Conrad Sallian's community posts

Hello Marty,

Thanks for the details.

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:

Direct connection
Internet-ID connection

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.

Hi John,

No problem, glad to hear the issue is no longer. We'll perhaps come up with a status page soon so that users can quickly check our service uptime at any moment.

Hi John,

Thank you for your message.

Not a single downtime for very long. Try to ping id.remoteutilities.com in the command line - do you receive any response?

Hello Marty,

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.

Thanks!

westmindltd wrote:

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.

Hello Alex,

Our brand representative cannot post on Spiceworks because we discontinued our vendor membership. The reason why we did so was that we didn't agree with Spiceworks vendor policy in certain respects.  

Otherwise, Spiceworks is great and we have a lot of followers and customers there.

Hello Nunzio,

I responded in the dedicated thread.

Thanks.

Hello Nunzio,

Thank you for your message. This problem is similar to the one described in this thread. Please, try enabling "Turn on mouse keys' in Windows settings and see if it helps fix the problem.

Hello,

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.

Hello Richard,

We cannot say to our customer turn off antivirus so we can support them remotely not because we cant tell them but mostly, customers are not able to turn it off or change.

I perfectly understand. That wouldn't make sense.

I've checked virustotal too, and you have 9 positives, 5 of them are heavily used here in my country and 1 of them is developed here so the penetration of this one is huge. (For example another concurent solution have 0 positives)

This only tells how a/v software re-uses detections of one another. This is not the first time when once one of them thinks certain software as a "threat" , others immediately start detecting it too. Again, the current stable version of Remote Utilities (6.8.0.1) has been around for 9 months and during all that time there was just a couple of riskware detections. Then all of a sudden the same file with the same code as before started to get detected.

So please, check you code or cooperate with AV companies more, so we can use your solution since its kinda unique and cool...

We do our best to cooperate with AV companies. But unfortunately, not all of them do their best to cooperate with software vendors, and many of them don't even have a  decent false positive report form or simply won't respond.

Still, we will yet again contact BitDefender and ask them to take care of this issue.