GoToMyPC

[Vanguard]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:1170120813_1575@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:22:18 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>
>> "Bogey On" <myfakeemail@foneyemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:wawvh.2926$ch1.1611@bigfe9...
>>> How safe is this program? I need to control my father-in-law's
>>> computer in order to help him with maintenance etc.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Why pay for remote service when VNC (RealVNC or TightVNC) are free?
>> If
>> you both have Windows XP then use its included Remote Desktop.
>
> Many people can't use VNC because of the NAT service provided by their
> routers or ISP routers. While we block GTMP on all of our firewalls,
> it
> does have benefit for things like the op's need.


Even the cheapie NAT routers have port forwarding so you can specify the
port which would forward to a specific internal host, like using
http://<yourIPaddrOrNumber>:<port>. So you have the router use port
forwarding on a specific port to get to a specific host in your
intranetwork. Since your host must be reachable to receive traffic that
you request from web sites, I haven't seen an *ISP* "router" interfere
with getting to my hosts or my router. But then I haven't used a
restrictive ISP that has blocked any protocols to me.

P.S.
Regardless of your opinions about pcbutts1, please keep your signature
down to 4 lines maximum as that is considered the polite max size.
Beware that proselytizing a crusade usually puts you into a category of
ignored folk.

[Leythos]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:45:16 -0600, Vanguard wrote:

> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:1170120813_1575@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:22:18 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>>
>>> "Bogey On" <myfakeemail@foneyemail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:wawvh.2926$ch1.1611@bigfe9...
>>>> How safe is this program? I need to control my father-in-law's
>>>> computer in order to help him with maintenance etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why pay for remote service when VNC (RealVNC or TightVNC) are free?
>>> If
>>> you both have Windows XP then use its included Remote Desktop.
>>
>> Many people can't use VNC because of the NAT service provided by their
>> routers or ISP routers. While we block GTMP on all of our firewalls,
>> it
>> does have benefit for things like the op's need.
>
>
> Even the cheapie NAT routers have port forwarding so you can specify the
> port which would forward to a specific internal host, like using
> http://<yourIPaddrOrNumber>:<port>. So you have the router use port
> forwarding on a specific port to get to a specific host in your
> intranetwork.

What makes you think that the remote person know enough to do port
forwarding or that the local person knows enough to walk them through the
changes?

> Since your host must be reachable to receive traffic that
> you request from web sites, I haven't seen an *ISP* "router" interfere
> with getting to my hosts or my router. But then I haven't used a
> restrictive ISP that has blocked any protocols to me.

But, unless you run a program that can call someone else and then ride in
on that connection it doesn't matter and that means that we're back to
port forwarding. As I said, some ISP devices don't forward inbound
anything, they are just like the NAT routers provided by Linksys and such
- the block all unsolicited inbound traffic.

GTMP would not be a problem.

> P.S.
> Regardless of your opinions about pcbutts1, please keep your signature
> down to 4 lines maximum as that is considered the polite max size.
> Beware that proselytizing a crusade usually puts you into a category of
> ignored folk.

You are free to ignore me at any time, and the sig is a "recommendation"
not a rule of Usenet.

--
Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
*** WARNING - these links contain foul/pornographic content of an
abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
website ***
http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/license.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/max.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/mpv.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/wtcpcb.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/cracks.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/Louthe*******.htm
All while spamming his company website at: http://www.seedsv.com

[Vanguard]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:1170176013_6089@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:45:16 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>
>> "Leythos" wrote ...
>>>
>>>> "Bogey On" wrote ...
>>>>> How safe is this program? I need to control my father-in-law's
>>>>> computer in order to help him with maintenance etc.
>>>>
>>>> Why pay for remote service when VNC (RealVNC or TightVNC) are free?
>>>> If
>>>> you both have Windows XP then use its included Remote Desktop.
>>>
>>> Many people can't use VNC because of the NAT service provided by
>>> their
>>> routers or ISP routers. While we block GTMP on all of our firewalls,
>>> it
>>> does have benefit for things like the op's need.
>>
>>
>> Even the cheapie NAT routers have port forwarding so you can specify
>> the
>> port which would forward to a specific internal host, like using
>> http://<yourIPaddrOrNumber>:<port>. So you have the router use port
>> forwarding on a specific port to get to a specific host in your
>> intranetwork.
>
> What makes you think that the remote person know enough to do port
> forwarding or that the local person knows enough to walk them through
> the
> changes?

Then installing AND configuring GoToMyPC would also be beyond the means
of the OP's father-in-law. The OP will end up visiting father-in-law no
matter what solution is used to setup father-in-law's computer for
remote access if father-in-law is so retarded so he cannot follow
instructions as an automatron at the other end of a phone call. If
father-in-law is so stupid as to not figure out how to configure a
router even under the instruction of his son-in-law then father-in-law
probably doesn't even have a router and instead connects his computer
directly to the cable/DSL model or might even still be using dial-up for
all we know. The OP hasn't explained anything regarding father-in-law's
hardware setup.

[Leythos]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:43:57 -0600, Vanguard wrote:

> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:1170176013_6089@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:45:16 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>>
>>> "Leythos" wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>> "Bogey On" wrote ...
>>>>>> How safe is this program? I need to control my father-in-law's
>>>>>> computer in order to help him with maintenance etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why pay for remote service when VNC (RealVNC or TightVNC) are free?
>>>>> If
>>>>> you both have Windows XP then use its included Remote Desktop.
>>>>
>>>> Many people can't use VNC because of the NAT service provided by
>>>> their
>>>> routers or ISP routers. While we block GTMP on all of our firewalls,
>>>> it
>>>> does have benefit for things like the op's need.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even the cheapie NAT routers have port forwarding so you can specify
>>> the
>>> port which would forward to a specific internal host, like using
>>> http://<yourIPaddrOrNumber>:<port>. So you have the router use port
>>> forwarding on a specific port to get to a specific host in your
>>> intranetwork.
>>
>> What makes you think that the remote person know enough to do port
>> forwarding or that the local person knows enough to walk them through
>> the
>> changes?
>
> Then installing AND configuring GoToMyPC would also be beyond the means
> of the OP's father-in-law. The OP will end up visiting father-in-law no
> matter what solution is used to setup father-in-law's computer for
> remote access if father-in-law is so retarded so he cannot follow
> instructions as an automatron at the other end of a phone call. If
> father-in-law is so stupid as to not figure out how to configure a
> router even under the instruction of his son-in-law then father-in-law
> probably doesn't even have a router and instead connects his computer
> directly to the cable/DSL model or might even still be using dial-up for
> all we know. The OP hasn't explained anything regarding father-in-law's
> hardware setup.

No, you've got it wrong - GTMP is designed for non-technical types, it's
designed to be installed by just the OP's type of people. No changes to a
router, not port forwarding, etc... It's so simple a doctor could do it.

--
Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
*** WARNING - these links contain foul/pornographic content of an
abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
website ***
http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/license.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/max.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/mpv.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/wtcpcb.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/cracks.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/Louthe*******.htm
All while spamming his company website at: http://www.seedsv.com

[Vanguard]

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:1170204630_8011@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:43:57 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>
>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>> news:1170176013_6089@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:45:16 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Leythos" wrote ...
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bogey On" wrote ...
>>>>>>> How safe is this program? I need to control my father-in-law's
>>>>>>> computer in order to help him with maintenance etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why pay for remote service when VNC (RealVNC or TightVNC) are
>>>>>> free?
>>>>>> If
>>>>>> you both have Windows XP then use its included Remote Desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Many people can't use VNC because of the NAT service provided by
>>>>> their
>>>>> routers or ISP routers. While we block GTMP on all of our
>>>>> firewalls,
>>>>> it
>>>>> does have benefit for things like the op's need.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even the cheapie NAT routers have port forwarding so you can
>>>> specify
>>>> the
>>>> port which would forward to a specific internal host, like using
>>>> http://<yourIPaddrOrNumber>:<port>. So you have the router use
>>>> port
>>>> forwarding on a specific port to get to a specific host in your
>>>> intranetwork.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that the remote person know enough to do port
>>> forwarding or that the local person knows enough to walk them
>>> through
>>> the
>>> changes?
>>
>> Then installing AND configuring GoToMyPC would also be beyond the
>> means
>> of the OP's father-in-law. The OP will end up visiting father-in-law
>> no
>> matter what solution is used to setup father-in-law's computer for
>> remote access if father-in-law is so retarded so he cannot follow
>> instructions as an automatron at the other end of a phone call. If
>> father-in-law is so stupid as to not figure out how to configure a
>> router even under the instruction of his son-in-law then
>> father-in-law
>> probably doesn't even have a router and instead connects his computer
>> directly to the cable/DSL model or might even still be using dial-up
>> for
>> all we know. The OP hasn't explained anything regarding
>> father-in-law's
>> hardware setup.
>
> No, you've got it wrong - GTMP is designed for non-technical types,
> it's
> designed to be installed by just the OP's type of people. No changes
> to a
> router, not port forwarding, etc... It's so simple a doctor could do
> it.


So father-in-law gets stuck paying $20/month just because son-in-law is
too lazy to call father-in-law on the phone and have father-in-law act
the automatron to follow son-in-law's instructions? And for
once-in-a-blue-moon assistance from son-in-law? GTMP is hardly a
financially sound solution for the OP's original stipulation of
providing occasional help to father-in-law. GTMP is more for users that
want repeat and often remote access to their hosts. Doesn't sound like
what the OP is asking about, and father-in-law ends up footing the bill.

[Leythos]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:03:36 -0600, Vanguard wrote:

> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
> news:1170204630_8011@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:43:57 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>>
>>> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
>>> news:1170176013_6089@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>>>> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:45:16 -0600, Vanguard wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Leythos" wrote ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Bogey On" wrote ...
>>>>>>>> How safe is this program? I need to control my father-in-law's
>>>>>>>> computer in order to help him with maintenance etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why pay for remote service when VNC (RealVNC or TightVNC) are
>>>>>>> free?
>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>> you both have Windows XP then use its included Remote Desktop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many people can't use VNC because of the NAT service provided by
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> routers or ISP routers. While we block GTMP on all of our
>>>>>> firewalls,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> does have benefit for things like the op's need.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even the cheapie NAT routers have port forwarding so you can specify
>>>>> the
>>>>> port which would forward to a specific internal host, like using
>>>>> http://<yourIPaddrOrNumber>:<port>. So you have the router use port
>>>>> forwarding on a specific port to get to a specific host in your
>>>>> intranetwork.
>>>>
>>>> What makes you think that the remote person know enough to do port
>>>> forwarding or that the local person knows enough to walk them through
>>>> the
>>>> changes?
>>>
>>> Then installing AND configuring GoToMyPC would also be beyond the
>>> means
>>> of the OP's father-in-law. The OP will end up visiting father-in-law
>>> no
>>> matter what solution is used to setup father-in-law's computer for
>>> remote access if father-in-law is so retarded so he cannot follow
>>> instructions as an automatron at the other end of a phone call. If
>>> father-in-law is so stupid as to not figure out how to configure a
>>> router even under the instruction of his son-in-law then father-in-law
>>> probably doesn't even have a router and instead connects his computer
>>> directly to the cable/DSL model or might even still be using dial-up
>>> for
>>> all we know. The OP hasn't explained anything regarding
>>> father-in-law's
>>> hardware setup.
>>
>> No, you've got it wrong - GTMP is designed for non-technical types,
>> it's
>> designed to be installed by just the OP's type of people. No changes to
>> a
>> router, not port forwarding, etc... It's so simple a doctor could do
>> it.
>
>
> So father-in-law gets stuck paying $20/month just because son-in-law is
> too lazy to call father-in-law on the phone and have father-in-law act
> the automatron to follow son-in-law's instructions? And for
> once-in-a-blue-moon assistance from son-in-law? GTMP is hardly a
> financially sound solution for the OP's original stipulation of
> providing occasional help to father-in-law. GTMP is more for users that
> want repeat and often remote access to their hosts. Doesn't sound like
> what the OP is asking about, and father-in-law ends up footing the bill.

You are aware that you can try GTMP for free for 30 days or so....

--
Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
*** WARNING - these links contain foul/pornographic content of an
abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
website ***
http://www.pcbutts1.com/rlk/rlk.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/license.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/max.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/mpv.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/wtcpcb.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/cracks.htm ,
http://www.pcbutts1.com/Louthe*******.htm
All while spamming his company website at: http://www.seedsv.com

[Vanguard]

"Leythos" wrote in message news:1170205581_8027@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> Vanguard wrote:
>
>> So father-in-law gets stuck paying $20/month just because son-in-law
>> is
>> too lazy to call father-in-law on the phone and have father-in-law
>> act
>> the automatron to follow son-in-law's instructions? And for
>> once-in-a-blue-moon assistance from son-in-law? GTMP is hardly a
>> financially sound solution for the OP's original stipulation of
>> providing occasional help to father-in-law. GTMP is more for users
>> that
>> want repeat and often remote access to their hosts. Doesn't sound
>> like
>> what the OP is asking about, and father-in-law ends up footing the
>> bill.
>
> You are aware that you can try GTMP for free for 30 days or so....


One month of "maintenance" by son-in-law won't be of much help to
father-in-law.