I also tried port forwarding and callback for testing direct connection (which I believe is the same as setting up RU Server), and sound was slightly improved but nowhere near usable. Even Windows system sounds were non-existent.
Technically, direct connection is not exactly the same as setting up RU Server. Basically, there are two connection types:
An Internet-ID connection, in turn, can be set up using either our public servers (default option) or your self-hosted server. If your self-hosted server is located on your premises - e.g. in the same network as the Viewer - then the performance of an Internet-ID connection becomes almost as good as that of a direct connection. This is because it takes the network packets very little time to travel between your Viewer and self-hosted server so the only significant part of the route is that between self-hosted server and Hosts.
I suspect RU just doesn't do sound very well over slow connections. Whilst we are on ADSL, it is a very congested network and I'm only getting 0.4Mbps upload despite having a 1Mbps sync speed. I also have a 1920x1080 resolution which is unchangeable so there's little more I can do to reduce the data.
I can recommend that you enable the "economy mode" and see if it makes a difference. It's in connection properties, the Network tab/section.
As Cristian has mentioned, using the self-hosted server (specifically, the relay server role) can significantly improve connection speed and performance.
However, I also recommend that you try out version 6.9 beta. In this new version we implemented some changes to screen capture as well as authorization mechanism for slower connections. This is from our release notes:
The remote screen transfer speed of dynamically changing content (e.g. videos) over slow connections has been increased.
No solution then. We are left in limbo with RU. Time to move on.
I am really sorry for BitDefender. Antivirus software is supposed to protect users, not to ruin their data and business processes.
Meanwhile, yesterday we received responses from AVG and AVAST to our false positive submissions . They acknowledged that the detection was incorrect and would be removed within 24 hours. In fact it has already been lifted according to a recent check.
Yesterday, when trying to download our custom RU, we got a message on Chrome: "This Type of File Can Harm Your Computer". It doesn't happen every time but when it does, customers are concerned. Not sure what Chrome version they're on.
If you are downloading an executable (I guess it was a one-click installer) then Chrome may issue such a warning. It says that this "type of file" may harm your computer meaning that malware can often come as executables, which is true.
Again, when trying competitive products, we don't experience any issues on machines with BD or Avast. Isn't that strange?
I agree that it is strange that legitimate software gets detected by some antivirus programs and these a/v vendors fail to explain even to their own customers why they favor some antivirus programs and try to block others at all costs. Whenever we asked them this direct question there was always silence.