Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

I'm so fed up with (software or hardware) KM / KVM switches working so badly

<< < (2/4) > >>

Shades:
Relais are made to take a "beating", so noise is to be expected, but that isn't worrisome. If you have a mechanical switch that uses PS/2, any problem you experience can be blamed on that standard. It is designed to be under continuous power and therefore reacts very badly when power is interrupted. For work I used to have one with 4 channels and it came with its own power supply and circuitry to keep everything under power whether their channel was selected or not. For years I used it to operate 3 PC's with NT4 and Windows 98 on them. That KVM switch worked flawlessly, but with the caveat that you didn't exceed the maximum supported screen resolution.

In current day prices, that thing would have costed 600 Euro easily. Any other type of (electro-)mechanical switch? Hardly worth the hassle. USB based KVM switches are supposed to handle power interruptions much better than PS/2. Still, get a model without separate power supply and circuitry to keep unselected ports under power and it remains misery. These are also not cheap, but I hardly bothered with them as I went to another employer, where I discovered the Synergy KM software.

Back then it was free and worked very well, once you got your head around the strange way to configure it. Used that for years, but then went to an employer that would afford multiple monitors on decent enough hardware. About 6 months ago, I had a need for KM software again, but found out out that Synergy wasn't free anymore...and I couldn't find the installer in the software repository that follows me around since way back when.

First I tried InputDirector, but that wouldn't work. Then I tried Sharemouse, which, after setting it up only once, keeps on working flawlessly. Your comments about Sharemouse continuously needing to be configured sound therefore a bit strange to me.

There is still another device you could try, which uses the ethernet port on your computer to transfer the KVM signals. While those are expensive, they hardly have limitations. You could even get WAN access to such a device if you really want to. Google for 'IP-Based KVM' if you are interested.

ital2:
@MilesAhead
I should have been more specific. I didn't intent to say the power is necessarily switched also, when I spoke of "electricity". I meant the signals' current. In other words, when you have a software KM/KVM, there are transmission lines with or without signals, but the lines "stand"; when the switch is done by relays, the lines are cut, re-established, cut again... and so on, so it's not only absence and re-establishment of signals, but of electric current (on-off), and I suppose that's not good for the electronics in the devices.

@mouser
Your link gives a regular price of 300$, so in Europe, it would come into the vicinity of 400€. I'm certain that physical/network/"IP" switches in that price range are constructed in a much smarter way than the "brute-force" ones, for around 100$, so it's perfectly possible that those expensive ones are the way to go; many in that price range work by net, not by physically cutting/re-establishing the lines, ie work in this respect at least like the software switches do, so the long-range problems I fear with the cheap ones will certainly not be realized. I am uncertain of the difference of software switches vs switch boxes switching by network; I suppose the main difference is that they incorporate their own processor for all the "intelligence", for the "master" software, so that ANY pc (or Mac?) connected, by net, to those boxes, are treated like "slaves", which very probably eliminates all the "master-slave" problems, the ones I have encountered, and others.

@Shades
You are right, my mechanical switches were PS/2 and VGA.
You speak of "600€ today" - that's what I mean, there are very certainly quite brilliant executions of a good idea, but they're not worthwile for me, while in a corporate environment, 600€ (for example) are "nothing" if the device serves well.
So about Input Director, we "agree".
You obviously mix up (some of) my comments about ShareMouse (Bartels) and Mouse without Borders (MS); I've had the macro-tool-incompatibility problem with (the otherwise brilliantly-devised, except for its lack of the monitor/"video" part) ShareMouse, whilst it was Mouse without Borders that gnaggned me constantly for re-entering cryptic codes.
Those "IP-Based KVM" were the thing I'd speaking about when I mentioned "net-based" devices; they are very certainly the way to go for "heavy use", ie when you need a KVM switch constantly, and when the price is thus justified.

@wraith
You cite me with, "which obviously is the contrary of a one-man software software house", and which was to mean, "they have plenty of manpower - oops, it's called personpower nowadays -, so they can apply plenty of hours to the elimination of bugs", and indeed, I've not been happy with a "wakened-up" computer having to be re-started (see above).
.
So your, "First of all, Stardock is not a one man shop." comes from your misunderstanding what I wrote.
Re Fences. We've had a discussion here, some weeks ago, about application launchers, and I think we agree that an application (incl. file/folder) launcher should NOT come into your way but facilitate the access to the max, so I have 1-key triggers for my main information management program, for my application/etc. launcher, each for several file managers; 2-key triggers (ie the F-key for the application launcher, then just another char key) for the applications I use very often (but not as often as the 1-key programs - aside*), and finally 3-key triggers for EVERY other program/tool/whatever:
. (here the paragraph had been too long indeed)
1. I sacrify regular keys; 2. I open a 1-key menu, then press a 1-key (char key) entry in that menu, 3. I press a 1-key (char key) in the menu in order to open a sub-menu; in reality, I've long memorized the (mnemonic) 1/2/3 keys to press in order to get to some dozens of applications/etc. (and I retain all key combinations for other things) - Fences: 1. Go to the desktop (I never see my desktop except when starting the computer, and it's a nuisance even then), 2. Move the mouse to the symbol of the application (or even to the symbol for a sub-Fence, hehe?), 3. click - and pray that your screen is big enough (and move your mouse over many, many cm or ") - or memorize, or look up weird key combinations (few of which will be mnemonic) - do the remain available for other things when the desktop isn't active, so... risk they to interfere with native / macro commands in applications? Fences shortkeys just ON the desktop? good? So why do you want to have the desktop flash up again and again in your work? Is it as pretty as that? With all the icons in the Fences?
. (here again)
My menu just takes the space it needs, I've got shorter and longer sub-menus, and in particular, I've got many of them, so that my lists remain quite short and my char keys to select/trigger remain mnemonic, and that's very important for QUICK access to over 200 (!) applications, tools and so on - how do YOU manage with such a quantity to tame, in Fences? I do NOT say my home-made menu system is better than really good application managers are (but then, do they have forks in order for the same manager to be run on several OS, English and other languages, as my system has?); my point just is, Fences is one of the most ugly, cumbersome, slow and, in a word, WORST application managers there is - I'm speaking from memory (trialled it years ago), so IF it has really matured in the meantime, please tell us why NOW it would have become so much better than what I know of Fences.
. (and here again)
(I don't have left ANY icon on my desktop - whenever an application installs an icon there, I immediately sort the former into my menus and delete the latter, but why should anyone having a good application manager at their disposal, sort icons up in fences instead of disposing of them? Icons are welcome in the taskbar, though.)
.
I did not say the Multiplicity "master" has got unwanted "load", I said while I had installed Multiplicity, when the "master" went to sleep, then was waken up, I had to restart the computer instead. BUT:
As said above, I had to install ShareMouse 2 (!) on both computers since the XP one didn't accept version 3; with Multiplicity, there may exist a similar problem: I installed the current version (3) on both computers, but from their website, it should not run on XP. So this "the master pc doesn't wake correctly up anymore" problem may indeed be caused by version problems. But as said above, I seriously think that KV/KVM switches are MEANT to function correctly in heterogenic nets, so they SHOULD function correctly, also with XP computers connected to the net.
.
As for the "active screen indicator", again, if you use ShareMouse with "inactive screen around 15 per cent", you can see what brilliant GUI design can do for you; Multiplicity is very lame in this respect. And for the mouse, well, I'm constantly in search for my mouse cursor, in editors and all the more so on different screens, so instead of the mouse cursor helping me to identify the active screen, I'd need an efficient screen indicator in order to identify on which screen to search for the cursor. ;-)
.
Stardocks is, above all, a game developer - you developing games, for Stardocks, too? It's correct, I've been very disappointed by Multiplicity, but that's precisely because it seemed to be the only KV(!)M alternative in my price range (see above), whilst I can't even use it as a KM, for the problems described above. I'd be more than happy to buy it whenever they put it into shape since then it'd be the ideal solution for my needs - and we agree they've got the manpower to do the necessary further development.
.
EDIT July 16, 2017: I inserted demi-blanklines for better readability where I had just breaks or even no breaks at all; wraith808 has been perfectly right upon the utterly-bad readability here.

typos
I've seen my "I've dumbed" instead of "I've dumped" in my very first line above, but I didn't want to touch onto my text beyond the very first 15 minutes since I had said ShareMouse was 40$, then corrected myself it's 30 and 50$ now, and probably the free version is a true free version (for 2 pc's) now, while in the time, it definitely wasn't, the developer designed it to stop working after some - if I remember well, 10 - minutes; since now I "trialled" the paid version ("Professional", so it must have cost me 25$ plus VAT at bits, not 20), I cannot say, but in case, I've shelved several "old" free/trial versions of the tool. Since they have weird laws in Germany, the home of ShareMouse - you can assassinate people there without any consequences if you're politically/socially-protected, but for false allegations, you can easily go to jail, and for a long time -, I consider it important the timestamp proves I "corrected" myself - IF their free version is a real free version today, NOT stopping working every 10 minutes that is - within the very first 15 minutes, when there were only 4 "page views", of which 2 were mine. So any other typo in there I must leave as it is, for the sake of the timestamp.

*: The aside: I also own a 128-key Preh "Commander", but I ended up with shelving it since going with my finger(s) to the right key (all color-coded in groups, for easier jumping-over-there), takes MORE time than 1-to-3 consecutive keys I know by heart; so I just use a Cherry 4700 (21 keys, quite tiny, which is important), as additional, context-sensitive "smart-keys"; and another hint here: If you want to get rid of the unbearable "key-pressed" notification, just open your registry, go to Cherry/KeyMan/ShowUserHint and set it from 1 to 0, then Cherry 4700 is the best-value little additional kb you can buy. (It's a shame you cannot find any kb with a second range of additional F-keys (F13-F24) anymore, since that would have been the ideal place for additional keys, with F1-F12 as near the char keys as possible.)

And again an off-topic: Yes, users are fond of "Fences", and yes, they are fond of "Registrar Registry Manager", and they are obviously NOT annoyed by the fact that "RRM" (the "Home" version, but then, it's probably the same problem in the paid one? or then, leave they bugs in the free version in order to incite to buy? certainly not!) does not seem to come with a reliable search engine: At least in my case, I had searched for some term beginning with abc..., and RRM also displayed (hundreds of) abd..., abe... ... "hits". So much for RRM which always and everywhere doesn't get but raves, while another  registry tool only displayed the wanted abc... I know that "millions" rave of "Fences", but that's no reason for saying it's useful except for people unable to really sort their things.

wraith808:
I apologize.  I didn't read your entire response above (that paragraph that started with Re Fences), as it seemed like a rant against what I wrote, and the meat of it was one long paragraph that would have take more energy to parse than I was willing to put into this. 

But as I said, I use Fences to organize things that are installed automatically, and to categorize a few pieces of software that are tools, and used it as a launcher before I started using True Launch Bar, using c.gingerich's launcher in a fence that related to different categories.  That's my use case, and I find it useful.  If you don't, then that's cool too.  Apparently Fences doesn't work for you as an interface.  That's your preference.  But to say something is useless just because you don't see the utility struck me as wrongheaded, and denigrating others experience with the software seems a bit self-centered.

I did parse your sentence wrong above, and for that I apologize too- I find that when many words are thrown at something, it becomes easy to wrongly parse such statements.  I however didn't parse your sentence about the problems with your primary computer, but apparently you misunderstood what I meant by load.  All I was saying was that this wasn't a general issue, and that I'd looked extensively into it when I was troubleshooting, and it wasn't interfering with the main computer.  I apologize that my word choice caused you such consternation.

If the way that sharemouse does their UI is good for you, then good for you.  I just stated that I didn't see the particular need, which I'm allowed I think.

Stardocks is, above all, a game developer - you developing games, for Stardocks, too?
-ital2 (July 15, 2017, 03:19 PM)
--- End quote ---

That's what I took exception to.  They are not above all a game developer.  Their start was with Object Desktop many years ago. This included Wincustomize (the site), WindowBlinds, WindowFX, IconPackager, and many more (even a shell, which I enjoyed using, but it took too much effort to use the full power, which is the reason that I think they dropped it.  The game portion came next, with the Drengin Network Games Subscription. They have re-branded themselves a few times (rolling Drengin back into Stardock, having their own Game/Software platform before selling it to Gamestop, spinning off ThinkDesk for productivity, rolling it back into Stardock, then spinning it off into Edgerunner, and rolling it back into Stardock).  I'm not sure how to parse that last bit- it was a question, but though it may be my failing, I couldn't parse it.  If you could rephrase it or unpack it, I can answer it if it was a question.

Otherwise, I hope you find what you're looking for in a KM/KVM solution.

ital2:
@wraith808
"took exception" - past tense? My question arose from the fact that you seemed to be personally-implied somewhat in one specific one of the tools I compared, relating my experiences with every one of them - such a real-life comparison cannot be found elsewhere up to this point; I had thought to be - and that others would have got - well informed by https://www.slant.co/topics/1949/~mouse-and-keyboard-sharing-software-or-virtual-kvm-software but as my post above shows, this was and is not so, so there has clearly been a need for such a personal (almost-) overall-review, and there's always the need for complementing it with new finds, and also for correcting any possible errors in it (see below).

No need to discuss textual misunderstandings, no need to run for shelter behind an alleged inscrutability of my texts when my sentence in question had been clear as day and had found a prominent place in your citation; I've got moments of inattentions all the time, so I'm happy to stand corrected a moment later, no need to feel get worked up over it, it's not a 1 instead of 0 in some moonraker. Ditto for your "load" vs my "didn't get woken up anymore", you were clearly referring to that problem of mine with your pet program; I never alleged your deflection - and deflection it was - had been intentional.

As for Fences, if I understand you correctly, you switched from it, to some much real application manager which does things much more in the line of what I advocate in the text you didn't read (and where I've detailed (!) WHY I disapprove of Fences), so let me thank you very kindly for YOUR ultimate argument for MY stance, and furthermore, I'm eager to return the favor. In fact, a possible argument pro Fences could be that when you sort LOTS of applications and such into some functional (!) application manager at the same time, it quickly becomes a little bit unwieldily, so a graphical PRE-sort, integrated within that functional application manager, could come handy (drag-n-drop while everything remains visible in its (provisional) target location, assuming quite tiny icons, like they are displayed in the W10-taskline); if you want to use Fences for such a pre-sort, the question arises, of course, how well then the shift to a real application manager will proceed. Anyway, for some non-insider: Quite just incredible fervor, insight, commitment: Kudos to that company for having such deeply loving (EDIT: no, this would have been:) amorous customers!

Re Multiplicity
Probably, my internet connection provisionally not working anymore had NOT been Multiplicity's fault, since I've got this once now again after its de-install, and I now suspect another tool to be the culprit in this case; this doesn't not yet affect my observation with regards to the wake-up problem, while the latter may have been caused by another tool also, but I will not start to suspect other programs but when this problem will show up again, too.

This being said, I confirm my stance that network tools should allow for mixing up both several generations of the same OS (for the reasons given above) and different OS (as (only? the non-video-too-sharing) ShareMouse does), while Multiplicity bluntly says, on the screen of the "slave" XP comp, something in the line of, "This OS doesn't support video sharing." - No, that does NOT seem to be true, since IF (?) expensive, dedicated "IP"/network boxes can (?) do it, any really good software-only KVM, installed in a powerful "master" computer, could do it (enough manpower invested in its development, that is, and for which Stardocks or whatever they call your spin-offs HAS the man-woman-and-undefined-power available in theory, and that had been my point all along wraith808 was and is so unhappy with, among other things) - just like it's possible to do in-processor-graphics instead of installing a dedicated graphics card: Just replicate what's in the box, by the master-pc's processor power - remember the IP boxes then work by the LAN, not by direct cabling anymore, so IF they can do (if not, my argument falls flat of course), if they can retrieve the XP's screen output, your master-pc-driven software tool should be able to do it, too; the same would apply to programs like TeamViewer and other eternal-access tools: They had been around in the general-XP area, no? Thus, we see just another "good-enough" decision, while probably "games" yield (much) more money per development-hour, not technical impossibility.


Meta
Oh, it's so sweet and easy, that cheap "I didn't hear you" instead of bringing arguments on my part. But there's always the solution Ath once asked for. Hihi. Oh, and are you sure they don't make their money out of games, mostly? And/OR that they don't dedicate most development hours to games? That was what I'd alleged (see your citation, here again).

wraith808:
"took exception" - past tense? My question arose from the fact that you seemed to be personally-implied somewhat in one specific one of the tools I compared, relating my experiences with every one of them - such a real-life comparison cannot be found elsewhere up to this point; I had thought to be - and that others would have got - well informed by https://www.slant.co...virtual-kvm-software but as my post above shows, this was and is not so, so there has clearly been a need for such a personal (almost-) overall-review, and there's always the need for complementing it with new finds, and also for correcting any possible errors in it (see below).
-ital2 (July 16, 2017, 07:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

Personally implied?  I don't get that.  Which was again, the reason that I thought that misunderstanding comes from a difference in use of the language.  I was trying to be understanding of differences.

No need to discuss textual misunderstandings, no need to run for shelter behind an alleged inscrutability of my texts when my sentence in question had been clear as day and had found a prominent place in your citation; I've got moments of inattentions all the time, so I'm happy to stand corrected a moment later, no need to feel get worked up over it, it's not a 1 instead of 0 in some moonraker. Ditto for your "load" vs my "didn't get woken up anymore", you were clearly referring to that problem of mine with your pet program; I never alleged your deflection - and deflection it was - had been intentional.
-ital2 (July 16, 2017, 07:25 AM)
--- End quote ---

Which from the above, doesn't seem to have been taken well.

I was just laying out my personal experiences and objections.  I did bring my arguments, but you choose not to hear them nor take them for the fact that someone else can have a differing opinions or experiences.  Especially as currently, I'm using Multiplicity on differing OSes.  It's not my 'pet' program, nor do I have any particular investment in the company.  I've used all of the above in my quest for the same, and thought that I could provide an anecdotal experience of the one that I stuck with and have experience with.  My experience is purely as a consumer, and through that on their forums as that's what I stuck with.  Which also dovetails into your jab at my reading of Fences.  I tried to read it.  But the general format of that paragraph made it much more work than I cared to put into understanding to formulate a reply.  So I let you know that I might have missed something because of that- because I thought it was polite.  Apparently not.

As others have said, if you want someone to read your posts, you might try to formulate your posts in a more readable fashion.  They just aren't.  Or not.  But if you don't want to change or even try, don't attack others when they don't want to spend the mental energy to try to parse it.

To put it into perspective again, I continue to try to find the best approach for what I'm doing.  And sometimes, an approach is just as good as another. Or sometimes, though your approach is perfectly workable, someone comes out with a different implementation that you wish to try or you find that you like better, even though there is nothing wrong with the other software.  I really did like the implementation that I had, and it worked well for my Surface (which I still use it on, but it's not my primary computer).  In fact, it works better on my Surface for touch manipulation than TLB does.  They're all just tools, and you use whichever is best for your workflow.

At this point, let's just agree to disagree.  I don't like to 'discuss' when it becomes personal, which your coda above seems to imply this is descending into- not the only part, but that's where it's getting more pointed.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page