Remote Desktop Hides Local Mouse. Can I break that feature?
-
Ok, so when remote desktop hides the mouse, my mouse movements turn into some kind of logarithmic algorithm, where i slowly adjust 1/2 of the distance each time. Fortunately in reality I only need to be within an error dictated by the hitbox region of the target. Otherwise, I'd never be able to click.
Those few fortunate times where the busy mouse is showing, I get to see my local mouse. I guess the average person is not intelligent enough to handle the extra sensory input. So Microsoft (or company to blame here, I really don't want to bother determining this), in their infinite wisdom decided that users don't get to opt out of this "feature".
With the local mouse visible, I can simply move naturally to the target and wait for the remote mouse to hide under it. The local mouse is well within error margin, so I don't have to worry if I missed my target due to mouse desychronization, and I've learned that it's better to deal with the few times I clicked the wrong thing, than the infinite amount of microtime I waste wondering if I'm ever going to get to click at all.
So whitepapering the idea aside...
Can anyone help?
-
WAG: Is mouse acceleration turned on on the server? To ludicrous levels, perhaps?
-
I would have to ask how to change that.
But then that just keeps the mouse in pace, I still have half second gaps that I can't see where the mouse went, so the micro-adjusting still becomes an issue.
-
What is the latency in milliseconds to the machine you are remote desktopped to?
Filed Under: Desktopped is a most certainly a real verb
-
I don't know how to test this. Everything I found on google on how to test that just leads to more questions.
If I were to eyeball it, I would say at least 300 ms.
-
Just use ping - the time field in the results is the latency
-
connected through citrix.
Man... I'm useless.
Hold on... googling how to get ip from rdp window.
74ms pinging the remote citrix website.
Oh, and I guess I have to mention that I'm double RDPing. I RDP to system to RDP to system.
The first level RDP isn't a problem, it's the double RDP that has so much latency.
-
Regardless, if your latency is >100ms, you're going to have problems.
Solutions:
- Get in your car, drive to where the server is, and connect from there.
- Stop using FedEx as your ISP.
-
I get that, but can I keep RDP from hiding my mouse?
If I can do that, it's a real solution.Any time the cursor isn't the pointer cursor, you get a realtime mouse. Otherwise, it hides your mouse and gives you the RDP's mouse.
So hovering over a link, no problem.
Bring up notepad, fun times.
-
Huh, I've never experienced RDP hiding my local cursor. I tried Googling it, and found only this thread.
Looks like it's a Citrix feature, not an RDP thing: http://citrixblogger.org/2008/02/07/cursor-shadowing-turn-it-off/
-
So, you always see two cursors when you RDP?
-
I'm with @blakeyrat here - I spend more time on RDP than connected locally, and I don't remember seeing this behaviour.
-
So, you always see two cursors when you RDP?
No; from my experience RDP only shows the local cursor, never the remote. Then again, I never do an RDP from within an RDP (because why would you?)
Try checking for the setting in that citrixblogger.org site, see if that helps. If that's not it, I have no idea.
-
That setting worked.
#Blakey is my hero.
-
-
Then again, I never do an RDP from within an RDP (because why would you?)
I've had to because only one machine gets a firewall exception, and then you have to go through that to get to other machines.
-
Yeah... one box sat in a DMZ seems the only time.
Other than that, I can't see why you'd need to.
-
I've gone through 3 layers of rdp before, because of a very weird network setup. Never had noticeable lag with it eithet
-
I've had to because only one machine gets a firewall exception, and then you have to go through that to get to other machines.
Which is why I prefer ssh tunnels. You can forward ports rather than have layers of displays. I don't think I did multiple levels of RDP since my college days (before I knew better).
-
Which is why I prefer ssh tunnels.
@boomzilla did say "only one machine gets a firewall exception." Maybe the firewall isn't open on the SSH port.
-
Guys, you need to stay on topic.
The topic is solving MY PROBLEMS.
This community is toxic.
-
Maybe the firewall isn't open on the SSH port.
Then the network admin's name is Mordac...
-
Maybe the firewall isn't open on the SSH port.
and now you know why if you're using my work's IP address port 443 on my home router forwards internally to port 22 on my webserver rather than my nginx instance on the same server.
:-P
-
stay on topic ... solving MY PROBLEMS
Oh, sorry. I didn't know we're allowed to do that. Staying on topic, that is; have you seen a doctor about your problem? :P
-
Guys, you need to stay on topic.
The topic is solving MY PROBLEMS.
This community is toxic.
Hang on, your problem is solved now, that means this thread is fair game...
Otters holding hands – 01:41
— Otters holding hands
Filed under: both these otters are dead now, they only live for 10-15 years on average :<sad>(
-
@boomzilla did say "only one machine gets a firewall exception." Maybe the firewall isn't open on the SSH port.
You can usually listen on other ports, so if all you have is 3389 then port your ssh there. :)
-
and now you know why if you're using my work's IP address port 443 on my home router forwards internally to port 22 on my webserver rather than my nginx instance on the same server.
That's actually pretty cool, how did you accomplish that?
(I've looked into similar things before for stupid firewalls, but initial searches were less than promising)
-
Most consumer routers for the past 10 years have a feature called port forwarding. Most variations of said feature allow the user to forward an external port to a different internal port. See your specific router's configuration instructions for details.
-
Most consumer routers for the past 10 years have a feature called port forwarding. Most variations of said feature allow the user to forward an external port to a different internal port. See your specific router's configuration instructions for details.
if you're using my work's IP address port 443 on my home router forwards internally to port 22
Try again
I know about port forwarding, I just don't know how to do it on a per-source-IP basis.
-
Gotcha. I'd assume it's some custom firmware then. I recall using a pretty popular one at some point, but I can't remember the name of it.
Filed Under: Reading is a barrier to high post counts
-
I know about port forwarding, I just don't know how to do it on a per-source-IP basis.
conditional port forwarding using IPTABLES.... i forget the exact command but it's just an additional clause to the port forward.
probably can't do it on most of those embedded routers but i believe they did add that to DD-WRT if you care to flash that.
-
conditional port forwarding using IPTABLES.... i forget the exact command but it's just an additional clause to the port forward.
probably can't do it on most of those embedded routers but i believe they did add that to DD-WRT if you care to flash that.
Already got itFor reference, this is my port forwarding table. It's somewhat unmanageable and that would help a lot.
Thanks for the tip!
-
ah. good.
put an IP address (or address range) in that source host field and the port forward will only apply to that address (or range)
unless my memory of DD-WRT is very much out of date.
-
ah. good.
put an IP address (or address range) in that source host field and the port forward will only apply to that address (or range)
unless my memory of DD-WRT is very much out of date.
Oh. Wow. That would make sense, wouldn't it?
That's 2 Captain Obvious fails I've made today. Plus almost leaving my keys in the car with the ignition on. I think I need some more caffeine.
-
do you mean @Captain Oblivious?
(sorry for the mention bomb..... kinda)
-
NVM, Once again, the Preview Pane has screwed us all once again...