ComputerRepairTech
Well-Known Member
- Reaction score
- 804
- Location
- Columbia, SC
Just wanted to share my opinions on this product and hopefully get some of yours. I'll be making comparisons to teamviewer since many of us are familiar with the product. I won't mention identical or similar features that they both have such as file transfer, sound, etc.
First off I want to commend ScreenConnects progress since the last time I tried it which was like version 1.5/1.6 they have made significant progress in the last 3 years.
Pros:
1. Probably the best non-install reconnect system i've experienced to date. When you get connected to a customer it doesn't matter if you don't issue a reboot command if that system gets restarted it will auto reconnect to you. This is a HUGE benefit to me as I grow tired of software causing an unexpected reboot and me having to call the client and walk them through reconnecting. Once you close the session the software doesnt run again (note: in certain rare situations I have seen a session continue to run on the clients machine even though it doesnt exist on the server. the client can easily right click the system tray icon and exit the session though). Maybe its my older version of teamviewer but I also have issues with teamviewer when I INITIALLY (meaning first connection) connect to a customer while they are in safemode...I can't seem to reboot into normal mode through teamviewer. Screen connect doesnt have this problem.
2. Speed its just as fast as any other solution out there.
3. Centralized recording...because having a video record of every remote session comes in handy. Your employees can't stop it from recording either. (administrators can turn it off)
4. Hyperlinks in the chat.
5. In some situations due to it being a .net/java application it can execute where teamviewer may not be able to. HOWEVER be advised that same goes the other way around since teamviewer doesnt rely on .net or java it is easily executed from winpe environments. CONFIRMED....clickonce will still launch even when windows defender is manipulated by zero access.
6. A session can run even if screenconnect is already installed on the system...take notes teamviewer this is how its done. I absolutely hate when i get customers with teamviewer already installed and I cant run my older QS. I can end process but ive noticed that many times I can't reboot since my QS doesnt count as an installed teamviewer until I uninstall the newer version which is quite a hassle.
7. Like teamviewer has a mobile client, i like screenconnects mobile client a little more though and with the central recording it makes it a superior mobile choice in my opinion.
8. The toolbox feature is handy but not that handy...but its neat to send a wav file over to auto play to get the users attention
.
9. Another thing I forgot to mention was I like the branding and customizations. I know my method seems backwards but this is how I have mine setup. The unattended version requires consent and the session based does not. So my usual customers use the unattended version but feel safe from unexpected connections. If they want to give me access to the machine they have to join a session I setup and leave it open....that way there is absolutely no way they can say I connected without permission.
Cons:
1. "By design we capture mouse movement any time a Host window is passed over." So anytime your cursor passes over the window even if the window doesn't have focus it will move the clients cursor. You may not think this is a big deal but i've only been using the product for a week now and it has caused delays 3 different times one of which was significant. What happens is sometimes the user is going to chat with you and goes to click the chat box at the same time you moving your mouse between windows and bam a button gets pushed. CONFIRMED, ITS FIXED IN 4.0
2. Large recordings are difficult to retrieve from the server. Anything over a gigabyte i can almost never grab it...i really hate that. CONFIRMED, ITS FIXED IN 4.0. There is still a 4gb file limit but by default screen connect now saves videos in 30minute intervals which can be adjusted.
3. Screenconnect does not have an ID system so notes are lost between sessions if its not an unattended install. you can pull it up in the audit log if you have access to it but its difficult to find notes and video for a particular situation without a proper ID system in my opinion.
4. Screenconnects installer does not seem to be able to properly end existing processes. Can cause issues in some situations.
5. Per session license system while superior in 1on1 support situations is inferior to per technician licensing for most of us that do multiple clients at same time. On the other hand teamviewers upgrade and version clashing is a p.i.t.a.
6. Only last line has timestamps in chat. I really like my timestamps to be on all chat input.
7. Teamviewer is more popular and all files digitally signed even customized quicksupport/host/meeting, etc. This will get past browser security and AVs. Got to give props to teamviewer for this...not sure other solutions have this. Screenconnect clickonce sessions will get past browser warnings too though.
8. Well so much for reliable reconnect, unfortunately screenconnects service times out on startup on occasion its very frustrating and needs to be fixed asap. APPEARS MORE RELIABLE IN 4.1
9. Had a long session that didn't even show up in the audit list...not that it matters as I can't retrieve long recordings anyway. FIXED IN 4.0
Other:
1. Self hosted can be a huge con for some of depending on how reliable your power/internet. Teamviewers servers aren't perfect either though on rare occasion they have had issues. In my tests screenconnect typically used between 20-100 kilobytes per second for each connection. Around 500KBps was used when I rebooted 5 systems at the same time.
Thoughts:
1. Screenconnect 4.0 I can now safely recommend as a primary support tool. I have purchased 5 licenses for their product.
In particular if you only support 1 client at a time there is absolutely no contest as to screenconnect being my #1 recommendation.
If you alone support many clients at the same time then Teamviewer business license wins in price I recommend you spend time with both products and decide which one you like....or buy them both teamviewer is a great backup method (in particular cause a backup method you dont care about paying to update every year.
If you have have multiple employees working customers at the same time that would depend on how many sessions each technician is going to be using. Remember teamviewers pricing is basically based on simultanious technicians using it. One teamviewer license can allow 1 technician to support many clients at the sametime but if you add another technician you must have another license or an addon channel (both are pricey and cost about as much as 3 screenconnect licenses). Screenconnect is session based licensing doesnt matter how many technicians you have you are limited to being connected to the # of licenses you have. You are welcome to disconnect and reconnect to another client in a fairly quick fashion to work around the session limit though.
2. Great as a backup support tool (in particular price wise). Can be much easier in certain situations to connect to clients than other methods.
How about you guys, what are your thoughts? What problems have you encountered? etc.
First off I want to commend ScreenConnects progress since the last time I tried it which was like version 1.5/1.6 they have made significant progress in the last 3 years.
Pros:
1. Probably the best non-install reconnect system i've experienced to date. When you get connected to a customer it doesn't matter if you don't issue a reboot command if that system gets restarted it will auto reconnect to you. This is a HUGE benefit to me as I grow tired of software causing an unexpected reboot and me having to call the client and walk them through reconnecting. Once you close the session the software doesnt run again (note: in certain rare situations I have seen a session continue to run on the clients machine even though it doesnt exist on the server. the client can easily right click the system tray icon and exit the session though). Maybe its my older version of teamviewer but I also have issues with teamviewer when I INITIALLY (meaning first connection) connect to a customer while they are in safemode...I can't seem to reboot into normal mode through teamviewer. Screen connect doesnt have this problem.
2. Speed its just as fast as any other solution out there.
3. Centralized recording...because having a video record of every remote session comes in handy. Your employees can't stop it from recording either. (administrators can turn it off)
4. Hyperlinks in the chat.
5. In some situations due to it being a .net/java application it can execute where teamviewer may not be able to. HOWEVER be advised that same goes the other way around since teamviewer doesnt rely on .net or java it is easily executed from winpe environments. CONFIRMED....clickonce will still launch even when windows defender is manipulated by zero access.
6. A session can run even if screenconnect is already installed on the system...take notes teamviewer this is how its done. I absolutely hate when i get customers with teamviewer already installed and I cant run my older QS. I can end process but ive noticed that many times I can't reboot since my QS doesnt count as an installed teamviewer until I uninstall the newer version which is quite a hassle.
7. Like teamviewer has a mobile client, i like screenconnects mobile client a little more though and with the central recording it makes it a superior mobile choice in my opinion.
8. The toolbox feature is handy but not that handy...but its neat to send a wav file over to auto play to get the users attention
.9. Another thing I forgot to mention was I like the branding and customizations. I know my method seems backwards but this is how I have mine setup. The unattended version requires consent and the session based does not. So my usual customers use the unattended version but feel safe from unexpected connections. If they want to give me access to the machine they have to join a session I setup and leave it open....that way there is absolutely no way they can say I connected without permission.
Cons:
1. "By design we capture mouse movement any time a Host window is passed over." So anytime your cursor passes over the window even if the window doesn't have focus it will move the clients cursor. You may not think this is a big deal but i've only been using the product for a week now and it has caused delays 3 different times one of which was significant. What happens is sometimes the user is going to chat with you and goes to click the chat box at the same time you moving your mouse between windows and bam a button gets pushed. CONFIRMED, ITS FIXED IN 4.0
2. Large recordings are difficult to retrieve from the server. Anything over a gigabyte i can almost never grab it...i really hate that. CONFIRMED, ITS FIXED IN 4.0. There is still a 4gb file limit but by default screen connect now saves videos in 30minute intervals which can be adjusted.
3. Screenconnect does not have an ID system so notes are lost between sessions if its not an unattended install. you can pull it up in the audit log if you have access to it but its difficult to find notes and video for a particular situation without a proper ID system in my opinion.
4. Screenconnects installer does not seem to be able to properly end existing processes. Can cause issues in some situations.
5. Per session license system while superior in 1on1 support situations is inferior to per technician licensing for most of us that do multiple clients at same time. On the other hand teamviewers upgrade and version clashing is a p.i.t.a.
6. Only last line has timestamps in chat. I really like my timestamps to be on all chat input.
7. Teamviewer is more popular and all files digitally signed even customized quicksupport/host/meeting, etc. This will get past browser security and AVs. Got to give props to teamviewer for this...not sure other solutions have this. Screenconnect clickonce sessions will get past browser warnings too though.
8. Well so much for reliable reconnect, unfortunately screenconnects service times out on startup on occasion its very frustrating and needs to be fixed asap. APPEARS MORE RELIABLE IN 4.1
9. Had a long session that didn't even show up in the audit list...not that it matters as I can't retrieve long recordings anyway. FIXED IN 4.0
Other:
1. Self hosted can be a huge con for some of depending on how reliable your power/internet. Teamviewers servers aren't perfect either though on rare occasion they have had issues. In my tests screenconnect typically used between 20-100 kilobytes per second for each connection. Around 500KBps was used when I rebooted 5 systems at the same time.
Thoughts:
1. Screenconnect 4.0 I can now safely recommend as a primary support tool. I have purchased 5 licenses for their product.
In particular if you only support 1 client at a time there is absolutely no contest as to screenconnect being my #1 recommendation.
If you alone support many clients at the same time then Teamviewer business license wins in price I recommend you spend time with both products and decide which one you like....or buy them both teamviewer is a great backup method (in particular cause a backup method you dont care about paying to update every year.
If you have have multiple employees working customers at the same time that would depend on how many sessions each technician is going to be using. Remember teamviewers pricing is basically based on simultanious technicians using it. One teamviewer license can allow 1 technician to support many clients at the sametime but if you add another technician you must have another license or an addon channel (both are pricey and cost about as much as 3 screenconnect licenses). Screenconnect is session based licensing doesnt matter how many technicians you have you are limited to being connected to the # of licenses you have. You are welcome to disconnect and reconnect to another client in a fairly quick fashion to work around the session limit though.
2. Great as a backup support tool (in particular price wise). Can be much easier in certain situations to connect to clients than other methods.
How about you guys, what are your thoughts? What problems have you encountered? etc.
Last edited:
