I always hate when I have to back track on something, but that's how we learn.
A couple of posts back I did a post on my experiences with trying to set up remote control access to my home Mac from my work Mac. At that time I said that I was unable to get BTMM to work from my office... Please read that post to see what issues I was having.
Well the other day we had in a consultant who's a big Apple user. We had a break in our work and were talking about our experiences with our Apple products. I mentioned to him the issues that I was having getting to my home iMac from work. He looked at me with a slightly puzzled expression and flipped up a window on his AirBook. He was attached to his Mac at home and doing screen sharing all while connected to my network. Wow!!!
How was he doing that? He confirmed what I had thought originally... that as long as the remote endpoint was correctly configured to work with BTMM and there were no errors at that end it should work. This does assume no block on your corporate firewall. Well, since his was working OK, that validated my thought on that and that my corporate network was not blocking the connection. Since I got no errors at the remote end when activating BTMM, that left only one possibility; my home router. I had checked to see if the model of router was on Apple's BTMM compatible router list and it appeared to be. However, when he was able to get to his, I knew that there was something amiss with my home router. The first thing that came to mind was that it's a Vonage router... yeah I know... that probably should have occurred to me ages ago. I looked on my shelf at work and found that I had a couple of other generic routers that were on the list.
I took one home, temporarily put it in line right after the cable modem, configured it and attached my Mac to it. I was able to test this config and BTMM now works pretty well.
I still need Vonage to run, so I hooked my Vonage router behind this one by connecting the Vonage router's WAN port to a LAN port on the new router and after a few minutes I could call out again. Problem solved!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Silverlight
In my previous post about Mojave, I mentioned Silverlight. Now, it's probably a nice addon and when it's finished I might install it on a Windows PC. And I really wanted to see what the Mojave folks were being shown about the "new" Windows. But MS is not known for creating high-quality browser products. I personally think the last one that they did that was really stable was IE 5.5. To their credit SIlverlight is cross browser compatible, which is great and not like their usual approach. But I really wasn't interested in installing a beta version of a MS browser addon to my production system just to see the Mojave videos. Some of my biggest troubleshooting headaches are with IE issues stemming from non-standard things like Active-X or the fact that IE is integrated into the OS. IE is the only app that we use that when it gets corrupted the main way to fix the problem is to reload the OS... who thought that up?
Monday, September 15, 2008
Mojave: The Other POV
Microsoft has a new set of commercials for Vista in which they ostensibly have shown an unsuspecting audience a new version of Windows called Mojave. The upshot is that the people in the commercial really seem to love it... then they are told that it's Vista and they are all amazed.
So, let's analyze this. From the commercial that I saw, you don't know what they were shown. What applications did they see? Were there any non-Microsoft applications? How real-world was it? Now, Microsoft does have a web site called www.mojaveexperiment.com. Unfortunately to get the full extent of what the site has to offer, you have to download and install Silverlight (another MS program).. There's a non-Silverlight version, but when I ran that under IE 6 on a Windows XP system, I could not see any of the videos. I don't want to download yet another non-standard MS plug-in to my system; especially something in Beta mode. We'll discuss my concerns about this later.
Anyway... Let me give my perspective. Vista looks great. It does run. I played with pretty much all of the Beta versions and even some of the alpha versions. I really was looking forward to using it when it came out. So, I can imagine sitting there in front of a Vista machine and coming away thinking that it's really cool. I got a new PC in at my company and I purchased Vista Ultimate when it first came out. I loaded it and yes it ran and the eye candy was extraordinary. Then I tried to find things. Some things were actually pretty easy to find, but others were not. For example I was trying to find the button/link to either reboot or shutdown Vista (can't remember which) and I couldn't find it. Eventually. by going through some non-intuitive paths, I located it. The new names that MS had given to some of the common things that people have done since Windows 2000 were puzzling.
And then came the apps. Probably at home, these are not major issues and in truth some of them are just as much the fault of the manufacturer of the application as they are of Vista's. I had to have a special version of Acrobat reader and a special version of Norton AV. I could not run IE 7 out of the box in our environment, even with our normal tweaks. At least one of our major applications would not work at all. The bottom line is that there was just no major reason to move from XP to Vista.
SP1 has helped some of these things, but again... here is just no major reason to move away from XP. One of the MAC/PC commercials makes fun of the fact that PC running Vista has to ask for permission to do just about anything. Now, that's a slight exaggeration and in fact OS X does the same thing, but to a much smaller degree. It's one feature that I have mixed emotions about. On the one hand, it's annoying. On the other, it's a good idea because it's helping to keep the PC safer.
Vista didn't make massive improvements over XP, it may be safer, but an XP Service Pack may have been able to address those issues. It changed too many things for no apparent reason, it was not compatible with many current versions of applications and hardware, and there was no real reason to release it except that MS hadn't released any new OS for what they considered way too long. Vista reminds me a Windows Me, but with a cool looking interface. And the behind the scenes, under the hood things, that would have made the OS something worthwhile from a technical standpoint never made it into the product.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing Windows 7... hopefully MS has learned their lesson and the new Windows will really be something to buy.
For me, though, I've moved on. I'm an Apple Convert. I really like OS X and the Apple hardware. It's not perfect and there's always the issue with getting good applications that will run under OS X. I'll work with Windows 7 when it comes out because it's my job and I really like all things technical. But I'll be more interested to see Snow Leopard and keep looking forward to the day when all applications are made in both Windows and OS X versions.
So, let's analyze this. From the commercial that I saw, you don't know what they were shown. What applications did they see? Were there any non-Microsoft applications? How real-world was it? Now, Microsoft does have a web site called www.mojaveexperiment.com. Unfortunately to get the full extent of what the site has to offer, you have to download and install Silverlight (another MS program).. There's a non-Silverlight version, but when I ran that under IE 6 on a Windows XP system, I could not see any of the videos. I don't want to download yet another non-standard MS plug-in to my system; especially something in Beta mode. We'll discuss my concerns about this later.
Anyway... Let me give my perspective. Vista looks great. It does run. I played with pretty much all of the Beta versions and even some of the alpha versions. I really was looking forward to using it when it came out. So, I can imagine sitting there in front of a Vista machine and coming away thinking that it's really cool. I got a new PC in at my company and I purchased Vista Ultimate when it first came out. I loaded it and yes it ran and the eye candy was extraordinary. Then I tried to find things. Some things were actually pretty easy to find, but others were not. For example I was trying to find the button/link to either reboot or shutdown Vista (can't remember which) and I couldn't find it. Eventually. by going through some non-intuitive paths, I located it. The new names that MS had given to some of the common things that people have done since Windows 2000 were puzzling.
And then came the apps. Probably at home, these are not major issues and in truth some of them are just as much the fault of the manufacturer of the application as they are of Vista's. I had to have a special version of Acrobat reader and a special version of Norton AV. I could not run IE 7 out of the box in our environment, even with our normal tweaks. At least one of our major applications would not work at all. The bottom line is that there was just no major reason to move from XP to Vista.
SP1 has helped some of these things, but again... here is just no major reason to move away from XP. One of the MAC/PC commercials makes fun of the fact that PC running Vista has to ask for permission to do just about anything. Now, that's a slight exaggeration and in fact OS X does the same thing, but to a much smaller degree. It's one feature that I have mixed emotions about. On the one hand, it's annoying. On the other, it's a good idea because it's helping to keep the PC safer.
Vista didn't make massive improvements over XP, it may be safer, but an XP Service Pack may have been able to address those issues. It changed too many things for no apparent reason, it was not compatible with many current versions of applications and hardware, and there was no real reason to release it except that MS hadn't released any new OS for what they considered way too long. Vista reminds me a Windows Me, but with a cool looking interface. And the behind the scenes, under the hood things, that would have made the OS something worthwhile from a technical standpoint never made it into the product.
I'm actually looking forward to seeing Windows 7... hopefully MS has learned their lesson and the new Windows will really be something to buy.
For me, though, I've moved on. I'm an Apple Convert. I really like OS X and the Apple hardware. It's not perfect and there's always the issue with getting good applications that will run under OS X. I'll work with Windows 7 when it comes out because it's my job and I really like all things technical. But I'll be more interested to see Snow Leopard and keep looking forward to the day when all applications are made in both Windows and OS X versions.
Remote Control Options for Mac part II
In this post, I"ll continue to talk about the various remote control options available for the Mac.
Logmein (free version) works pretty well. It does run as a "service" so that it's always there when the Mac is on. I've always been able to connect to it. However, running from my local Mac, I get less than sterling response from the connection. I get random disconnects as well, although I am always able to get the initial connection going. I've tried a couple different settings on my local Mac to get it running and it's OK, but not consistent enough and stable enough to make it the supreme program I'd like to see. Connecting from my Windows-based PC seems to work better, but the idea is to do as much from the Mac as possible. I've not contacted tech support about these issues yet, but there's not a lot to configure here.
When I was doing my research on my BTMM problems I thought I had found the answer when I stumbled on Share Tools... wrong. Seems like a nice program, but requires the same UPNP or NAT-PMP that BTMM requires.
Using Dynamic DNS (DDNS) is always an option. But I have to do special setup things in my router, which isn't a major thing, but I'd like a simpler thing like GotoMyPC provides.
Speaking of them, my option would be to use GotoMyPC, but they don't make a remote connector that works on a Mac, so I am toast there.
Various versions of VNC work, but there's no security unless you go to the pay version and I'm really looking for something cutting edge which some of these other solutions ought to be able to provide, but as you can see, they do a very mixed job of that.
Finally, I can connect via VPN, but I can't establish a working VPN out from my company because of security concerns so that really isn't a viable solution.
Summary:
I've been really spoiled working in the PC world in regards to remote control solutions. There are many good options that work really well on Windows-based PCs. Some are free and some cost, but they are really pretty solid. In the Mac world, I've yet to find that same level of stability and consistency while not having to perform some ancient ritual on my networking equipment in order to get it to work. Of all the things I've tried, I think that Logmein is probably the best. But I am still looking for that program that provides a good, stable, secure remote control solution at a reasonable cost.
Logmein (free version) works pretty well. It does run as a "service" so that it's always there when the Mac is on. I've always been able to connect to it. However, running from my local Mac, I get less than sterling response from the connection. I get random disconnects as well, although I am always able to get the initial connection going. I've tried a couple different settings on my local Mac to get it running and it's OK, but not consistent enough and stable enough to make it the supreme program I'd like to see. Connecting from my Windows-based PC seems to work better, but the idea is to do as much from the Mac as possible. I've not contacted tech support about these issues yet, but there's not a lot to configure here.
When I was doing my research on my BTMM problems I thought I had found the answer when I stumbled on Share Tools... wrong. Seems like a nice program, but requires the same UPNP or NAT-PMP that BTMM requires.
Using Dynamic DNS (DDNS) is always an option. But I have to do special setup things in my router, which isn't a major thing, but I'd like a simpler thing like GotoMyPC provides.
Speaking of them, my option would be to use GotoMyPC, but they don't make a remote connector that works on a Mac, so I am toast there.
Various versions of VNC work, but there's no security unless you go to the pay version and I'm really looking for something cutting edge which some of these other solutions ought to be able to provide, but as you can see, they do a very mixed job of that.
Finally, I can connect via VPN, but I can't establish a working VPN out from my company because of security concerns so that really isn't a viable solution.
Summary:
I've been really spoiled working in the PC world in regards to remote control solutions. There are many good options that work really well on Windows-based PCs. Some are free and some cost, but they are really pretty solid. In the Mac world, I've yet to find that same level of stability and consistency while not having to perform some ancient ritual on my networking equipment in order to get it to work. Of all the things I've tried, I think that Logmein is probably the best. But I am still looking for that program that provides a good, stable, secure remote control solution at a reasonable cost.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Remote Control Options for Mac part I
In today's world having access to your files and systems from anywhere is almost a necessity. But we also need to maintain a high level of security. This isn't as easy as it sounds and I think it's a little harder for Mac users.
There are lots of ways to get control of your remote Mac. Some allow syncing of files and contacts and calendars while others are just for getting to the desktop, although once there, you might be able to transfer files back and forth.
Some of the major players are Back To My Mac, Logmein, TeamViewer, Share Tools, Various versions of VNC, DDNS, and using a VPN. Yes, I know that I haven't covered all of them, so don't send comments about your favorite unless it IS the answer come down from Heaven itself for this issue.
Back To My Mac (BTMM) is Apple's attempt to come up with some cool remote control software. Unfortunately it falls short. It was born as a part of the now defunct .MAC service which was reborn as MobileMe. So first off, you have to subscribe to the service at $99/year in order to get this feature. OK... so you sign up, install the software and sign in. Then you activate BTMM and get this little error message that... well it can't be turned on because the router you have doesn't have UPNP or NAT-PMP turned on... assuming that your router has this at all. And it gets even worse in a corporate environment behind who knows what equipment. In my case, my home router does support UPNP so I was able to get the service running. However, from my office I have been unsuccessful. And what happens when you're on the road.. how many hotspots will have one of those protocols turned on? Hmmm... not as useful as you originally thought is it? I think that BTMM has some great potential, but Apple needs to do something at making it more usable without sacrificing security.
While researching these BTMM issues I ran into a post from someone about software that would allow you to connect to your Mac remotely without needing to buy the MobileMe service. It's called TeamViewer (www.teamviewer.com). There's a paid version, but for home use it's free and the company just recently added a Mac client. I'd been looking for something like this for my company for another project and after testing it felt that it was the answer and the costs were very reasonable. So we purchased it. Of course I wanted to use it for my Mac as well. So, I installed it in my Mac and started testing. OK... the good news is you don't need UPNP or NAT-PMP... it just works. The bad news is that it works sort of :(.
First, unlike Logmein, TeamViewer doesn't run as a "service" so you have to log into the remote Mac while you're still there or have someone at the remote site do it for you and start the service up. OK... I guess I can deal with that, I'll just make it a login item. Well... that also only sort of works. When I log in, the application starts, but it fails to come up completely and doesn't connect to the company's servers in order to register with them. To solve this problem I've had to resort to starting it up by hand... which always works. So now I go to my office and do some work for awhile, but eventually I attempt to log into my Mac from my office Mac... no go...no connection. I've had someone at home watch and it appears that the two connect, but the final handshakes aren't made so no remote connection. I've had the person at the remote end stop and restart the application and then magically it works. I've had some other inconsistencies that I don't seem to find in the Windows version which runs very nicely as a service on the remote computer. Tech support has been responsive, but they've really been unable to solve these problems and I have a fairly vanilla setup on my remote Mac.
There are lots of ways to get control of your remote Mac. Some allow syncing of files and contacts and calendars while others are just for getting to the desktop, although once there, you might be able to transfer files back and forth.
Some of the major players are Back To My Mac, Logmein, TeamViewer, Share Tools, Various versions of VNC, DDNS, and using a VPN. Yes, I know that I haven't covered all of them, so don't send comments about your favorite unless it IS the answer come down from Heaven itself for this issue.
Back To My Mac (BTMM) is Apple's attempt to come up with some cool remote control software. Unfortunately it falls short. It was born as a part of the now defunct .MAC service which was reborn as MobileMe. So first off, you have to subscribe to the service at $99/year in order to get this feature. OK... so you sign up, install the software and sign in. Then you activate BTMM and get this little error message that... well it can't be turned on because the router you have doesn't have UPNP or NAT-PMP turned on... assuming that your router has this at all. And it gets even worse in a corporate environment behind who knows what equipment. In my case, my home router does support UPNP so I was able to get the service running. However, from my office I have been unsuccessful. And what happens when you're on the road.. how many hotspots will have one of those protocols turned on? Hmmm... not as useful as you originally thought is it? I think that BTMM has some great potential, but Apple needs to do something at making it more usable without sacrificing security.
While researching these BTMM issues I ran into a post from someone about software that would allow you to connect to your Mac remotely without needing to buy the MobileMe service. It's called TeamViewer (www.teamviewer.com). There's a paid version, but for home use it's free and the company just recently added a Mac client. I'd been looking for something like this for my company for another project and after testing it felt that it was the answer and the costs were very reasonable. So we purchased it. Of course I wanted to use it for my Mac as well. So, I installed it in my Mac and started testing. OK... the good news is you don't need UPNP or NAT-PMP... it just works. The bad news is that it works sort of :(.
First, unlike Logmein, TeamViewer doesn't run as a "service" so you have to log into the remote Mac while you're still there or have someone at the remote site do it for you and start the service up. OK... I guess I can deal with that, I'll just make it a login item. Well... that also only sort of works. When I log in, the application starts, but it fails to come up completely and doesn't connect to the company's servers in order to register with them. To solve this problem I've had to resort to starting it up by hand... which always works. So now I go to my office and do some work for awhile, but eventually I attempt to log into my Mac from my office Mac... no go...no connection. I've had someone at home watch and it appears that the two connect, but the final handshakes aren't made so no remote connection. I've had the person at the remote end stop and restart the application and then magically it works. I've had some other inconsistencies that I don't seem to find in the Windows version which runs very nicely as a service on the remote computer. Tech support has been responsive, but they've really been unable to solve these problems and I have a fairly vanilla setup on my remote Mac.
Rethinking My Virtual Options
I wrote a post some months back expounding on the various ways that one can include Windows in a Mac environment. One of those ways is to run a virtual machine. There are two main players in that market; VMware Fusion and Parallels. At the time of that writing I was definitely leaning towards the Parallels product even though I am a big fan of VMware's products. I couldn't point to any major thing that I really liked super better in one over the other or anything that I really hated on one. I just had a personal preference for Parallels.
I've since changed direction on that opinion. As I've spent more time with Parallels, I started to run into little issues. Nothing major and nothing that compromised the VM. But I had to open several tickets with their tech support and that's where I think things started to breakdown. In almost every case the initial time for tech support response was OK, but nothing exciting. Then in almost every case the initial response from tech support was always off-base. It was as though they really hadn't read my email so that their understanding of the problem was wrong. Then I restated the problem and waited a couple more days for a response that may have been on the right track on still as off as the first. I finally decided that if every time I had a problem tech support was going to be this lacking, I needed to take a hard look at the VMware product.
I ported over my Parallels VM to Fusion and got that running. I've been using it for the last month or so and so far I am really happy. I still think that there are a couple of things that Parallels does better, but I've not really needed anything from tech support which is a plus. VMware tech support probably isn't as accessible as that from Parallels, but accessibility isn't worth much if you can't get the issues addressed. I still think that Parallels is a good product and does a fine job of virtualization on the Mac platform. But at least for the moment, I'm sticking with Fusion.
I've since changed direction on that opinion. As I've spent more time with Parallels, I started to run into little issues. Nothing major and nothing that compromised the VM. But I had to open several tickets with their tech support and that's where I think things started to breakdown. In almost every case the initial time for tech support response was OK, but nothing exciting. Then in almost every case the initial response from tech support was always off-base. It was as though they really hadn't read my email so that their understanding of the problem was wrong. Then I restated the problem and waited a couple more days for a response that may have been on the right track on still as off as the first. I finally decided that if every time I had a problem tech support was going to be this lacking, I needed to take a hard look at the VMware product.
I ported over my Parallels VM to Fusion and got that running. I've been using it for the last month or so and so far I am really happy. I still think that there are a couple of things that Parallels does better, but I've not really needed anything from tech support which is a plus. VMware tech support probably isn't as accessible as that from Parallels, but accessibility isn't worth much if you can't get the issues addressed. I still think that Parallels is a good product and does a fine job of virtualization on the Mac platform. But at least for the moment, I'm sticking with Fusion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
