Talk:Remote Desktop Protocol

message: We are having a peer review for remote administration tool Back Orifice. We're hoping that you could join the discussion and give us some ideas, how to improve the article further. --Easyas12c 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Back Orifice'' peer review 

message: Apart from the lack of Remote Desktop, what other differences are there in Home and Professional editions? --Tenryuu 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference? 

message: Could someone please change all occurances of 'to remote' into 'to access remotely'? It hurts.
Guenthert
:Real pedants wouldn't stand the verb 'access', either, but it's easier than thinking. 'Abstracted' might be a suitable word, if it weren't so heavily overloaded in the industry.  Superficially that may have similar status to access, but I'm not so sure. --ToobMug 11:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  style 

message: Like a lot of technical definitions, this one does not really tell a user who knows very little what this protocol really does.  I.e., what is the end user use case, how do RDP and MS Term Services help them do something?  I have not used MTS so I can't answer this myself.  I also don't mean this as a gripe, Wikipedia is an unbelievably positive accomplishment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.248.220 (talk • contribs) 11:44, November 27, 2006
:Well, the first sentence of the definition is actually a tautology :/ 82.229.207.75 14:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. RDP operates over a single TCP port. Originally it was planned that audio would run over a separate UDP port, but this is no longer the case.  The phrase "multi-channel" refers to the fact that besides basic graphics output RDP can also redirect devices (printers, drives), send audio, and share the clipboard.  These additional features, according to the spec, and transferred over a virtual channel.  Devster310 (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  general observation about definitions 

message: The page says RDP 6.0 has the following new feature : "Seamless Windows: Remote applications can run on a client machine that are served by a Remote Desktop" connection.
But older versions also can run remote apps on a client machine. Or does it mean, that the actual program is transferred and executed on the client ? Please clarify.
xerces8
--85.10.2.6 11:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seamless Windows ? 

message: Version 6.0 supports 32-bit color, yet under features it only says 24-bit color.  Also, is a section really needed for the new features in 6.0?
128.2.33.147 07:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I updated the article to reflect 32-bit color support.  I also took out the "features new to 6.0" section; in its place I provided a link to MS's official new features page in the "version history" section. — EagleOne\Talk 02:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article needs to be updated for version 6

message: RemoteApp info:  --soum talk 13:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RemoteApp 

message: Is RDP a variant of RPC? --Ramu50 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As in Remote Procedure Call? If that is what you are meaning then no, not a variant and not really in the same arena. CupOfJava (talk) 06:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RPC 

message: The entire "Other implementations" reads like some advertisement. I suggest we drop it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.246.7 (talk) 11:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adverts 

message: I want to suggest for consideration another open architecture, but closed source RDP client implementation. The product was developed by Elusiva. Please see http://www.elusiva.com/products/RemoteDesktopClient.aspx for more information. Two aspects about this might be notable: client works on various desktop and mobile platforms. Elusiva promised us Linux, Android and webOS in addition to Windows and Apple OS X and iOS available today. Another interesting fact, this client like Microsoft client can be extended by 3rd-party ISVs. Unlike rdesktop supporing only RDP 5.1, Elusiva supports current RDP 7 including Remote App.
I thought that this  could interesting to wikipedia readers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.178.3.106 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Microsoft implementations 

message: This being a Microsoft product, concerns for security (or lack thereof) are something real.  There are a couple mentions in passing, about some exploits having been taken care of in the latest release (Win 7), but that leaves concerns on what the status is among those using Vista and legacy OSs.  User:Yamaplos, away from his collection of passwords, sorry....  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.136.92.126 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we have some information on security concerns? 

message: Remote Desktop Connection 7.0 client update for Remote Desktop Services (RDS) for Windows XP SP3, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows Vista SP2
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/969084
~~PidGin128 (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remote Desktop Connection 7.0 client update 

message: XP mode on Win 7 is also a RDP server, and it was partly broken by KB2592687 (RDP 8.1), which, among other things, changed or dissabled parts of the protocol:
http://support.microsoft.com/KB/2592687#Known%20issues
"RDP 8.0 on remote computers that are running Windows 7 SP1 does not use the UDP protocol."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Win 7 XP mode. 

message: Making this as a request rather than just doing it as I'm a COI editor here: I work for Metaswitch, formerly known as Data Connection, and since acquired by Microsoft. Nonetheless I think this should be an uncontroversial change: please replace "Data Connection Limited" at the end of Remote Desktop Protocol#Version 4.0 with "Data Connection". —me_and 11:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  COI edit request: wikify 

message: How is RDP proprietary? It seem to be openly documented: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-rdpbcgr And so are at least some extensions: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/openspecs/windows_protocols/ms-rdpegfx Not being developed by a commission or standardized by a regulatory body doesn't prevent a protocol from being open. eugrus (talk) 02:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "proprietary protocol"? 

message: YouTube Watch time need 2402:AD80:68:DC8:1:0:9022:F47E (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube