need to. Still, I think it's important to express financial support for software that I enjoy. Been doing that for years, and will continue to do so.

Any word on that $10 special that you'd mentioned before? Curious.

clean · « **Reply #45 on:** December 31, 2012, 05:12 PM »

Renegade, you missed that one - you should have read my post (just above the "Please drop it" one). ;-(

Renegade · « **Reply #46 on:** February 11, 2013, 04:25 AM »

Just as a bit of follow up...

Having used Synergy for a while now, I'm quite happy with it. It seems much smoother now, and I really can't complain at all.

The only issue that I have had is with changing IP addresses. (I haven't assigned static IPs to every machine - only some.) But that's really my own fault, and not Synergy's.

So, big thumbs up for it.

Renegade · « **Reply #47 on:** February 22, 2013, 03:51 AM »

Just another quick little update for anyone interested in Synergy...

I finally put my laptop to work again. It has a stock trading platform on it, and how shall I put it without resorting to profanity? It's "difficult" to setup and get running properly. I spent 3 hours on it last night.

In any event, I setup Synergy on my laptop and had it running immediately. Super fast & easy.

But...

You knew there'd be a "BUT" in there somewhere...

The trading platform software runs in administrator mode. Which is fine. However, it seems that Synergy is excluded from interacting with any program running in admin mode. I double-checked with a command prompt in admin mode, and yep - no dice.

Also, if the program that's in admin mode has focus, Synergy cannot control get onto the screen or interact with it at all. You can still get back to other computers/screens, but the remote screen with the admin mode program effectively blocks Synergy completely until it has lost focus to anything NOT in admin mode.

I have a really crummy mouse connected to my laptop, and was looking forward to using my Logitech Performance MX as it is much nicer. (Funny thing, most people love my crappy mouse. I've been on other people's computers when they have the same mouse and I ask them how they manage to not lose their minds - then I'm stunned when they love it. Each to their own I suppose.)

Anyways, a small hiccup that shouldn't affect many people at all. Synergy is still darn good. I'm finding it quite smooth and quite enjoying it. Setting it up on the laptop was similarly simple - I only needed to add the name in the Synergy server on my main desktop and tada!

wraith808 · « **Reply #48 on:** February 22, 2013, 06:38 AM »

However, it seems that Synergy is excluded from interacting with any program running in admin mode.
-Renegade (February 22, 2013, 03:51 AM)

Where did you find this? And is your normal account an admin?

Renegade · « **Reply #49 on:** February 22, 2013, 08:05 PM »

However, it seems that Synergy is excluded from interacting with any program running in admin mode.
-Renegade (February 22, 2013, 03:51 AM)

Where did you find this? And is your normal account an admin?
-wraith808 (February 22, 2013, 06:38 AM)

I probably should have been explicit above. It's for any program that is "Run as administrator". If you see a shortcut with the little shield at the bottom, that's the same thing.