Remote access to friend's computer....

My friend is close to illiterate when using his laptop and is totally dependent on me to either show him what to do or do it for him -- even basic things like opening up Windows Explorer to find files.

For the moment, he will be in another part of the country for a month or so. Trying to direct him via the telephone is hair-tearing out experience... Even skilled tech support people give up on him and ultimately tell him his computer, printer whatever is broken and he has to buy a new one.

After 2 printers, 3 routers, etc, totally unnecessary purchases, I want to be able to access his laptop remotely -- if not only to see what he is doing and guide him more directly -- or if all else fails, to do it myself.

I know there are ways I can do this -- I've done this for other friends in the past but that was a long time ago.

Can anyone point me to something that will let me set this up?

My friend leaves in a few days - and I do not relish the frustration I and he are going to go through for the next month if we don't set this up.

Also, his laptop does not have a web cam -- can anyone recommend one I can set up for him to use? Computers are not the only electronics he gets confused about and it would help if he could show me what he is stuck on.

TIA!!!

 

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/remoteassist/intro.mspx

 

Before he goes, set up teamviewer full on his computer

http://www.teamviewer.com/index.aspx

Given your friend's level of computer skill, you want to set it up so it starts with Windows and allows you to take control remotely without asking him for the ID and password. You will be assigned a idby the computer and you will assign the password during setup.

Normally, I don't like this solution because it gives the remote person too much control, but in his case I think it is suitable.

This is a better solution than installing a program that requires him to start it and give you permission to access the computer by giving you passkeys and clicking on buttons to grant you permission.

Also, if he has Vista or Windows 7, turn UAC off before he goes. I've seen UAC alerts kick you off of remote connections.

 

gerryf19,

Does teamviewer handle machines behind a router which is using it's own DHCP to hand out addresses? This would mean her friends machine would have an "unreachable" IP address.

Also I have never had UAC actually kick me off a remote connection, however I have seen it make it appear to me that the connection was locked up. Once I had the user at the other end click OK to the UAC prompt things resumed. Seeing as how inexperienced her friend is, might it not be better to keep UAC on? I'm sorta torn on that issue, given the circumstances.

Gary

 

leave uac on for the user, and use teamviewer, which always works when ever you can connect to the teamviewer server ( www.teamviewer.com obviously). to scuderia: teamviewer just connects to the same server, trough http port 80. so if you get to their page, you already have the path open.

you don't need to install it on his machine, just tell him to go to that page, click on quick support, and give trough the numbers he sees.

that way, he feels in control of his system, even while you help.

and yeah, let him be close (on the phone with speakers on, f.e.) so you can tell him to press yes on an uac dialog.

this actually shows one of the benefits of uac: nothing except the actual user in front of the system can do anything that might harm the system. uac doing it's job

 

My experience is that UAC usually simply throws the pop up, but does not kick you off, but every once in a while, it does throw you off.

I am always reluctant to tell people to turn UAC off, but given this person't comfort level with computers, I thought it best--and it might be that Justitia may need to do some assistant with the owner not around. The person she said will be in another country so the time difference may require a late night log in for convenience sake.

I went with the full install rather than the quick support because of the apparant tight relationship between the two so the trust level is high. Normally, I would go with Quick Support, but that requires the owner to a) be present to load it (you can download quick support without visiting the website) and b) provide and ever-changing password.

Is that a big deal? Not for most people, but this is appears to be an extreme case. I've helped out a few people remotely where even that is a chore. ("OK, you see the little blue icon with the two arrows? Double click it." "Uhm, Word came up." "Not the blue W icon, the blue icon with two arrows pointing horizontally." "Uhm, Internet Explorer just came up." "Arghhh!")

 

Hmm, I can control UAC through TeamViewer as far as I am aware...

Anyway, its my recommendation too - its also more reliable than the RemoteDesktop which fails due to all sorts of things...

(For my grandfather for example... RemoteDesktop will just not work, from Uni I could not use it to connect to a home computer that was set up as a server...)

I know KIS is immune to Temaviewer but else - highly recommended

 

I will have to check that--I've had users disable UAC due to problems in the past with VISTA, but perhaps they've worked around it now.

I had a problem last month with UAC, Vista and Crossloop, but perhaps it is no longer a problem there as well.

Haven't had a UAC problem with Windows 7.

 

For simplicity and ease of use. I would suggest TeamViewer as well. I used it the other day and it works seamlessly. +10 to gerry for this suggestion.

I wouldn't set it up to go that far as to give you, the remote user total control though; I think some sort of privacy should be maintained. It shouldn't be that hard for your friend to start the program and let you know the ID/Password.

 

Speaking of the ID - the TeamViewer ID never changes until the OS is reinstalled so if you use, say Quicksupport, you only have to get a new password every time he/she executes the .exe
The ID is something you can save locally

 

My question still stands. If the user were to install teamviewer such that Justitia could connect WITHOUT the user being there, would she be able to do that if the user was behind a router that was acting as a DHCP server? The resulting non routable and changing IP address has always been the big hassle with remote desktop. But it is easily fixed with a dynamic DNS service like TZO or one of the freebie alternatives.

Gary

 

Pretty sure that yes.

TeamViewer connects to a TemaViewer Server - that server assigns the computer a unique ID.
And the computer communicates with the server using this ID.

If I come along, I enter the ID - that goes to the server and forwards me to the computer.

In fact, I have used teamviewer on a computer behind a dynamic IP behind a router...

 

Heh, yeah. If Teamviewer is installed, it allows the option of running as a service thus allowing you to connect to the computer without someone at the console.

LogMeIn has the same component. Come to think of it, every remote connection solution I can think of has the same component. What the heck kind of remote connection is it anyways if someone has to be physically there for you to connect anyways??

Isn't technology great?

 

Just to confirm--yes. I had to help my wife out at work once and walking her through it was a pure pain so I had her load teamviewer. This was at the end of the day, so I had her install the full mode with unattended access just in case I got disconnected.

As it was, I thought of something else and was able to log in later that night. The desktop in question is behind a commercial grade firewall and I had no problem connecting.

It was waiting there in the morning for her to uninstall.

 

one that users can trust in. in our company, any other solution is disallowed. anyone could else spy important data, which is no fun.

but yeah, the software should allow for both options.

i like the quicksupport, as it just works on all machines.




to scuderia: as i said, it goes over port 80 to teamviewer. and the other client, the one you want to access, does the same, active, all the time. it connects trough port 80 to teamviewer. be it trough proxy, or what ever. and on the teamviewer-server, you then meet (means it redirects all data).

ip changes, dns changes, dhcp changes, all don't matter. when ever the client you want to control changes the network, it will reconnect and thus open the path to itself.

 

You got it! lol!

BTW we are still in XP world... I assume Teamviewer will still work?

Seems the consensus is Teamviewer, I will try that first.

Thanks everyone!

 

Works fine with XP

 

jup, teamviewer works fine on xp. so far, it has no mac, or linux support, and no phone support (remote connecting to a phone for support is a big wish for corporations.. so far we always have to physically get a phone to config f.e. the mailserver and such.. sucks terribly)

but i think it works for about all windows. maybe only nt based ones, haven't tried.

 

Of course that is not what I meant, considering the remote support options also allow you to only allow remote connections IF there is someone there.

You don't even have to install Teamviewer. There is a portable version available. It obviously requires a user logged in on the computer to be used unlike the installed version, which allows Teamviewer to run as a service.

 

yeah i thought so. i was just unsure.

i just like that teamviewer gives options for headless systems, as a service. like for my home server. and quick support solutions without needing an installation, like for a friend who calles on some random machine where there is a problem.

it allows best of all worlds. only requirement: an internet connection.

 

How does Teamviewer rate vis-a-vis Remotedesktop in the headless server situation?

 

well, as it grants always-over-the-web access independent if the server is directly accessible trough the web (open ports etc).

and well, as it allows to connect to the real physical desktop there. (not a big +, but sometimes, when installing stuff, or similar, it helps to not be a "remote desktop", but a full one.. f.e. getting into energy options or such)

i like that for my home servers, they all have it.

 

I like Remote desktop for its recent inclusion of dual monitor support.

 

jup, cool new feature. afaik, teamviewer allowed this by default, as it accesses the local hw desktop anyways.

 

The drawback to teamviewer for a headless server is you are still using a third party intermediary--so you rely on something else.

I have run into a few times over the past year where teamviewer was inaccessible due to either the teamviewer server being down, or some internet routing issue.

In a case where you have a known situation and can set it up before hand, RDC is great.

Teamviewer is for helping people out in a pinch.

 

teamviewer can as well be set up to work in a network internally (and should be portmapped accessible from outside, then, too). which gives all the flexibilities of remotedesktop.

but sure, for servers and fixed configurations, remotedesktop suites the needs.

then again, using teamviewer as a one fits all solution in a company (espencially with people you have to support spread around on tons of places, including at home etc), it fits well.

and, for corporate use, the price is terribly cheap. 1000$ fixed price for as many uses as you want..

what i'd like, to make it perfect, is to be able to have an own teamviewer server set up. so if your corporation f.e. is called conesoft, and you have conesoft.net as server, you should be able to host quicksupport on it on your webpage, but have quicksupport and all those actually connect to conesoft.net, not to teamviewer.com..

and possibly, even, to both (if your own server is down for some maintenance, it goes over teamviewer. if teamviewer is down, you still have your own).

nothing's perfect but they're quite close to it.

 

There is one problem with RemoteDesktop... it doesn't manage to get out of some networks... for example I couldn't use RemoteDesktop from University to connect to my old laptop that was then Running WebServer 2008....
TeamViewer does manage to "get out" - and my old laptop is running Win7 professional for the same task right now.

Now a university network is slightly more "special" but who knows, you might be in a hotel that blocks the remote desktop port... and then you are in trouble...

 

remotedesktop is just for direct connection possible.

teamviewer is for how-ever-at-least-both-have-internet connection (and, optionally, direct connection, too).

 

Direct Connection = Same Network? No - I managed to use Remote Desktop from the railway station to my home computer running as a Web Server

However that requires port forwarding on the "Server network"... and open ports on "your network".

 

direct connection == the pc you want to connect to is directly accessible. that can mean same network, or ports opened and routed to the internet, or what ever.

but you will directly access that system somehow. with teamviewer, both only access teamviewer.com.

 

OK so that's what you meant - no proxy

 

what i ment is that you have to set up the network manually to get somehow to that machine. meaning configuring proxies, routers, etc. depending on the network it is in.

with teamviewer, no such config is needed. as, by default, every network gets set up to allow internet access somehow trough the whole net of chaotic configs.

 

OK - Why didn't you say this is the first place?

Remotedesktop = configure yourself
TeamViewer = Preconfigured Ready to use

 

i said so. well, i said, teamviewer just needs internet connection somehow on both sides. i haven't even talked myself about remotedesktop, knowing it's a huge hazzle for a lot of support szenarios.

yeah, mom, you have a problem printing your wordfile? well, can you please just enable remotedesktop, and quickly go to the router, mapping that port to your ip adress? oh, and give me your external ip adress if you please? thanks, wait for connection.. oh yes, yes mom, you can't see anything anymore, as now i'm on the remote desktop, which locks you out. that's normal. let me see. yeah, now it prints, right? no, can't tell you how, as i can't show you. now just log in back and be happy i helped you. hear ya next time.


unlikely

 

Remote desktop wasn't exactly intended for secure computer to computer connections over the Internet. Notice the lack of encryption options?

It's more useful with TS gateway.

 

indeed. can't wait for playing with this myself

 

It always surprises me which threads run for pages and pages, and which ones die out after 10 or 11 posts....

 

I was confused by your "direct connection" statement until you provided this context. Yep that is right teamviewer is much simpler to use because of the "intermediary".

I have an office network on a dynamic IP address, but use TZO to provide DNS access to it. The edge of that network is a VPN server which allows me to use Remote Desktop to any machine on the network with WINS naming resolution. The nice think about VPN is that just about ALL hotel networks support VPN. That allows me to tunnel all other protocols, like those for RD and SQL over an encrypted channel.

Gary

P.S. does teamviewer use port 80 for everything? Does it support clipboard, printer and disk drive sharing?

 

clipboard, yes. printer and disk drive sharing, afaik, no..

but you can set it up to have a hamashi network, too (hamashi? actually, now it's just called VPN ), so you can get file sharing at least.

one thing that's cool with teamviewer is, you can switch views.. if i'm connected to you to help you, i can switch views and say "look, that's how i do it on my machine" and show some stuff.

yeah, the direct connection statement is a bit hard to formulate until you tried to use both once

 

VPN over the same connection as TeamViewer, i.e. via the TeamViewer server that client and host are both connecting to? Or VPN as a separate connection and thereby requiring a routeable/reachable IP address on the "host" machine. If the former, cool. If the latter, we're right back to the same issues that RemoteDesktop has.

Without the disk sharing there is a real hassle in moving files between the two machines.

I use both types of solutions weekly. We have a GoToMeeting account for group meetings, but it also facilitates the remote hands on help that TeamViewer provides. With all the same, switch screens, watch me do this sort of stuff. But it has no file transfer capability and that makes it a pain in the a$$ for many help calls that I do. (I have a FTP server to facilitate that, but it means any file transfer takes twice as long as necessary. X minutes to upload from one machine and x minutes to download to the other. But for any situation where I need to SHOW someone how to do something, I use it.

For access to my servers and desktop machine in my office, I use VPN and RemoteDesktop, because of the built in printer and disk sharing (and SOUND too which in some cases is a added benefit).

Gary

 

CrossLoop is what I use.

 

i haven't actually tried it. but i hope it's vpn-over-teamviewerserver. else i would not have any use for it yes. i can set up the same without it.

yeah, gotomypc should be about equal to teamviewer. there are other options, too. i just got used to that.

at work, we have netop. it's the worst of teamviewer and remotedesktop.. direct connection needed, slow transfer speeds, instable, terrible.

 

I did not realize that the teamviewer option was routed through third-party servers. So, basically, teamviewer is setting up what amounts to a VPN-type tunnel between your local client and your remote host (although I suppose a better description would be that both your local and your remote systems are clients, and the teamviewer servers are the hosts that are acting as intermediaries between your two clients).

 

Well, you get that result because remotedesktop is not designed to be a support tool, for that there's another built-in function called remote assistance, which will allow a remote user to glom into your current user session and manipulate the mouse and see the same thing that the local user is currently seeing without logging the current local user off. Remotedesktop intentionally logs off any current local users.

 

yeah, you could call it that. and the chance that both clients can connect to some webserver is bigger than that they can connect to each other. every client can get "outside", but going "inside" is the hard part.

i know, it was mainly ment as a joke. i never really got remote assistance to work in a generic all-over-the-web case, dunno really.

but with remote desktop, that would be the "solution" which is why i never bothered to consider it a solution. remote assistance, yeah, maybe. but as i said, never really worked for me

 

Fair enough; I wasn't trying to be too mean, so I'm sorry if I came across a little rougher than I meant to.

 

nah, no problem. i can take rough (have to, i'm no better..)

i remember being all "woah cool lets try that out" back in 2001 with xp. till today, i never got it to work

 

TeamViewer all the way!