just a couple of questions... when I launch the viewer my internet id computer is immediately displayed as online. but my local pc's are listed as offline until I click connection/refresh status. why is this? I would expect local pc status to be displayed quicker since they are local and on the same network. this is very annoying. why do I need to click connection refresh status in order to see my local pcs that are online?
due to this annoying status behavior I have another question if I use internet id for my local computers and connect to them will my connection go direct to the PC (ip) or will it go through your internet ID server?
Edited:Michael Taylor - Apr 21, 2017 9:02:10 pm EDT
just giving you an FYI I upgraded to creators update via windows insider ISO download, over the weekend today I received what I Hope is a false positive from windows defender HUB, I would send a screenshot but I don't see an option for it. it's detected as Trojan:win32.Rundas.a
I am running the latest version of viewer 184.108.40.206
Edited:Michael Taylor - Apr 03, 2017 6:37:47 pm EDT
I think you're smart enough to understand my point? how's this version 5 worked perfectly for ME and my usage scenario. version 6 does not work at all for ME and my usage scenario.
sticking with v5 is not an option, version 5 does not work on newer operating systems (8/8.1/10) also according to your news/blog you are deprecating internet ID feature for version 5. right now for free users but I'm sure eventually for paid users as well.
I'm glad you have hundreds of paid customers that use version 6 and are happy with it... I guess I must be wrong... you are right. version 6 is wonderful it works perfectly!
of course it didn't effect customer in any way, the point is, I pay money for something that's now given away for free.. oh well that life...
version 5 worked. version 6 does not. if you want a list of issues I suggest you review my support tickets and forum posts. and also test your software more thoroughly (this will reveal a ton of issues) you supposedly fix something then its broken again in a new release, I don't have time to deal with it anymore. I've already wasted my time helping you resolve ctrl+Alt+del issue. you even mention my help in your blog post or news section.. I'm glad my troubleshooting was helpful, but like I said fix things and break others.. I simply don't have time to deal with this software anymore. sorry but I don't use it anymore.. I use a paid subscription service that works.. I would much rather pay for a product that just works then to use a free alternative that does not work.
I'm sorry if my comments are harsh but it's the truth. if you want I could lie and tell you how wonderful it works and how great it is but that doesn't really help you does it?
Edited:Michael Taylor - Sep 24, 2015 11:12:15 am EDT
Christopher Greer wrote: I have to hand it to you Conrad. I think you kept your cool in this thread pretty well.
I understand fully what it is like to have my software falsely detected as malware. It is always an uphill battle.
I personally agree with Conrads decision to remove the feature of hiding the icon in the taskbar. It only makes since to have it shown in the taskbar. We all know how easily remote software can be used in a malicious way. We also know that there are many naive computer users in the world that could easily be tricked and never know someone had remote access to their computer just by the icon not being visible in the tray. For the majority of Remote Utilities users I would think they would rather have the icon in the tray anyways. Especially if you are a tech support specialist. I don't ever want my clients to feel that I may be untrustworthy. As a tech support specialist you have to be trustworthy or you risk losing clients. As a tech... I have nothing to hide. If I am supposed to have remote access to the computer why would I feel the need to hide it? Whether the icon is hidden or not... what is going to stop an administrator from disabling or uninstalling the program anyways. I would feel I would loose trust if I had a hidden icon and then that user just so happened to be browsing through the Add/Remove programs list and find something called "Remote Utilities" and they never knew it was there. In their eyes it was hidden from them. Pretty much any legitimate Remote access program shows the icon in the taskbar. [censored] , [censored] , GoToMyPC ... the list goes on. Also... a client may like that assurance to know that they can see that their technicians remote access is running in the system tray. If they can see it... then they feel that they know they can get the support from the tech they will need. I don't know how many times I would get a call from one of my clients that would say... your [censored] icon has a red "X" on it. Should I do anything to make sure you can help me when I need it. Or they might call and ask... do you not have access anymore? I don't see [censored] on the computer. Most clients want to see the icon. They want to know you are supporting them. That is what they pay us for. Plus the icon is an easy way to know that the access is properly running. What if an antivirus program... or something malfunctioned and crashed Remote Utilities. If it's not visible in the tray... you know right away something is wrong.
So there are many reasons to have it in the tray. Very few reasons to hide it. Most reasons to hide it is not for good reasons. It makes since for Conrad to make the decision he made and it was great for him to keep a level head when he is being questioned about it in the way he was in this thread.
Remember... Conrad has spent a lot of time creating this program. Many of us here have benefited from all of his hard work. Even if you disagree with a decision he made. You need to give him respect and maybe make your suggestion in a civilized way. Making comments like you always go 10 steps back is pretty messed up. Just my 2 cents. Of course we all are entitled to our opinions.
My Comments are "messed up" you want to know what's messed up?
1) paying for 5 licenses then they decide to give it away for free. 2) version 5 worked perfectly, version 6 has too many issues to list and is unusable to me in its current state. 3) people commenting on posts without knowing all the facts.
I'm glad you like RUT 6 and I hope it continues to work for you. you're probably a very basic user.
There is a broader question - why would the technician want to prohibit the user fr om stopping the Host when they wish to do so? Provided that they know what the Host is about.
because the user may not own the computer (as you mention below) they may be an employee. or in my specific case they are my children. do you have any idea how mischievous and curious children are? or for that matter employees? they can also be very smart when it comes to technology when they want to be. but at this time due to the many issues I've seen in version 6 I can not and would not use it in a business environment nor would I feel comfortable recommending it to my customers at this time. so this really does not effect me or my customers directly. but its the principle of it that I disagree with.
If the user wants to stop the Host running on their PC using services.msc, then: - they are an advanced user, apparently, if they know about services.msc and use it to stop the Host at all costs
I would not call a user advanced because they are aware of services.msc..
they don't want the Host running on their computer, so they are perfectly in their own right stopping it
again not if they do not own the computer.
So we are getting back to the question implicitly posed in the blog post/news about this update: if the software use is perfectly legitimate and the user knows they have a remote access software installed on their PC, why would they want to stop it?
many reasons.. for 1 perhaps they use the computer for non business activity and "think" RUT is used to spy on them?? when in fact it's used to connect when necessary to resolve issues.
But if they want to stop it, why would anyone prohibit them from doing so? Except only in a business setting wh ere computers do not belong to employees - but it should be handled by policies on the network/Active Directory level.
I am a computer consultant. a huge amount of our customers are SMB. many of my customers do not have the resources to manage and secure their network properly, when we recommend GP, strict firewall policies, block local admin access etc. it ultimately requires more administrative resources, (time, knowledge and money..) they do not have the time to deal with user requests like installing basic software on the users pc etc etc) they also don't have the money to call me every time something like this happens. unfortunately this is reality. especially in the SMB market. I can recommend and preach a high security environment until I'm blue in the face but it is ultimately their decision,
Yes, you can hide the Host menu or protect the Host settings, but that's mostly to prevent the user from messing with the settings inadvertently. These features have nothing to do with truly prohibiting the user from being the ultimate master of their own PC If it's not their PC, they are not supposed to be an administrator on it, and hence they won't be able to stop the service if they have insufficient privileges.
see my reply above.
we could argue this point until we're blue in the face.. its ultimately your software and you can change it and alter it any way you wish.. hopefully the changes you make provide a better experience for your customers..
Edited:Michael Taylor - Jun 25, 2015 8:24:39 pm EDT
It sounds like your breaking/bending at the behest of 1 user. (not good if you ask me..) and by the sound of it not a very experienced user at that, especially if he trusts any software that has antivirus or antimalware in its title.
anyway... please answer this. how do I prevent a user from stopping the host? I reviewed the information in your blog post. however it does not seem to prevent a user from stopping the host via the start menu/all programs. it can also be done via services.msc
Edited:Michael Taylor - Jun 24, 2015 9:14:25 pm EDT
it does not state why you "Had" to remove the feature. yes you state it will eliminate false positives but who forced you to remove it? was it an internal decision or some legal action?
also if it is hidden (stealth mode) having antivirus popup to warn a user is a good thing. if it was installed for malicious purpose having an AV detection/warning would be great. if however I am the owner of the PC's (which I am) and I want the icon hidden then as the owner I would configure my antivirus program to ignore or whitelist the application.
I think you should leave the security decisions to your customers and the AV software.